Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

Status
Not open for further replies.

bludz

a waffle is like a pancake with a syrup trap
is a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
that's real nice of you and all but unlike politics or policy global warming is not a matter of opinion.

it's hardcore fact.

might as well ask why do you think that oxygen doesn't exist.
If there was a movement which denied its existence I would certainly be asking that
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
If there was a movement which denied its existence I would certainly be asking that
there's a movement that denies black people rights. look it up it starts with K. and there's a vice president-elect [representative of a significant right-wing movt.] who advocates using federal funding to cure homosexuals. Please ask them why also.

I'm not saying the engagement is a bad thing, I think it's rather admirable too. You need it in order to have any consensus.
But you'll need ground rules bruv, otherwise it has the risk of being patronising for all the people who have to suffer and face oppression because of opinions. There's never a good reason to lose objectivity to strive towards common ground.

Some issues have two sides, heck some have more than two sides sure, while some issues.... don't. To assume otherwise is just classic bias towards neutrality.

e: toned down language
 
Last edited:
Obvious as it may be, our primary issue in this country (and in most diverse societies) is that everyone wants their voice to be heard and we all have different opinions and needs. What this leads to is a ton of advocacy (telling) and not enough inquisition (listening and attempting to understand others). Politics just ends up with people telling each other what's right or wrong without trying to fully understand the other's point or view. We are all victim to this to some extent. So I'm posting here not to argue, but to learn.

I am genuinely curious about something. Does anyone here believe Global Warming is a hoax? If so, why?

I promise not to tell you why I think you're wrong (though I cannot speak for anyone else who might post in response). I really just want to understand why.
That's pretty much what I said. And if the Trump Administration ignores progressives, or tells them they are wrong and stupid ignorant fucks, we might just get pissed off and feel forced to take matters into our own hands.

The fact that part of their iteniary is:
End Obamacare. Fine, but replace it with what?

Call climate change a hoax, instead of listening to the science, and supporters calling us idiots.

Deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy.

Putting a climate change denier in charge of the transition team for the EPA.

Then there is this rhetoric:

Or this: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...head-says-anti-Trump-protests-must-be-quelled
Or this: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/796900183955095552?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

It is like they are doing everything they can to tempt progressives to stop them from taking office by any means. They sure as hell don't represent my values or interests. In fact, I hate them!!!
Edit: actually, I'm terrified. That type of talk sounds totalitarian.
 
This election had nothing to do with red states or blue states or even black vs white. The people who think it's a "race" issue are poorly misinformed. The "white nobodies" in the sticks who made Trump's win possible couldn't care less about black vs white. They are piss poor and being eradicated similar to native Americans being kicked out from their land way back when. Think of it before you call me crazy, ok? We have cities making rules that phase out the countryside, not that the mid to low tier of society in those cities benefit anyway.

This election was not 'red vs blue' it was COUNTRY vs CITY, plain and simple. Anyone who sees this as a race thing or a woman thing are just totally missing the point.

This article despite the title and that it begins with pictures or its domain hits the nail on the head. You can't find an article more spot on than this one when it comes to our election: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/how-half-america-lost-its-fking-mind --again, don't mind the title. It's a well written article that focuses on city vs country.

It's not even a bad thing. The countryside needs to do well just like anyone else. For snowflakes or city people to say otherwise is beyond ignorant.
 

Sam

i say it's all just wind in sails
is a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
This election had nothing to do with red states or blue states or even black vs white. The people who think it's a "race" issue are poorly misinformed. The "white nobodies" in the sticks who made Trump's win possible couldn't care less about black vs white. They are piss poor and being eradicated similar to native Americans being kicked out from their land way back when. Think of it before you call me crazy, ok? We have cities making rules that phase out the countryside, not that the mid to low tier of society in those cities benefit anyway.

This election was not 'red vs blue' it was COUNTRY vs CITY, plain and simple. Anyone who sees this as a race thing or a woman thing are just totally missing the point.

