Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

Status
Not open for further replies.

xJownage

Even pendulums swing both ways
And since more poor people commit crime, and more black people are poor, more cops target black people. More black people go to jail than they statically should (esp when you factor in the private prison lobby that has made America one of the highest prison population nations on the planet), which makes them and their future generations more poor.

A socioeconomic cycle that perpetuates blacks as a lower class of citizen. Why do you have 0 interest in breaking a cycle like this?
breaking this cycle has nothing to do with the way SJWs act, for one, but more importantly, your claim is so completely biased I'm having a hard time believing anything you're saying. Your assumption that cops target more black people is unfounded, and you saying more go to jail than statistically should means what? They're getting put in there for nothing? Do you want us to just stop targeting the crime-infested ghettos and instead go to rich white neighborhoods and patrol there, letting a bunch of ghetto dwellers off the hook?
 

Legitimate Username

mad tales of a bloodthirsty corviknight
is a Top Artist Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Again, stop championing SJWs. These people are pathetic cowards who aren't interested in trying to convince people and just drown out anybody who disagrees with them by calling them racist and misogynist. If you're supporting black lives matter and all these other things, I can understand, but SJWs have disguised intolerance with tolerance for way too long and many have had more than enough. SJWs are really just an avenue for many teenagers who feel little self-worth to blame the world for being unfair to them by putting titles on everybody that disagrees with them. They're ignorant human beings. And I'm sorry but when the primary argument for SJWs is "microaggressions" I can't help but laugh at them. Do they ever think of REAL racial and sexual problems that exist in our society? Instead of doing such they target the majority, who's NOT racist or sexist at large, and then smother them out like a gang and drown out their defenses. Again, microaggressions. It's almost condescending with how petulant that is!
Holy fuck, dude.

"these SJWs never think of the real racial and sexual problems that exist in our society, I'll show them by adamantly denying that these problems exist and call them pathetic cowards as revenge for them yelling at me on the internet and hurting my feelings"

Just because you're getting called out for being an ass doesn't mean that whoever's calling you out is "disguising intolerance with tolerance".

It's also kind of shitty to dismiss so much of the racism and sexism in the world as complete non-issues just because there are some loud people on the internet who aren't being sensitive to your feelings when they talk about why these things are actual serious problems.

There's more that I want to say in response to your point about "targeting the majority who's NOT racist or sexist at large" but Solace already said everything I'd want to say about this several pages back so I'll just quote it here for you.
see, here's the thing. calling someone racist is not an insult. we generally all have instances of biases and make stereotypes of people based on race. those are racist acts. we're taught them from birth, and they are reinforced through ignorance of people outside of those stereotypes. our job as people should be to unlearn systemic racism, which permeates into every facet of life. racism isn't just making "whites only" water fountains. it determines what features you find attractive, your actions when walking down the street, the way you subconsciously judge others, who you choose to sit with on the train.

conservatives are racist. liberals are racist. racism isn't an insult, and there can't be any discussion about unlearning racism until people stop getting offended that their racist actions get called out as such.

i'll give an example: i have chosen to sit next to a random white man on a train rather than a random black man because for whatever reason i felt sitting next to the white man was safer. i didn't know either man, so there is no logical reason for that aside from racism. i was taught that a white person is safer than a black person, either explicitly, through media, or through the actions of others around me. i don't know where i picked that up, but i have learned that that behavior is pretty racist. instead of just being like "i'm not a racist!" and having a knee-jerk reaction, i reflected critically on my actions and realize that there's no logic behind that except the harmful stereotype that black people are more dangerous than white people.

the problem is no one can engage in discourse until the reaction to being called racist is having an open mind and saying "well, what did i do to make you think that?" with the intention of actually learning why your behavior is racist, as opposed to "i'm not racist because i have friends who are black!" because calling someone's behavior racist isn't an insult that needs to be defended.

that's why many liberals feel that reaching out to people is a lost cause. you overestimate people's willingness to engage in discussion about their own systemic racist behavior.
 
