Donald Trump

This forum is for discussion about anything else.
Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #2838  (isolation #0)  » Tue Sep 27, 2016 12:51 pm

I told myself not to wade into politics here because it will likely ruin my perception of the people on this forum, but goddamit, I just can't stop myself. I'm gonna post a long rant/analysis I wrote elsewhere. I strongly suggest reading the transcript, because it really shows the difference between these candidates.

So I'll preface this by disclosing that I'm a strong Clinton supporter and despise Trump on every level, so this post is obviously going to be biased. I'm also not pulling punches with saying what I really think, so this might get rather heated as well.

That said, I've seen a lot of people saying for weeks now that this debate would end up with Trump being given a pass because the media will go in with low expectations of him, and that if he doesn't implode on national television he'll get a boost from his performance no matter what. As a result, it's rather alarming to me that I'm seeing this exact sentiment being widely stated in this very thread, even though by every available metric Trump was routed last night.

I've seen Trump described as "the kid who crams the night before the exam and barely passes," but it's more accurate to describe him as "the kid who crams the night before the exam and only passes because it's graded on a curve." It's absolutely astonishing to me that now, barely a month before the election takes place, Trump is *still* graded by the standards of himself rather than by the standards of a real candidate. Clinton gets flak for being "boring and robotic" or "overly scripted," but Trump consistently acts like an unruly child in a grade school classroom and people say "oh well that wasn't as bad as I expected." It's utter, unbelievable nonsense. Why does this double standard still exist?

I went into this debate rather pessimistic. Trump's not going to implode on national television. I would be shocked if that happened in these debates. His campaign team is competent enough to prevent that from happening. Trump's going to be "well-spoken" and "composed" in these debates by his own standards. So I went into this debate with the expectation that we'd see Trump along the lines of what we saw for the first 10-15 minutes of the debate - subdued and relatively soft-spoken compared to his stump personality. I didn't expect that facade to crack.

But it did. He didn't even rise to level of my own personal pre-conceptions. He did worse than I was expecting.

Before I talk about several horrifying parts of his answers, I'll talk about his style in general. Throughout the debate, after the facade cracked, Trump showcased that he still can't shake his core personality flaws:

1. The irresistable urge to praise himself
2. The inability to let any criticism go unanswered

It's too deeply ingrained into him, and last night proved it. No amount of coaching is going to get rid of these problems. My optimistic forecast for these debates was that all Clinton would have to do is remain composed and mainstream while sticking in little barbs and jabs at Trump to provoke him into making an idiot of himself trying to swing back. She just has to make him paint himself as insane and present herself as the sane alternative. I didn't expect that to be exactly correct last night.

Now, onto specifics. Trump rambled on a lot and had very few truly coherent policy positions:

1. Cut taxes on the wealthy and for businesses, both big and small. Also cut regulations on big business. Essentially a larger retread of supply-side economics (and even explicitly invoking Reagan)
2. Our free trade deals are terrible and need to be reversed or rewritten
3. Law & Order is a priority. "Stop and Frisk" was a great policy in NYC that should be implemented nation-wide (ignoring that it was struck down as racist and unconstitutional by a federal court)

That was it. The rest of what he said was largely criticism of Clinton and Obama, good old-fashioned fearmongering (primarily vs China and Mexico), or just nonsense.

He also demonstrated - in both policy position #1 and his numerous gaffes - how completely out of touch he is with the average American (by which I mean, Americans who aren't millionaires):

* His Reaganomics proposal almost entirely benefits the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the rest.
* When Clinton jabbed him on stiffing blue-collar contractors, he tried to excuse one particular incident as "Maybe he didn't do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work..."
* When Clinton jabbed him on not paying income taxes, he claimed "That makes me smart."
* When Clinton attacked him on allegedly "rooting for the housing collapse" in 2006 (you know, the recession that ruined millions of lives of working Americans), he quipped, "That's called business, by the way." (not mentioned is that he started a mortgage company in 2006 after the bubble burst which went bankrupt in less than a year)
* When Clinton attacked him on his birtherism and discriminatory housing practices in the past, he responded by talking about his club in Palm Beach, "In Palm Beach, Florida, tough community, a brilliant community, a wealthy community, probably the wealthiest community there is in the world, I opened a club, and really got great credit for it."
* When he talked about specific locations in the country, it was almost always in context of where he had personal investments (Palm Beach, Chicago, Charlotte)

It's also extremely odd to me that he's essentially for supply-side 2.0 while viciously opposing free trade, but that's not specific to the debate.