This article despite the title and that it begins with pictures or its domain hits the nail on the head. You can't find an article more spot on than this one when it comes to our election: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/how-half-america-lost-its-fking-mind --again, don't mind the title. It's a well written article that focuses on city vs country.

It's not even a bad thing. The countryside needs to do well just like anyone else. For snowflakes or city people to say otherwise is beyond ignorant.
yep white men are being forcibly removed from their land and murdered en masse

Give me a break. I get that there are legitimate grievances coming from people who have lost their jobs in the coal, oil, manufacturing industry etc. But electing the billionare who wants to give immense tax cuts to the rich and has no real actual plans to bring those jobs back? Let's not act like Hillary Clinton didn't have a plan for green jobs to replace their lost jobs. It was a pretty important part of her campaign.

I agree that the 'economic anxiety' had something to do with it and perhaps they believed Trump's message about it more than Clinton. It would be silly to ignore that. But in a campaign where open racism and bigotry from a candidate became such a focal issue acting like it played no part either is just as silly.
 
painting people who voted for trump as people without hope with nowhere to go is really demeaning and bad, not only because it's condescending but because to an extent it's not even that correct. America has shifted a lot over the past ~50 years, on stance, economy, and literally everything else too. But trump does not speak for the modern day, he is addressing those with "traditional" values. Well, not really adressing, but he appeals to them in ways few can. If people said at a dinner party where the topic was politics, "hey guys I think building a massive fucking wall on the border will help keep illegal immigration at a low" people would think they're insane and not talk to them, but because of trump and his candidacy, people were able to express these beliefs and have them taken seriously. This also explains why people were so attached to trump; he is their "only hope" of being heard. Im gonna echo Sam here when I say that nobody ever forced those people to leave, or took anything because they were the big, bad mean lawmaker corporate interest-fueled schemers from wall street, or whatever bullshit trump said about it. People in the "country" were affected by a globally changing scheme on almost every platform, and you can't just blame that on negligence by the government. There are very logical solutions to this problem and giving vague ideas to these people affected by the change over the past 50 years and giving massive tax breaks to the rich is not one of them.

How the fuck can you say Clinton didn't plan to help the middle class when her plan was about 10 times as specific as trump? I don't disagree with the point that it was country vs city, but trump's policies would not have helped these people at all.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
Global warming isn't caused by humans insomuch as the Sun is constantly getting slightly bigger and in some millions of years will render the planet uninhabitable to us BUT Mars will be a perfect temperature however I think the year to year temperature increase is miniscule.

The rest is humans being stupid and needing to care more about the consequences what they do have.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-the-sun-isnt-causing-global-warming.html

the size of the sun has little to do with earth's temperature, it is the intensity of the radiation produced and local factors, not the sun's size, that determines the planet's temperature.

but tell me more about how i need to care more 'about the consequence what they do have'. has anyone ever been real far even just go?


i would say 'welcome to trumps america, where you dont have to make any sense, or reference any evidence.', but it's been that way for a while.

it would be really nice if climate change wasn't anthropogenically caused, but it will not surprise me when no evidence emerges to support this claim itt, as none has been offered so far. on the other hand, ignorance is bliss.


i anticipate replies to this post arguing about the seriousness of the consequences of climate change and its timeline for humans, rather than how it happens, but I will probably not reply, just a heads up. please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
 
yep white men are being forcibly removed from their land and murdered en masse

Give me a break. I get that there are legitimate grievances coming from people who have lost their jobs in the coal, oil, manufacturing industry etc. But electing the billionare who wants to give immense tax cuts to the rich and has no real actual plans to bring those jobs back? Let's not act like Hillary Clinton didn't have a plan for green jobs to replace their lost jobs. It was a pretty important part of her campaign.

I agree that the 'economic anxiety' had something to do with it and perhaps they believed Trump's message about it more than Clinton. It would be silly to ignore that. But in a campaign where open racism and bigotry from a candidate became such a focal issue acting like it played no part either is just as silly.