Last edited:

Shrug

is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Championis a Past SCL Champion
LCPL Champion
hey xJownage man, some ppl i like and respect told me to be a little more calm on this forum, so im going to try that now in response to some of your points. im aware that you are challenging the credibility of the battery of statistics that show racial bias in policing, so i wont cite those. being respectful of your views on SJWs, i wont provide anything close to an opinion either. but i do have to ask your opinion on something. the article linked by macle in post 2578 of this thread featured a quote from The Daily Stormer, a website. I am hesitant to apply labels to anything without exhaustive research and consideration from both sides. but some of the headings on The Daily Stormer alarm me. They have a heading titled "race war" and another titled "jewish problem". a desire for a race war and a distaste for jewish people are hallmarks of white supremacist groups. Thus i feel ok in determining objectively that the website The Daily Stormer has at least a casual affiliation with white supremacist groups. in the aforementioned The Daily Stormer quote, there were two lines that alarmed me. the first was "we are bringing law and order to this country" and the second was "and in trumpland, criminals will be punished with swift brutality. and cops are immune from prosecution". given the web site's objective - to promote white supremacy - there seems to be at least some link between white supremacist goals and police action, particularly wrt violence ("cops will be immune from prosecution") and incarceration ("punished with swift brutality"). do you, a person, feel comfortable with your views aligning directly with those of open white supremacists?
 

xJownage

Even pendulums swing both ways
hey xJownage man, some ppl i like and respect told me to be a little more calm on this forum, so im going to try that now in response to some of your points. im aware that you are challenging the credibility of the battery of statistics that show racial bias in policing, so i wont cite those. being respectful of your views on SJWs, i wont provide anything close to an opinion either. but i do have to ask your opinion on something. the article linked by macle in post 2578 of this thread featured a quote from The Daily Stormer, a website. I am hesitant to apply labels to anything without exhaustive research and consideration from both sides. but some of the headings on The Daily Stormer alarm me. They have a heading titled "race war" and another titled "jewish problem". a desire for a race war and a distaste for jewish people are hallmarks of white supremacist groups. Thus i feel ok in determining objectively that the website The Daily Stormer has at least a casual affiliation with white supremacist groups. in the aforementioned The Daily Stormer quote, there were two lines that alarmed me. the first was "we are bringing law and order to this country" and the second was "and in trumpland, criminals will be punished with swift brutality. and cops are immune from prosecution". given the web site's objective - to promote white supremacy - there seems to be at least some link between white supremacist goals and police action, particularly wrt violence ("cops will be immune from prosecution") and incarceration ("punished with swift brutality"). do you, a person, feel comfortable with your views aligning directly with those of open white supremacists?
Many communists would agree with a lot of the things the left says, that doesn't mean that they are comparable. Just because the beginnings of my views align with white supremacy doesn't mean my views align with white supremacy. They simply don't. This assumption is half of my problem with society right now. Some of my opinion aligns with white supremacists, therefore I'm a white supremacist. Do you not see the problem with this line of thinking? I'm sure communists wanted Bernie sanders to be elected. Just because some of their views align with those of communists doesn't mean Bernie Sanders, or any of his supporters, are communists.

Also thanks for your ironic likes.


You guys all made claims. If you have objective evidence (most "evidence" is nowhere near objective) then just post it and I can agree with you. Otherwise kindly stop acting like I'm stupid for going against your previously unsupported arguments.
Holy fuck, dude.

"these SJWs never think of the real racial and sexual problems that exist in our society, I'll show them by adamantly denying that these problems exist and call them pathetic cowards as revenge for them yelling at me on the internet and hurting my feelings"

Just because you're getting called out for being an ass doesn't mean that whoever's calling you out is "disguising intolerance with tolerance".

It's also kind of shitty to dismiss so much of the racism and sexism in the world as complete non-issues just because there are some loud people on the internet who aren't being sensitive to your feelings when they talk about why these things are actual serious problems.

There's more that I want to say in response to your point about "targeting the majority who's NOT racist or sexist at large" but Solace already said everything I'd want to say about this several pages back so I'll just quote it here for you.
You act like I never gave third-wave feminism a chance. You act like I just plug my ears full of lard at other people's opinions. The reality is, if any SJW actually tried to make a legitimate argument with me I might try to have a conversation with them. But the millennial wave of feminists isn't interested in argument. They meet ANY differing opinion with hate.