Clinton needs to bring up the Khans again if Trump is going to seriously keep pushing Stop And Frisk. She needs to hammer him as hard as possible on advocating unconstitutional policy.

Extremely alarming to me was this exchange:

CLINTON: The other day, I saw Donald saying that there were some Iranian sailors on a ship in the waters off of Iran, and they were taunting American sailors who were on a nearby ship. He said, you know, if they taunted our sailors, I'd blow them out of the water and start another war. That's not good judgment.

TRUMP: That would not start a war.

CLINTON: That is not the right temperament to be commander-in- chief, to be taunted. And the worst part...

TRUMP: No, they were taunting us.


Emphasis mine.

He constantly brings up the Iraq War and the 2011 withdrawal as criticisms of Clinton, but fails to provide specifics of his own alternative policy for dealing with ISIS. Probably Clinton's best zinger of the night addressed this:

CLINTON: But it's like his plan to defeat ISIS. He says it's a secret plan, but the only secret is that he has no plan.

And then he has the gall to criticize Clinton for making concrete positions on how to defeat ISIS:

TRUMP: She's telling us how to fight ISIS. Just go to her website. She tells you how to fight ISIS on her website. I don't think General Douglas MacArthur would like that too much.


His own attacks on Clinton would not stick. When Clinton brought up past and present criticisms of Trump, he would linger on them or meander into an unrelated tangent before returning to the criticism and ramble about it. Linking into the point I just made above, he even stooped to the level of criticizing Clinton for *preparing for the debate*, which is completely inexplicable. And that's a pattern with Trump - he makes stuff up as he goes along, deliberately keeps the specifics of his positions hazy and vague unless cornered, and criticizes his opponents for making concrete plans and positions. Why no one calls him on this bullshit is a mystery to me.

But on the flip side, I definitely agree that Holt was asking Trump targeted questions and soft-balling Clinton by comparison. I agree that Clinton seemed stilted and robotic, but on the grand scale criticizing is like complaining the only alternative to the bad stand-up routine is a by-the-numbers crime & punishment series. "Stilted and robotic" is like Captain Smooth compared to Trump's excellent impersonation of a petulant schoolboy.

But the sad thing is this won't change much. As others have already observed, this debate is only going to serve to further entrench everyone's existing opinions. How Trump acted is exactly why his supporters love him - it fits their warped conception of masculinity, where "being a man" is being the loudest guy in the room, never letting criticism go unanswered, and always getting the last word in no matter what. And Trump is the paragon of that warped ideal.

tl;dr But yeah, he got his ass kicked by normal standards. While I may be inherently biased against him, I still find it alarming that many people think he wasn't as bad as he could have been. Just read the transcript and it tells the story - Clinton presented policy specifics consistently, was confident and better-spoken throughout, and stayed on topic; Trump gave very few policy specifics, meandered and rambled, consistently took bait and lingered on his own criticisms, had horrible grammar, and looked clearly unprepared by comparison.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #2841  (isolation #1)  » Tue Sep 27, 2016 1:25 pm

In post 2839, Shiro wrote:@Wraith
Honestly, it isn't that people aren't measuring him to presidential standards. It is more so that they like that he isn't upholding them at all.

Which explains why he polls high on people and bad on politics critics.

By presidential standards, he was awful but that is what makes him good in people's eyes. That he isn't being presidential.


That's the point. He's a circus clown trying to make his case for being the ringmaster while still acting like a clown, and instead of judging him by the standards of a ringmaster people are still judging him on the standards of a clown. But they judge his opponent by the standards of a ringmaster. It's a ridiculous double standard that exemplifies everything wrong with modern American politics. It's about spectacle, sound bites, and perceptions rather than details and specifics.

He was unprepared but he didn't mock her for being prepared, more so for spending her whole time doing that instead of being out there making speeches.

Btw. While I do agree that he probably doesn't have a plan for isis, I do agree with his sentiment that releasing said info is counter productive and will force you to change then anyway.


Well he shouldn't be mocking her for that, because it paid off. She kicked his ass. If more people in this country actually paid attention to politics rather than regurgitating talking points spoon-fed to them by pundits during their morning commute that might actually mean something.

There's also a difference between having a specific policy regarding ISIS and releasing details of planned military operations. It's not like she said "Yeah we're gonna deploy the 10th Mountain Division and they'll attack Raqqa at dawn on March 10, 2017." Let's compare the answers of the two candidates side-by-side:

CLINTON: Well, I think there are a number of issues that we should be addressing. I have put forth a plan to defeat ISIS. It does involve going after them online. I think we need to do much more with our tech companies to prevent ISIS and their operatives from being able to use the Internet to radicalize, even direct people in our country and Europe and elsewhere.