Made a long post but all it said was basically: "You can't blame em" when it comes to the rural people voting for their livelihoods.
 
Last edited:
the success of a policy is not determined by how much the american people love it or need it. Crass language has almost nothing to do with it. EVen if you look it it objectively, Trump's campaign was not prepared to take on all the stuff he promised these people. You can't also claim everything as a metaphor; if he said "we'll get immigration under control by doing x, y, and z, " it would still satisfy the American people, no? Same applies to everything else he says.

And what's sad is that these people are being helped. Not every bit of money in the American government is designated for the maintenance of every private yacht owned by the entirety of the 0.1%. Inequality has existed for a long time and has never, ever left the limelight, and definitely not in this election. And part of it isn't even the government's fault. People should adapt to a new America instead of hoping and praying for an old one. Of course they believe Trump, because it's easier to not change than it is to change, and he was right in line with their ideology from the very start. What's sadder than their supposed "neglect" is the fact that all these people could be contributing in large ways to the economy, but instead choose a candidate who intends to rewind history by 50 years just to please half of america. And even still, his policies are full of bullshit. We stop immigration and bring back jobs. How? The economy is failing. Why?

What he says seems simple because there is not explanation. It's as if I was the head of a construction project and someone asked me, "Well, how are we gonna do this thing?" and I reply, "With determination, hard work, and to make it happen!". Those aren't thing I can put on a drawing board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES

Solace

royal flush
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Made a long post but all it said was basically: "You can't blame em" when it comes to the rural people voting for their livelihoods.
they didn't vote for their livelihoods. they may have thought they did, but trump has been stiffing real life working class people for as long as he's been around. he has no actual plan to revitalize their industries or give them their jobs back.

he just told them that the illegal mexicans stole "their jobs" (read: the jobs they did not want like cleaning bathrooms or making fast food) and played off that inherently racist belief.

unemployment got significantly better under obama, and clinton would've, at the very least, kept all of that going. trump lied to people by telling them it was getting worse because he knew no one he was speaking to would fact check him because he was telling them what they already wanted to hear.
 

Ash Borer

I've heard they're short of room in hell
Why are people trying to legitimize racism all of a sudden? it can't have any connection to who just became president...
Refusing to examine the science behind race is only effective at one thing; legitimizing racism. If you fail to address the idea of racism as possibly a legitimate belief then you stand no chance TO show how it isn't. By simply denying racism, rather than disproving it society at large has enabled the conspiracy beliefs of racists who think it is scientifically correct and claim that science refuses to study it because of pressure from leftist elites and universities. People are trying to legitimize racism, not because Donald Trump won and that's good, but because Donald Trump won and that's bad.

I think racism is wrong, because of my understanding of the science, and basic ethics, not because I take it as a dogma. But society's current method of trying to eradicate racism is to be dogmatic about it. And what I'm saying is that clearly, because of Trump's election, it isn't working.

 
You know, technically the way the earth is tilted on its axis right now would normally lead to a cooling period for the earth.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles

And if you have any basic idea about what the green house effect is, you would know that the more carbon based gasses you put in the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped. Even the scientists that are skeptical about climate change agree that the greenhouse effect is a thing. That's all I'll say about climate change.

But luckily, it does seem that Trump is going to be semi-moderate --->http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/donald-trump-obamacare-interview/index.html?adkey=bn
Then again, I'm not a Muslim or a Latino or black, so my situation over the next 4 years is going to be very different.

What I think will be the most annoying thing about Trump though, is that even if he crashes the economy, or the changes he makes to the tax system or social security aren't good or won't work in the long run, his supporters will always be behind him and they will praise him. At least democrats knew when Obama did something stupid (like TPP or when he made empty threats against Syria), but it will be very annoying to see so many people praising such a flawed person.
 
You know, technically the way the earth is tilted on its axis right now would normally lead to a cooling period for the earth.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles

And if you have any basic idea about what the green house effect is, you would know that the more carbon based gasses you put in the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped. Even the scientists that are skeptical about climate change agree that the greenhouse effect is a thing. That's all I'll say about climate change.