I'm not saying YOU are the stupid ones. I'm saying there are a FUCKING LOT of stupid ones and those ones happen to be the ones who go out in public and chant 5-10 words for 3 hours, not willing to have a conversation and rather trying to convince people by drowning them out.

How have they tried to talk about why these are serious problems? I've discussed my reasoning on why they aren't, and nobody has come up with any objective evidence to defend their claims. I'm not the one making a claim here.

As for what Solace said, I find myself profiling people on appearance and not at all based on color. I won't avoid blacks, I'll avoid shady looking blacks, just like I avoid shady looking whites. That's more of a case of stereotyping than racism. And again, if you call me racist for looking at blacks and whites differently when there are VERY CLEAR DIFFERENCES between the two, all I can assume is that you're looking for a reason to call me racist. Unless black and white cultures merge, we will always be different kinds of people.

"these SJWs never think of the real racial and sexual problems that exist in our society, I'll show them by adamantly denying that these problems exist and call them pathetic cowards as revenge for them yelling at me on the internet and hurting my feelings"
you think im talking about the internet. lol. I'm sorry if you believe in third-wave feminism you're a fucking idiot. I'm not even trying to deny whether or not problems exist, I just need to see SOME evidence besides people trying to make a meme of me for having differing opinions.

I'm not ever going to make the claim racism and sexism don't exist. I'm not going to ever make the claim all policemen are fair and honest people.

Furthermore, as a minority, I would like you guys to not speak on my behalf, because I don't experience any of this racism you guys are talking about.
 
Last edited:
Every fucking time I hold out hope that voters made the right decision, Trump reminds me of how stupid a notion that is:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/800329364986626048?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Honestly, I think we're screwed, because we have a man-child for President who can't take any criticism.

A lot of Hispanic immigrants go to USA with nothing with them, and they have no problem becoming rich later in their lives.

But that aside, how about income based affirmative action for college?

My dad was born shortly after a war, and he lived in something similar to a refugee camp.
No money for shoes or slippers.
No money for glass windows.
But he had no problem becoming rich neither.
Luck combined with hard work. If you have the right opportunities and know how best to exploit them, then the sky is the limit.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...linton-investigations-n687116?cid=sm_fb_msnbc

wonder how long it will take before people realized they got scammed hard

edit:



holy shit the balls
I'm more curious about what they are going to do about it. At least those who aren't brainwashed idiots and white supremacists who don't give a fuck. I just hope the Trump Administration handles the backlash with grace, or things will get ugly here real quickly.
 
Last edited:

Cresselia~~

Junichi Masuda likes this!!
Many communists would agree with a lot of the things the left says, that doesn't mean that they are comparable. Just because the beginnings of my views align with white supremacy doesn't mean my views align with white supremacy. They simply don't. This assumption is half of my problem with society right now. Some of my opinion aligns with white supremacists, therefore I'm a white supremacist. Do you not see the problem with this line of thinking? I'm sure communists wanted Bernie sanders to be elected. Just because some of their views align with those of communists doesn't mean Bernie Sanders, or any of his supporters, are communists.
To be honest, most people from Asian countries believe that socialism/ the left is just communism2.0
I'm not here to say whether they are correct or not, but I'd like to point out that their conclusion is not exactly baseless.
 
Okay, I'm surprised that nobody is talking about the latest news:
The election might have been rigged against Hillary, and we might not have a legitimate President.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/vote-count-hillary-clinton-trump.html

Until the results are confirmed, as far as I'm concerned, unless Trump addresses my concerns and is worth the trouble, he is no President of mine. Those who voted for him can hate me for that, I don't care. I already hate him, and he didn't earn the popular vote. And now this? Fuck the King.
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
Ok, no that article isn't stating that. In fact it has a direct quote from the original cyber-journalist that it's highly unlikely to be a cyber attack; it's only interested in the possibility that a ballot recount might have sliim chance of overturning the result, if there were a legal precedent to do so (considering the appeal deadline is up in many places).

Not to rule it out, but that implication of certitude is in bad faith.



However, what is fact is that Hillary Clinton has a comfortably won the popular vote. Trump won the Electoral College. Donald Trump does NOT represent the popular mandate of the United States of America.