But we also have to intensify our air strikes against ISIS and eventually support our Arab and Kurdish partners to be able to actually take out ISIS in Raqqa, end their claim of being a Caliphate.

We're making progress. Our military is assisting in Iraq. And we're hoping that within the year we'll be able to push ISIS out of Iraq and then, you know, really squeeze them in Syria.

But we have to be cognizant of the fact that they've had foreign fighters coming to volunteer for them, foreign money, foreign weapons, so we have to make this the top priority.

And I would also do everything possible to take out their leadership. I was involved in a number of efforts to take out Al Qaida leadership when I was secretary of state, including, of course, taking out bin Laden. And I think we need to go after Baghdadi, as well, make that one of our organizing principles. Because we've got to defeat ISIS, and we've got to do everything we can to disrupt their propaganda efforts online.


TRUMP: We came in with the Internet, we came up with the Internet, and I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what ISIS is doing with the Internet, they're beating us at our own game. ISIS.

So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is -- it is a huge problem. I have a son. He's 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly doable.

But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing. But that's true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester, and certainly cyber is one of them.

...

TRUMP: Well, first I have to say one thing, very important. Secretary Clinton is talking about taking out ISIS. "We will take out ISIS." Well, President Obama and Secretary Clinton created a vacuum the way they got out of Iraq, because they got out -- what, they shouldn't have been in, but once they got in, the way they got out was a disaster. And ISIS was formed.

So she talks about taking them out. She's been doing it a long time. She's been trying to take them out for a long time. But they wouldn't have even been formed if they left some troops behind, like 10,000 or maybe something more than that. And then you wouldn't have had them.

Or, as I've been saying for a long time, and I think you'll agree, because I said it to you once, had we taken the oil -- and we should have taken the oil -- ISIS would not have been able to form either, because the oil was their primary source of income. And now they have the oil all over the place, including the oil -- a lot of the oil in Libya, which was another one of her disasters.

...

TRUMP: I think we have to get NATO to go into the Middle East with us, in addition to surrounding nations, and we have to knock the hell out of ISIS, and we have to do it fast, when ISIS formed in this vacuum created by Barack Obama and Secretary Clinton. And believe me, you were the ones that took out the troops. Not only that, you named the day. They couldn't believe it. They sat back probably and said, I can't believe it. They said...


Clinton's answer is clear, concise, and gives a point-by-point general strategy. For Trump, the closest we get to a concrete policy is the third excerpt. In particular, the part of the second excerpt where he claims we "should have taken the oil" is a baffling "WTF?" moment, because it makes no sense on any level. Firstly, he's suggesting we should have pillaged a country we ostensibly came to liberate of its resources. Secondly, ISIS's oil income comes primarily from fields in Syria. Thirdly, the war we fought last decade was in Iraq, not Syria.

This is the thing about Trump in general, not just last night. He spouts nonsense and gets a pass because the average voter doesn't care to pay attention to the specifics of what he says and proposes. Candidates are judged more on their appearance and mannerisms these days more than policy, because that kind of shallow garbage takes seconds to process rather than the hours that the former requires.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #2928  (isolation #2)  » Sun Oct 02, 2016 10:31 am

That NYT report is huge. Now we know why he won't release his tax returns.

Taxpayers have essentially been subsidizing Trump's horrible mismanagement of his casinos for decades.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3034  (isolation #3)  » Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:00 am

"A politician who endorses the primary opponent who beat him is just a shill." Or he's aware that Clinton is campaigning on one of the most liberal platforms in US history and that supporting her is a step towards achieving his goals.


Exactly. I don't think a lot of Sanders supporters understand how good a position they're in right now. You've got the whiny "Bernie-Or-Busters" who are vowing to stay home or protest vote of course, but even the sensible ones who have come to terms with compromising don't seem to realize it either.

Sanders did way better than expected in the primaries. His popularity forced the DNC to make a significant number of concessions to the progressive left in the Democratic platform. They got a seat at the table. If more Sanders supporters were more politically savvy, they'd realize that they should be doing absolutely everything possible to get Clinton elected, then position themselves as the "loyal opposition" in the government (in contrast to the GOP's "disloyal opposition"). Force the center-left Democratic establishment to work with them and make more concessions to an agenda of progressivism and social liberalism. Show that they're reliable and shouldn't be dismissed as irrelevant anymore by showing reliable voter turnout.