But luckily, it does seem that Trump is going to be semi-moderate --->http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/donald-trump-obamacare-interview/index.html?adkey=bn
Then again, I'm not a Muslim or a Latino or black, so my situation over the next 4 years is going to be very different.

What I think will be the most annoying thing about Trump though, is that even if he crashes the economy, or the changes he makes to the tax system or social security aren't good or won't work in the long run, his supporters will always be behind him and they will praise him. At least democrats knew when Obama did something stupid (like TPP or when he made empty threats against Syria), but it will be very annoying to see so many people praising such a flawed person.
It won't be as bad as the backlash to the praise. That would drive me fucking crazy, like "that's it we tried it your way, it failed and, I'VE HAD ENOUGH, SO WE ARE DOING THINGS OUR WAY, OR ELSE!!!" Honestly, if the economy crashes, he and his cronies can pay for it, because I'm not paying one damned cent unless I get it back with interest!

Sorry, but I hate stupid cultism. And 2008.
 

Mr.E

unban me from Discord
is a Past SPL Champion
Donald Trump got turnout because it's not racist to point out illegal aliens pouring over the southern border are slaughtering people in the streets and that needs to stop being dismissed as xenophobia just for talking about it.
Plenty of what Trump has said or ideas he's snowballed around aren't racist on the surface but have racially-charged undertones, because the only way to accomplish much of what he wants done in reality is to engage in racial profiling and racist actions. He's still said plenty of blatantly racist stuff too though. Ban all Muslims from the country (whatever the religious equivalent of racism is, anyway)! Which isn't even a realistic plan, mind you. Mexicans are bad! Stop-and-frisk is good and necessary to keep the "inner city youth" [black kids] safe... you know, a practice that studies show disproportionally affects minorities and was at one time deemed unconstitutional in a federal court.

Not that I don't want tougher immigration laws myself, as a generally liberal-minded individual, but FYI immigrants have lower crime rates than nationals. Cuz, you know, they don't want to get scooped for a crime and then fucking deported when they're caught. Besides, most illegal immigrants are presumed to be once-legal ones that simply overstayed their welcome (visas); building a wall won't keep them out, not that I believe he will have a literal wall built. (There's already a partial wall that was never completed because there's no fucking point.)

So is it ignorance like that, that elected Trump? Because regardless of his rhetoric, he isn't bringing manufacturing back in force. Neither was Clinton, nor can or will anyone else. Those jobs are dead. They're not coming back because they didn't go anywhere, they were simply eliminated by the inevitable advancement of technology far more than free trade, or clean energy initiatives LOOKING AT YOU WEST VIRGINIA, or immigration (illegal or not). A large majority of people will never educate themselves on issues, though, and vote based on bullshit rhetoric and simple feelings, if not the most superficial of talking points from a single biased media source.
 
Brain weight https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6893659
Race/ gender on intelligence http://pps.sagepub.com/content/2/2/194
Nature article on race and IQ. (Nature is one of the best biology magazines. It's very difficult to get published in Nature.) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/457788a.html

On the other hand, WHO does have different BMI standards for different races.
Normal weight is 20~25 for white people, but 18.5~23.5 for Asians.
That's another minor thing.

Okay well i don't really understand your point bringing up brain size when brain size does not necessarily dictate intelligence. Humans have neither the largest brain size nor the largest brain size in comparison to the rest of their bodies. Not only that, but Albert Einstein had an average sized brain despite being obviously intelligent. One of the issues is that it's hard to accurately measure intelligence (IQ isn't really reliably), but really I don't think there's a lot of support behind the theory that having a brain weigh more means an individual is more intelligent. Also, any organ/body part that both males and females have, the males' body parts will always be statistically larger. Women have smaller brains in general than men, but that's not indicative of any sort of intelligence.