That's just sad. By itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES
Ok, no that article isn't stating that. In fact it has a direct quote from the original cyber-journalist that it's highly unlikely to be a cyber attack; it's only interested in the possibility that a ballot recount might have sliim chance of overturning the result, if there were a legal precedent to do so (considering the appeal deadline is up in many places).

Not to rule it out, but that implication of certitude is in bad faith.



However, what is fact is that Hillary Clinton has a comfortably won the popular vote. Trump won the Electoral College. Donald Trump does NOT represent the popular mandate of the United States of America.

That's just sad. By itself.
Exactly why it should be proven that he at least won the Electoral College fair and square. There is also a Daily Kos article which covers more in depth, but I honestly take those with a grain of salt, since it isn't AFAIK the most reliable, unbiased media.

I've been told the Electoral College is there to keep the majority from imposing their will on the minority. But that is what the Bill of Rights is for anyways. And what is to stop the minority from imposing their idea of an ideal government on the majority, whether they want any part in it or not? We have Steven Bannon, who tolerates white supremacist groups and their rhetoric, and you'd have to go down a rabbit hole to get any more un-American than that.
 

xJownage

Even pendulums swing both ways
Okay, I'm surprised that nobody is talking about the latest news:
The election might have been rigged against Hillary, and we might not have a legitimate President.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/vote-count-hillary-clinton-trump.html

Until the results are confirmed, as far as I'm concerned, unless Trump addresses my concerns and is worth the trouble, he is no President of mine. Those who voted for him can hate me for that, I don't care. I already hate him, and he didn't earn the popular vote. And now this? Fuck the King.
and yall were making a meme out of me lmfao
 
and yall were making a meme out of me lmfao
Like I said, if you were in my position, and you hated Hillary as much as I hate Trump and his policies, would you not think along the same lines. Along the lines of what Trump said, I'll decide whether I recognize Trump's policies based on I agree with them, and if they largely benefit me.

If the results are challenged in a meaningful manner, and it is found the election machines weren't hacked, then I will automatically be required to at least recognize his right to the Presidency (albeit grudgingly), even though he didn't win the popular vote, because not doing so would be like punishing a dog 24 hours after they went potty in the house. You don't do that, because in this case, he won according the rules currently approved, even if I didn't agree with them.

Though progressives do intend to either get the electoral college abolished, or come to some sort of compromise. Another idea I favor is a tiered voting system. I would also suggest that if a candidate doesn't get the popular vote, to adopt the policies (in this case, fighting climate change and an amendment limiting campaign contributions) that are the most popular and the reason most voters gave a candidate the most votes. In this way, both sides are represented! If Trump gets money out of politics and protects the environment, as well as keeping white nationalists from trying to impose their ideologies on us, then I will stop complaining. I might even support him, so long as he doesn't do anything selfish and unconstitutional.

That's fair, yes?
 
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...linton-investigations-n687116?cid=sm_fb_msnbc

wonder how long it will take before people realized they got scammed hard
Considering how hard Trump was pushing on this beforehand (come on his fans were chanting 'LOCK HER UP'), the only reason I can see for him dropping it is that despite all the speculation the investigation has nothing that can be used to indict Hillary and any attempt to do so would not only be a waste of time but make Trump look worse than he already does. The 'emails' thing was stupid to begin with (even if the worst rumours were true it would not merit a tenth of the jail time Trump's actual offenses do), and the only good thing that can be said of it is that Trump hasn't made the U.S a police state yet (or maybe that he's realised his own limitations......except I'm too jaded with this to be hopeful :()
 
I'm more concerned about how blatently Trump seems to be getting away with using his political position to push his business interests. An egomaniac like him can't be trusted to act selflessly and the scope of his business is so large it will probably end up being a contributing factor in a large majority of decisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES

Shurtugal

The Enterpriser.
is a Tiering Contributor
Hey all! I'd like to have everyone's thoughts on this article:

http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/25/...-filed-wisconsin-donald-trump-hillary-clinton

It's likely not much is going to come out of this, but probably still worth some thought over. I'm more interested in the PA and Michigan results, if there exists any discrepancy.
How likely is it that the votes were miscounted though?