"Protest voting" or staying home instead undermines absolutely everything they've accomplished up to this point. They aren't a large enough faction to be a kingmaker - young voters are already notoriously unreliable in their turnout and the Clinton campaign has likely already accounted for a low turnout by millennials. If they risk a Trump election and lose, the center-left establishment won't say "Maybe we should have pandered more to the progressive left," they'll say "Those ungrateful morons spat in our face when we gave them a lot of concessions" and start pandering to the far larger and far more reliable center-right voter base. If Trump wins, it'll be the center-left positioning themselves as the sane alternative to the GOP, and the progressive left will yet again be relegated to the irrelevant and unreliable fringe.

But if they surprise everyone and turn out in droves to elect Clinton, they'll further solidify themselves as part of the coalition. They'll get a better seat at the table. You can better effect real change if you're seated at the table rather than impotently banging your fist on the locked door.

In other words, the progressive left needs to be a steady cog in the machine to effect real change. Hell, they can even be the squeaky wheel to get more grease. But if they decide to be the cog that stops working and grinds the entire machine to a halt, they won't get fixed, they'll get replaced.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3063  (isolation #4)  » Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:44 pm

Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3137  (isolation #5)  » Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:01 pm

In post 3130, theplague42 wrote:Clinton is the highest she's ever been in fivethirtyeight.com's polls-plus model, so by this point I think it's fairly safe to assume that Trump will not win, thank God. In addition, I think there's a significant rift in the Republican party now, which will hopefully prevent them from stonewalling Clinton like they did Obama. The Senate is looking shaky, which kinda sucks. It's still about 50-50 since I'm sure there's a lot of conservatives who won't vote for Trump but will still vote R down-ticket.


IIRC she was hitting the low 90s even in poll-plus back in August.

EDIT: I'm wrong that was now-cast
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3329  (isolation #6)  » Sat Oct 15, 2016 8:17 am

In post 3325, Kublai Khan wrote:
In post 3312, Shiro wrote:last thing [the media wants] right now is a reason to make Hillary campaign look bad.

Oh, fucking bullshit.

The media gains more if they report that things are very close and insinuate that people need to tune in regularly to see who is ahead each day.

Of the Hillary campaign looks good, it's because they are fucking good and competent at what they do and Republicans are a fucking mess in comparison.


The story that "sinks" the Clinton family is the Holy Grail of modern journalism. Which is half the reason why her bullshit "scandals" get so much focus all the damn time.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3816  (isolation #7)  » Wed Oct 19, 2016 9:39 pm

In post 3812, Elbirn wrote:I just skipped 20 pages of this thread was any of it worth reading?


Lots and lots of "the media is conspiring with Clinton and the DNC against Trump"
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9206  (isolation #8)  » Fri Dec 30, 2016 2:29 pm

In post 9205, Psyche wrote:yes wage slavery is bad how did we get to this


This idiot is trying to "Gotcha!" you. I'd advise you to stop engaging but it's a little late at this point.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9230  (isolation #9)  » Sun Jan 01, 2017 8:50 am

Donald Trump says he knows a lot about hacking and that the safest method of sending a message is via handwritten note by courier

Fun fact: this was how bin Laden communicated from his Abottobad compound. The one where we tracked him down and killed him.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9233  (isolation #10)  » Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:12 am

It's probably because Putin is following Foundations of Geopolitics to a T, with final goal being the reestablishment of Russia as a global hegemon and the destabilization of NATO. He's been gradually getting bolder over the past decade and the US has largely ignored him because he's only messed with immediate neighbors and traditional allies.

But this past year and a half he's taken a HUGE leap. He's actively annexed a swathe of Ukraine. He's covertly interfered with US elections and backed an extreme US nationalist movement. And now he's actively attempting to push Turkey out of NATO. Another NATO ally in Eastern Europe is probably next.

NATO is stronger than Russia by an exponential margin. We won the Cold War because the Soviets were also too weak to confront us overtly and so were forced to resort to covert or diplomatic subversive tactics to gain ground. We countered this by meeting every attempt and refusing to back down, which in turn forced the Soviets to back down each time, and ultimately we just had to wait them out because their economic system was unsustainable. We actually overdid it on the confrontation front (domino theory anyone?).

So electing a nationalistic, easily-manipulated candidate who explicitly included elements of Russian appeasement in his platform, antagonizes Western allies, expressed extreme anti-Chinese sentiments, nd openly praises the Russian dictator is absolutely concerning.
Last edited by Wraith on Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9235  (isolation #11)  » Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:50 pm

Jesus, when you think about it it's legitimately terrifying just how much global geopolitics have gone Putin's way the past 15 years.