I read some of the second article you linked but it was long as fuck. As you seem to be ignorantly trying to justify China's supposed teachings of white supremacy with this study, I don't really understand your point, mainly because it said that Asian people were "more intelligent" than white people. While I mostly attribute perceived intelligence to society and upbringing (each individual has different capabilities, but I think on average a black person would have the same ability to succeed as white or anyone else), the study itself says Asians are the "smartest". So why would Asian countries teach white supremacy if they're supposedly "more intelligent" (again, I'm only going along with your retarded idea that certain races are naturally more intelligent than others, based on this study that you cited)?


Anyway I could go on and on about how I don't believe that average intelligence is higher by a significant margin among the races, but obviously you will state that statistically whites and Asians are better than the rest of people, or whatever.

But one thing still bothers me about what you've said. "Why do Americans not teach White Supremacy in their classes if whites are statistically more intelligent?" Well, most people in America don't believe that white people are inherently (let alone statistically) more intelligent. But even if white people were more intelligent than blacks, latinos, arabs, or whatever, why would that make white supremacy okay?? The difference in intelligence between the smartest and dumbest individuals is not a gap nearly as large as the gap between a human and an animal, for example. Let's say these bullshit statistics actually prove something about innate abilities. The difference of intelligence between 2 groups of 2 people is not significant enough to deem one as superior or worth better treatment.

At the end of the day, there will be black people smarter than 99% of white people. And white people smarter than 99% of black people. And white people dumber than the vast majority of black people, and vice versa. These people don't deserve to be treated as "inferior" or superior because, theoretically (again, I'm going along with your bullshit hypothetical which i can't stress enough is blatantly false), their race of people is GENERALLY less intelligent by a small margin.

We live in a society where black culture is prominent in music (the most streamed male and female on spotify in 2016 were both black), and black people have brought many innovations to culture and technology. In America, there are multiple individual of every single race who have contributed more to society than you, I, or most people in the world have. White supremacy creates a platform to put down these important people. There are fantastic individuals of every race regardless of "average intelligence".

Also you seem to believe Americans are "taught" racial equality. A lot of Americans are racist. Most Americans just "pick up" this crazy concept of racial equality because we live in a country that actually has multiple races of people lol..

tl;dr white supremacy is bullshit and even if white ppl were statistically more intelligent it wouldn't be acceptable to teach a principle like this. But the idea that white people are statistically born more intelligent is ridiculous too.


Also before anyone complains this post is off-topic the prominence of this belief that white people are superior is a large part of what led to Donald Trump becoming our next president, so I think it's important to address the issue!!
 
Divine Retribution What should be done is that we listen to minority communities and believe them and what they say. We have to learn about race and white supremacy and how it manifests and challenge it where we see it. We have to as a society stop continuing this blind denial of the existence of race and racism. And we have to undo the structures in society built by white supremacy that do harm to minority communities.
So your answer to blind denial of the existence of race and racism is the blind acceptance of what anyone this isn't cis and white has to say? Cause they would never lie? Jesus christ. Blind anything is bad.

 
Okay well i don't really understand your point bringing up brain size when brain size does not necessarily dictate intelligence. Humans have neither the largest brain size nor the largest brain size in comparison to the rest of their bodies. Not only that, but Albert Einstein had an average sized brain despite being obviously intelligent. One of the issues is that it's hard to accurately measure intelligence (IQ isn't really reliably), but really I don't think there's a lot of support behind the theory that having a brain weigh more means an individual is more intelligent. Also, any organ/body part that both males and females have, the males' body parts will always be statistically larger. Women have smaller brains in general than men, but that's not indicative of any sort of intelligence.

I read some of the second article you linked but it was long as fuck. As you seem to be ignorantly trying to justify China's supposed teachings of white supremacy with this study, I don't really understand your point, mainly because it said that Asian people were "more intelligent" than white people. While I mostly attribute perceived intelligence to society and upbringing (each individual has different capabilities, but I think on average a black person would have the same ability to succeed as white or anyone else), the study itself says Asians are the "smartest". So why would Asian countries teach white supremacy if they're supposedly "more intelligent" (again, I'm only going along with your retarded idea that certain races are naturally more intelligent than others, based on this study that you cited)?