I feel like this is a waste of effort (and a waste of money Good Lord they raised a lot) -- to be honest, I really hope it is a wasted effort and that the results come up the same, because if this is significant in any way it will really make me question the voting system. I know a lot of people are unhappy with the results of this election, but there have been many times a president didn't win the popular vote but won electoral and, as far as I know, never once have the results of an election have been changed before.

I feel like if this comes out to be significant and we actually do something about it, it will be an unhealthy thing for future elections: it is better when America accepts the results and works with the person they elected into office rather than fighting. As the old saying goes "A house divided against itself is a house that cannot stand" -- I don't like the division things like this create. This attitude of "Not my president!" when everyone needs to honor the results of an election because face it: somebody was going to be upset with the results, would you really not want them to work with you if they didn't get their way? You have to accept that they were voted into office by our fellow Americans. Screw the popular vote this HAS HAPPENED BEFORE so I don't know why people are complaining about it now. Sure, it sucks, but this is the system we've been using for a while. Why are we just now trying to change a system we've been using for decades? Because the results aren't what you wanted? I mean, if Hilary didn't win popular vote but won electoral would we be having this conversation? Presidents have been accepted before with electoral over popular, I just feel like it's petty and childish to start questioning it now when America has accepted and worked with results like this before.

I know somebody isn't going to like this post, but I mean -- I really feel like we should be unified. This type of thinking is unhealthy. If Trump turns out to be bad, we can inaugurate him: there is no need to question the results of an election, because this will just make it harder for future election results to be accepted.

If the votes truly were miscounted, that would raise questions on our entire election process up-to-date and I'm not sure that is a good thing at all. This is why I am choosing to have faith that these results will be counted as the same, because I want to have faith that our previous election results are legitimate and that our election process is working, stable, efficient.

(This is all my opinion and I understand I am not the smartest person and that there are likely variables I'm missing, but you asked for our thoughts so I wanted to share mine.)
 
Last edited:

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/23/trump-changed-everything-now-everything-counts

"How uncomfortable. We crave to believe our country is still safe for mainstream folks like us and the things we hold dear. Our civic momentum is to trust the famous checks and balances and resist any notion of a new era that will require a new kind of response. Anti-Trump demonstrations have already brought out a parental tone in the media, and Michael Moore is still being labeled a demagogue. Many Democrats look askance at Keith Ellison, the sudden shooting star of the party’s leadership, as too different, too progressive and feisty. Even if we agree with these people in spirit, our herd instinct recoils from extreme tactics and unconventional leaders on the grounds that they’ll never muster any real support.

That instinct is officially obsolete.

Wariness of extremism doesn’t seem to trouble anyone young enough to claim Lady Gaga as a folk hero. I’m mostly addressing my generation, the baby boomers. We may have cut our teeth on disrespect for the Man, but now we’ve counted on majority rule for so long we think it’s the air we breathe. In human decency we trust, so our duty is to go quietly when our team loses. It feels wrong to speak ill of the president. We’re not like the bigoted, vulgar bad sports who slandered Obama and spread birther conspiracies, oh, wait. Now we’re to honor a president who made a career of debasing the presidency?

We’re in new historical territory. A majority of American voters just cast our vote for a candidate who won’t take office. A supreme court seat meant to be filled by our elected president was denied us. Congressional districts are now gerrymandered so most of us are represented by the party we voted against. The FBI and Russia meddled with our election. Our president-elect has no tolerance for disagreement, and a stunningly effective propaganda apparatus. Now we get to send this outfit every dime of our taxes and watch it cement its power. It’s not going to slink away peacefully in the next election."
 
President-elect Donald Trump won’t subject Hillary Clinton to a criminal inquiry — instead, he’ll help her heal, his spokeswoman said Tuesday.

“I think when the president-elect who’s also the head of your party … tells you before he’s even inaugurated he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content, to the members,”

“Look, I think, he’s thinking of many different things as he prepares to become the president of the United States, and things that sound like the campaign are not among them,” Conway, who is now on the Trump transition team, said in her interview.

She continued: “I think Hillary Clinton still has to face the fact that a majority of Americans don’t find her to be honest or trustworthy, but if Donald Trump can help her heal, then perhaps that’s a good thing.”

--

"The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness"

-Hannah Arendt, 'The Origins of Totalitarianism' 1951
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 2)

Top