The Iraq War will probably go down as the single worst geopolitical catastrophe of the 21st Century, probably the worst since the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, and it was a quagmire entirely of America's own making. It was an effort botched on every conceivable level, from the political lead-up to the actual war effort to the reconstruction. It crippled Iran's primary rival for regional hegemony and therefore empowered their efforts to achieve that regional hegemony. It, combined with the second wave of destabilization brought about by the Arab Spring (itself a reaction to decades of US geopolitical strategy in the region), directly led to the formation of IS and the ongoing anarchy in Iraq and Syria. It shook global faith in American leadership, threw gas on the fire of anti-Americanism, and erased any sort of global sympathy we incurred as a result of the 9/11 attacks. And finally, it led to a pendulum swing where the American people lost their collective stomach for any sort of military conflict or intervention that would result in the loss of further American lives or prestige.

So essentially, the consequences of it were enormously pro-Russian on an unbelievable scale, and they didn't even have a hand in it occurring:

* Extremely severe blow to American prestige and diplomatic reputation
* Empowered Iran's influence in the Middle East, a key Russian ally
* Shook American morale for further military interventions, which combined with
* Distracted American military efforts with a Middle Eastern quagmire, ensuring Russia had a free hand against its neighbors in Georgia and Ukraine without fear of direct American military response or even saber-rattling

So then we get the Arab Spring in 2011, a reaction to the despotic regimes in many Middle Eastern/North African countries such as Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Yemen. In Egypt's case, Mubarak was a strongman directly backed by the US. He gets overthrown by popular revolution, and the Egyptians elect an Islamist faction as their new government. That faction is quickly overthrown in a military coup by Sissi, who's the current US-backed strongman. So we're back to square fucking one there. :roll:

So we stoke the fires in Libya and Syria against the respective Qaddafi and Assad regimes, which promptly backfired spectacularly. The former indirectly resulted in Donald Trump being elected president. The latter turns into a firestorm the magnitude of which doesn't become clear for another few years. Also in 2011, we pull our last troops out of Iraq, and Maliki immediately does the predictable thing and kicks out all the Sunnis from his government. So we've got a Syria in the midst of a civil war, and an Iraq that is extremely divided between a Sunni north and Shi'a south that fucking hate each other. Into the power vacuum of Syria emerges IS, which was born from a small seed created by Zarqawi in the wake of...you fucking guessed it, the invasion of Iraq. IS quickly asserts itself in western Syria, and eventually spills over the border into northern Iraq. The Sunnis in the north, who are feeling persecuted and marginalized after over a decade of sectarian conflict (which the US did little to nothing to prevent during its occupation) and then Maliki kicking them the fuck out of the government, flock to the IS banner en masse, the Iraqi military rapidly collapses, and Iraq is plunged into near-anarchy as IS overruns northern Iraq throughout 2014, and everyone starts freaking the fuck out.

So now the US is further discredited, and Russia and Iran get to flex their muscles in the region by intervening - both directly and indirectly - in both Iraq and Syria throughout 2015-2016. Of course, the extent of Russian direct intervention is Syria amounts to crushing the anti-Assad rebel faction remnants, securing Assad's place on the top once again, and promptly leaving, all the while leaving IS the fuck alone because they can.

The anarchy in Iraq, Syria, and Libya leads to an enormous influx of Muslim refugees into Europe. This sparks a new wave of anti-Muslim prejudice and right-wing nationalism in Europe. This combines with the still-ongoing fallout of the 2008 Recession as several weaker European economies such as Spain and Greece face massive debt crises and have to be bailed out by the EU, primarily Germany. This further enrages the flames of right-wing nationalism and protection as there's heavy backlash against the EU.

As IS starts losing ground to the US-led coalition, they start getting desperate. Throughout 2015-2016, a series of largely disorganized terror attacks rip across the European landscape, carried out by Muslim citizens of European countries ensnared and indoctrinated by IS propaganda. The firestorm of European nationalism starts raging further.

All of this directly leads to the 2015 Scottish referendum in the UK. Scotland narrowly votes to remain in the UK, largely because they benefit quite a bit from EU membership and the economic uncertainty of leaving the UK and being forced to reapply for Scotland's entry into the EU as a sovereign nation itself is too risky. Of course, this promptly backfires a year later when the Brexit referendum passes, which essentially placed a massive cache of gunpowder right next to an already-raging inferno. UK courts and politicians are fighting tooth and nail to stop this disastrous course of events as moronic right-wing English voters try to shoot their own damn femoral artery and isolate themselves from the continent.