Anyway I could go on and on about how I don't believe that average intelligence is higher by a significant margin among the races, but obviously you will state that statistically whites and Asians are better than the rest of people, or whatever.

But one thing still bothers me about what you've said. "Why do Americans not teach White Supremacy in their classes if whites are statistically more intelligent?" Well, most people in America don't believe that white people are inherently (let alone statistically) more intelligent. But even if white people were more intelligent than blacks, latinos, arabs, or whatever, why would that make white supremacy okay?? The difference in intelligence between the smartest and dumbest individuals is not a gap nearly as large as the gap between a human and an animal, for example. Let's say these bullshit statistics actually prove something about innate abilities. The difference of intelligence between 2 groups of 2 people is not significant enough to deem one as superior or worth better treatment.

At the end of the day, there will be black people smarter than 99% of white people. And white people smarter than 99% of black people. And white people dumber than the vast majority of black people, and vice versa. These people don't deserve to be treated as "inferior" or superior because, theoretically (again, I'm going along with your bullshit hypothetical which i can't stress enough is blatantly false), their race of people is GENERALLY less intelligent by a small margin.

We live in a society where black culture is prominent in music (the most streamed male and female on spotify in 2016 were both black), and black people have brought many innovations to culture and technology. In America, there are multiple individual of every single race who have contributed more to society than you, I, or most people in the world have. White supremacy creates a platform to put down these important people. There are fantastic individuals of every race regardless of "average intelligence".

Also you seem to believe Americans are "taught" racial equality. A lot of Americans are racist. Most Americans just "pick up" this crazy concept of racial equality because we live in a country that actually has multiple races of people lol..

tl;dr white supremacy is bullshit and even if white ppl were statistically more intelligent it wouldn't be acceptable to teach a principle like this. But the idea that white people are statistically born more intelligent is ridiculous too.


Also before anyone complains this post is off-topic the prominence of this belief that white people are superior is a large part of what led to Donald Trump becoming our next president, so I think it's important to address the issue!!
To add to this, just because someone has a smaller brain, doesn't mean they are not as smart as average. Maybe they are more efficiently wired, like how our computers have gotten smaller!

And even then, there is still the moral question of: is this civilized behavior? Don't forget one of the worst mass murders in modern history occurred out of this cult belief that one race was superior, and "inferior" ethnicities had to go extinct in order for this superior race to thrive.

God help extra-terrestrial races if the Nazis had made it out into deep space (I assume we'll invent technologies for deep space travel sooner or later), and they ran into other intelligent races, and tried to conquer/exterminate them as well. Or they ran into a race with a superior technological base, and were defeated themselves.

The fact is that democracy and equality works better when we don't take race into account, at least not in a way that is discriminatory. Nothing wrong with observing ethnicity, and taking pride in that, but that is as far as it should go.
 

Andy Snype

Mr. Music
is a Community Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderatoris a Top Tutor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
So your answer to blind denial of the existence of race and racism is the blind acceptance of what anyone this isn't cis and white has to say? Cause they would never lie? Jesus christ. Blind anything is bad.




Though I agree with the reasoning behind this as to how it made an environment where Trump, the underdog since the days he announced his intention to run, it's hard to know what to do going forward.

I've seen more calls to engage and discuss with the people around you on social media, but I'm skeptical of this because I think there's only so many fucks people can give.

I don't know of any correlation that has to do with attention span, but if people just debate and attempt to persuade people, it just gets annoying or even fruitless if the other person is tired of it, and quite frankly, there are a LOT of controversial-in-America (read: not stuff that many people, including me consider no-brainers) topics to consider when deciding on candidates (relations with differing, various countries, immigration, abortion, climate change, fundamentalism vs evolution, policies for equality, the legal process, taxes, economic policies, judicial system, education policies, important qualities for candidates, the values a government should hold, LGBT, and more.). Everything I've listed, I've met people with vastly differing opinions on both sides of the coin (even in just the liberal-leaning northeast), and then there's also the question of what degree should the government have a stake? There's simply too many things for people to go through and I expect there to be a lot of topics that are just not going to have productive discussions because some of it comes down to binary judgment calls, which lead to either i'm-right-you're-wrong-go-fuck-yourself or the rarer, more civil let's-agree-to-disagree.

In either case, it's hard for debate to really be useful when there's also the other things that desire people's attention, i.e. friends, family, frenemies, enemies, rivals, coworkers, classmates, transportation/commute, meetings, partying, pkmn, etc. After a long day that demands attention, I highly doubt one of the things everyone wants to do is expend energy to engage in discussion on political beliefs with other people and hope it's somewhat meaningful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JES

Shurtugal

The Enterpriser.
is a Tiering Contributor
Hey so I'm browsing this thread to learn, if that is OK. Was wondering if I could ask a few questions: What are Trump's thoughts on the LGBT community? What things point to Trump being racist again?

This election was quite a mess for me. I didn't educate myself as thoroughly as I normally do for election time, but already the little homework I did scared me from Trump: (He claimed he could cure autism and that autism was caused through vaccines, to which Ben fricken' Carson said that scientific studies disproved this, and Trump more-or-less said "Yeah well I know better than you & them.".) However, being raised in a christian & republican household has made things a bit awkward: "Hilary is a crook! She wants to bring in millions of outsiders in and use the middle class money to fund them! She wants to raise taxes! Something stupid about emails that are irrelevant (I think)!" and --

ugh I didn't do enough studying to really come to a solid conclusion. Hilary is pretty fake and while she says great things and has a Good Plan I ultimately just don't trust her. However, she is overly qualified for the job in terms of experience, and Trump simply doesn't have the textbook standard experience required to run for president (literally! I'm still confused as to how he was allowed to run for president since he doesn't meet all the terms? More homework I didn't follow up on.).

Due to how stressful my household was, I decided to abstain. And yes I know, "But if you abstain, that's a vote for [insert candidate you don't like here]!" but seriously this election was a mess. I consider myself republican, but it's hard to support republican candidates as it is since most of them are anti-LGBT and hardcore christian (perhaps I'm just a family rebel idk have lots of friends in the LGBT community and I hate racism, but I do support a lot of government republican ideals). But Trump? How could I support that?

Still, I can't complain. I didn't do my homework and I abstained my vote for presidency (I voted for the other things) so I just got to accept whatever happens I suppose. I know a lot of you probably want to yell at me about how I should have voted and what not but please spare me on that one -- I'm aware I should have, and I shouldn't have let my busy schedule stop me from doing my homework at all, but I let it happen anyway.

I mainly came here to ask those questions, since I know the internet is sure to give me a bunch of... stuff I have to tread through, and I know there are some amazing smart people here who can help narrow my search down.

Basically I just want help for my homework on Trump and important stuff I should know and expect. I appreciate anyone willing to help me out!
 
Hi Shurtugal!
I don't know much about Trump's position on LGTBQ other than stating that he's the choice of the community. However, his VP pick Mike Pence believes people choose to be homosexual and that they can be "cured" through therapy. On the possibility that Trump is impeached, I believe the LGBTQ community is in worse hands with Pence.

Anyone else more educated on this topic, feel free to chip in
 
Trump is raised in New York as a Democrat, and has gone on to have speeches in Republican rallies about how he wants to protect LGB groups, even shocked that people clapped for it, and is in support at the transgender bathroom law.

 
I'm just dropping by to say that the talk from the DNC and CNN about how maybe Tim Kaine and the like could lead the charge in 2020 absolutely boggles my mind. As an Indian, their behaviour reminds me of how the INC (the party that has been in power around 90% of the time, founded before independence, run by the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty) has refused to change after they were crushed in 2013 2014. Just for some context, they suffered their biggest defeat ever, and Modi became our PM. I am not going to comment on any similarity between Modi and Trump, because honestly I don't feel there is that much other than some anti-Muslim rhetoric.