So, amidst all the chaos of the US being distracted by the Middle Eastern quagmire and Europe racing each other to see who can eat their own feet the fastest, Putin sees an opportunity. In 2014, the pro-Russian president of Ukraine (Viktor Yanukovych) is overthrown by a popular revolt, and he flees to Russia. The new Ukrainian government seeks closer ties to the EU and NATO. Putin backs a pro-Russian faction of eastern Ukrainian separatists, and directly intervenes to annex Crimea and the vital Russian-leased naval base at Sevastopol, as well as stymie Ukrainian government efforts to put down the separatist rebellion. The US puts economic sanctions on Russia in response that are somewhat effective.

Also in 2014, Recep Tayyip Erdogan is elected President of Turkey. Erdogan is a right-wing Turkish nationalist and Islamist, and had served as Prime Minister since 2003. Erdogan had been cultivating his party's power and influence for decades, weakening political opponents and attempting to introduce Islamist elements to the traditionally-secular Turkish government. He has been very successful in this regard, curbing civil liberties as a result of popular protests against his regime, and purging political opponents from the army, an institution which has traditionally stepped in to overthrow the government and restore secular rule when they felt that was being threatened. Turkey has been rocked by recent instability as well due to the unrest of the Kurdish population in the southeast (resulting recently from the Iraq War and IS conflict) and the Syrian refugee crisis, which only serves as further pretense for Erdogan's nationalistic, autocratic rule. In 2016, a poorly-planned and organized coup was launched by a faction within the Turkish military. Erdogan pinned the blame for the coup on the Gulen movement (whose leader is living in exile in the US) and used the pretense to further purge the army and government of political opponents. In December, the Russian ambassador to Turkey is assassinated by an off-duty cop who expressed sympathies for anti-Assad rebels in Syria as motive. Putin is attempting to foster closer ties to Turkey as a result in an attempt to alienate the key US ally from the US and NATO.

And now we turn to the US again. The 2008 Recession rocked the American economy but resulted in no meaningful socioeconomic reform or regulation. In 2009, Senator Ted Kennedy dies suddenly, turning a narrow Democratic majority in the Senate into a deadlock; the balance is further tipped toward the Republicans when Scott Brown wins Kennedy's vacant seat in a surprise upset. This results in extensive damage to President Obama's attempts to push through comprehensive health care reform, and the result is a crippled version of the original vision as the Republicans refuse to accept a public option in any form (fucking Lieberman). In 2010, anti-Obama, anti-government sentiment stoked by influential financial elites and conservative media led to the Republicans sweeping into control of Congress. They proceed to stonewall every Obama-led initiative and continue to consolidate their power at the state and local levels in subsequent election cycles, greatly aided by their control of Congress in a census year. The anti-government sentiment mutates into an extreme nationalistic fervor due to the fallout from the firestorm in the Middle East. In 2016, Donald Trump is elected president riding this wave of extreme nationalism and conservatism.

The fuel for this right-wing nationalism in America comes from many sources. Chief among them is racial tension due to white resentment attitudes in response to the BlackLivesMatter movement, illegal immigration of Mexican Hispanics, and a resurgence in Islamic extremism and terrorism. Also prominent astroturfing efforts by big businesses interests, due to a failure (or active suppression) to learn any lessons from the 2008 Recession (the Dow Jones Industrial Average is currently 25% higher than it was prior to the crash in 2008, yet economic uncertainty has been a driving force behind the support of Trump). And finally, we're currently in a cultural zeitgeist of extreme 1980s nostalgia that has been ongoing for some time.

Russia directly interfered with American elections in support of Trump, using WikiLeaks as a "front man." Why? Because Trump is Putin's dream candidate. Trump's rhetoric and supporters strongly stoke racial divisions in this country. Trump expressed extreme anti-Chinese sentiments, to the point that a trade war (not meaning a shooting war) and recession as a result of extremely clumsy protectionist policies looks likely - China is viewed as a chief opponent to Russian interests by the Putin regime. Trump expressed views that NATO was obsolete and that the US under him might not be willing to meet its defense obligations under certain circumstances (!!!!!!!!). Trump's platform and rhetoric expressed an intent to recognize Crimea as sovereign Russian territory. Trump also surrounds himself with sycophants and is very easily manipulated.

Yeah, take it all in. And this is probably only surface-level analysis. 2016 was probably an extremely pivotal year regarding the future of Europe specifically and the West failed miserably.

This post got way longer than I initially intended.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9242  (isolation #12)  » Sun Jan 01, 2017 2:18 pm

In post 9238, theplague42 wrote:I'm still amazed that the Republican Party is so skilled as it is in political maneuvering and public opinion manipulation. To me, it seems like they've basically pulled off a silent coup in the last 8 years, after screwing up as much as possible (not that the male Clinton helped all that much) during the 00s. The American public keeps moving more and more left, but the Republicans hang on.

I'd be less worried if they hadn't blocked the Supreme Court nomination for almost an entire friggin' year. But they're being rewarded for sabotaging the government whenever they can. When one of the parties in a two-party system runs on the platform that government is bad and ineffective, what the hell do you think is going to happen?


It's because the Republicans understand that politics is a game of inches, and have been seizing an inch or two at every opportunity for over half a century. They've found a voter base that combines easily-manipulated and excessively self-interested people, and have spent decades indoctrinating them into believing that the enemies are the gates at all times and the end is nigh if they don't vote. And that base does.

It's like a discussion on the internet debating the policies of Trump and Clinton's respective platforms, and then some troll comes in and says "Hillary is a CRIMINAL and should be in PRISON!" Suddenly, the conversation is no longer about the contrasting platforms, it's about whether or not Hillary Clinton is a criminal. The troll has successfully shifted the playing field. You're fighting on ground of the troll's choosing now, not your own.

This is essentially what the Republican Party has done since 1964.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9243  (isolation #13)  » Sun Jan 01, 2017 2:21 pm

In post 9241, pisskop wrote:"your titties mean nothing, harlet"

p:

in order to achieve a truely goal oriented society the focus on immediate pleasures and whims must be constrained or tempered.

at the least, you cannot allow the people to run around willynilly asking for and getting bread and circuses.


and, we in America limit our supreme commander's power via election term limits. you need a specific vision to consistently guide..


A single 'virtuous' despot can rule better than any democratic counsel, and not only because he need not pander for absolutr populist support


Oh dear god, an actual fascist advocate of "enlightened despotism" in the wild.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9253  (isolation #14)  » Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:07 pm

In post 9248, pisskop wrote:
In post 9243, Wraith wrote:
In post 9241, pisskop wrote:"your titties mean nothing, harlet"

p:

in order to achieve a truely goal oriented society the focus on immediate pleasures and whims must be constrained or tempered.

at the least, you cannot allow the people to run around willynilly asking for and getting bread and circuses.


and, we in America limit our supreme commander's power via election term limits. you need a specific vision to consistently guide..


A single 'virtuous' despot can rule better than any democratic counsel, and not only because he need not pander for absolutr populist support


Oh dear god, an actual fascist advocate of "enlightened despotism" in the wild.

ewww.

I wonder, mr. scholar, how much time do you have that you can pop in to troll a social gaming site?


You know how I just talked about having a discussion on the internet and then a troll comes in and shifts the playing field? You just did that.

Though I'm probably guilty of doing that too. It's just that my first reaction on reading the first two sentences of that post was "fascist language alarm weeoo" and I left in the knee-jerk stream-of-consciousness for shits and giggles.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9255  (isolation #15)  » Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:19 pm

In post 9251, pisskop wrote:And

Andandand as overpopulation takes hold and technology allows the consolidation of the power of governance to a few, excluded members who may as well be a different species for all they share with the common man do you really see democracy as the viable source of governance?


Delegation. The ones at the top will have others below them who may or may not be elected by the people but will answer to them.


Corporations, should they ever establish a building out of any national lands, will effectively be an oligarchy with a focus on profit


Ugh, you sound like one of those Neo-reactionaries who advocate for (literally) corporate feudalism.

Feudalism went out of style centuries ago for a reason. Well, a lot of them.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9258  (isolation #16)  » Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:35 pm

What's your point?

Do you want me to write a manifesto and bomb immigrant children shoot up a school overthrow the bourgeoisie write a joke in poor taste?

I'm on a forum. I'm REplying to people.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9260  (isolation #17)  » Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:59 pm

In post 9257, ɀefiend wrote:Thanks Wraith for that summary.

I have always favored an Isolationist stance, although the Iraq War among other things have nullified that possibility for years now and years to come. I can understand the wariness with Russia thanks to your explanation, but I am now wondering what you think the US should do.

I mean, the US is just as privy to geopolitics, so isn't there a case to be made for being neutrally aligned [rivals] with Russia? The alternative is keeping relations stiff and engaging in covert ops, possibly including cyber-warfare.


Isolationism is impossible in this day and age where all economies are inseparably connected. If the US doesn't exert its influence as global hegemon, the alternative is either someone else who is certainly much worse or a multipolar world where ruthlessly exploitative colonial empires vie for dominance and millions die in petty struggles every few years.