But the DNC now plays the blame game and fails to realise that the biggest reason Clinton lost, was that she was Hillary Clinton. If they don't change their approach and leadership, how do they expect to win in 2020, let alone make gains in 2018, unless Trump royally fucks up? Are they just banking on Trump to implode? Because that hasn't worked out so well, has it? Again back to the INC, their prime ministerial candidate - Rahul Gandhi, scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty - is now being elevated to the party chairman. As long as people like him are relevant in the INC, they stand no chance and offer no opposition.

Sorry if this seemed off topic to you guys, but I thought it was worth mentioning. Maybe Dem supporters here can feel some weird consolation that it's not just their party that is sometimes so absolutely blind. I know HRC won the popular vote, but it should not have even been close. And losing WI, MI, PA? That's inexcusable as well. As for Trump, I have but a few concerns- that he doesn't fuck up the progress the US has made towards combating climate change, and that he doesn't let Chinese aggression run rampant. And please, don't drop nukes.
 
Last edited:

Mr.E

unban me from Discord
is a Past SPL Champion
Right. For all his faults, Trump actually has fairly liberal positions despite his rhetoric on the campaign trail. For us lefties, it's the best hope we can muster that he's not going to plunge the U.S. (or the entire world) into the next Dark Ages. He's not actually a Republican, he just ran on their ticket and stole the show. Hell, maybe he pulls a Tom Wheeler on us who, despite being a former lobbyist for the cable industry, has stood for the people quite handily as Chairman of the FCC. Turns out dude just does his job either way and is pretty good at it. Maybe Trump is really just the ultimate gamesman and he'll knock it out of the park as President too. I doubt it, but all we can do is wait and see, best to acknowledge the good he could do and hope for the best.

Aside being pro-LGBT, Trump was also against the Iraq War from the beginning and the very idea of wanting to invest in infrastructure is more than I can say for most Republicans. (He doesn't really want to "bomb the fuck out of" anybody if he doesn't have to, but boy is it a good sound byte.) IIRC he also used to be pro-choice on abortion, and while he professes to be pro-life now in accordance with traditional Republican views, he's at least expressed support for Planned Parenthood in its other functions as opposed to the GOP party line which wants to wipe it from existence.

Though not to speak for a community of which I am not a part, I don't think the LGBT community is worried about Trump himself so much as the staunch conservative base he's stuck within. Even assuming Trump is a true champion of their cause, his advisors certainly won't be and his Veep believes in conversion therapy. His lawmakers may try to push anti-gay laws into effect. The Supreme Court is very likely (though never guaranteed) to see multiple vacancies which will almost surely be filled by social conservatives. The President only has so much power alone, and with Trump's lack of experience and fiery temperament he may also be easily persuaded into supporting causes against social progress rather than his own personally positive views.
 
Seen a couple of posts here trying to blame Gary Johnson voters. Grow up. As a libertarian that frequently is active on several libertarian related websites I can tell you that there was never an argument ever by libertarians to make a case to vote for Hillary Clinton. I have seen numerous cases made however as to why a libertarian should vote for Trump over Johnson (as Trump does have a few libertarian stances)

To the unaware, Gary Johnson isn't very well liked among the libertarian circles. Johnson is bashed for being not too principle, being a gaffe machine, not being a good messenger for liberty. Some strictly supported him because despite thinking he's a dumbass, their views aligned closest to his and because they wanted to try and crack the 5% popular vote threshold. Bill Weld on the other hand, in the libertarian circles he was absolutely despised. Many simply pretended Weld was just there and strictly were supporting Johnson out of swallowing their pride and supporting the Libertarian Party. . A few days ago when Gary's running mate Bill Weld had headlines of articles where he stated "I am vouching for Hillary", I noticed several folks state that they were jumping ship to support Trump or just not voting all together.

As far as voters go, the only ones who considered Johnson who would've voted for Clinton are lesser evil voters or independent/left leaning voters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top