But yeah it's hard to decide what to do about Russia since the US projecting power into the former Soviet republics is hard by itself even without the US screwing itself over by going to war in the Middle East under fraudulent pretense.

But your mistake is in assuming it's the US that is the instigator of friction. It's not. Our politicians would probably be just fine if Russia wanted to merely do whatever they wanted in their own borders, especially if they wanted to make some money with some US companies and that sweet, sweet free trade. Yeah we'd tut tut about some inevitable minor human rights abuses but we have to keep up appearances after all. Just look at our relationship with China - we'll pal around with old enemies and authoritarian regimes if it means sweet, sweet dividends for us.

The problem is that Russia isn't okay with just being a supporting character in America's escapist action fantasy. At least not under Putin. They remember the glory days they pretended they were our equals in power and given respect by the world. Putin wants that and more, and the Russian people cheer him on because it distracts them from their own social dysfunction (remind you of anyone else?).

But personally I think the best way to go is harsh economic sanctions. I'm not as informed on that topic as I should be but from what I've heard the sanction we put I place after Russia invaded Ukraine have been fairly effective.

But that's not gonna happen now lol
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9270  (isolation #18)  » Sun Jan 01, 2017 5:36 pm

In post 9264, theplague42 wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.

You were right the first time, Wraith.


I don't have enough context on him to judge if the label is applicable.

Fascist has a rather strange yet specific definition, as odd as that may seem, since the flavor of a fascist ideology is largely derived from its culture of origin. Hence why Italian, Spanish, and German fascism were similar but not identical. I tend to use Umberto Eco's essay on "Ur-Fascism" as my go-to reference.

But that said, the more he posts the more the label does seem applicable. People aren't tools of the state.

It reminds of my own years as an edgy Rand-influenced teenage fascist.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10182  (isolation #19)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:21 am

In post 10179, karnos wrote:
In post 10176, Psyche wrote:
In post 10174, karnos wrote:If you think that race is irrelevant and people of all races are capable of obtaining proper ID, the argument falls apart.

wrong


So everyone has a valid ID, how exactly is the voter ID law hurting minorities (or anyone else)?

The argument only works if you are assuming some group (minorities, duh) are incapable of obtaining IDs.


It works if you have rudimentary critical thinking skills.

1. Black people are more likely to be impoverished than white people
2. Black people are more likely to live in densely-populated urban areas (due to a myriad of historical and racist factors)
3. Impoverished people are less likely to own an automobile than non-impoverished people, due to a combination of inability to purchase (due to impoverishment and/or racist/predatory loaning practices) and lack of need due to living in dense urban areas
4. Impoverished people are less likely to have completed their education
5. Impoverished people are more likely to have received a sub-standard education
6. Impoverished people are more likely to work a low-paying hourly job(s)

THEREFORE

7. Black people are less likely to have or need a Driver's License, which is the most common form of photo identification (coincidentally, proposals to institute a mandatory national ID card program are frequently criticized by those with anti-government views as "Orwellian"). This is because they do not need cars because they live in urban areas and can walk or bike to work, and/or because they cannot afford a vehicle because of their low income. Additionally, applying for, testing for, and receiving a Driver's requires two things - a rudimentary education, and a considerable time investment. Black people are less likely to have either of these things - the former due to poorly-funded inner city school systems (Starve the Beast!) and self-defeating education legislation (No Child Left Behind); the latter due to being forced to work considerable hours at a low-paying job or jobs in order to make ends meet.

SO

1. Black people are less likely to have a Driver's License, the most common form of photo identification
2. "Voter ID" laws require possession of a form of photo identification

THEREFORE

3. Black people are more likely to be targeted and affected by "Voter ID" laws

SO

1. Black people are more likely to be affected by "Voter ID" laws
2. "Voter ID" laws are more likely to be instituted in traditionally conservative states in the American South
3. "Voter ID" laws are more likely to be instituted by state-level Republican lawmakers

THEREFORE

4. Black people are more likely to be targeted by Republican lawmakers in traditionally conservative states in the American South by "Voter ID" laws

It is literally just a new form of Jim Crow. Jim Crow involved provisions written into state constitutions intended to exclude black people from elections under the guise of "qualifying the electorate." Such measures included a literacy test and a poll tax. Because these measures blanket-targeted impoverished Americans in these southern states, poor whites were excluded from these restrictions by means of the "grandfather clause" - if your grandfather was qualified and eligible to vote, then you are by extension qualified and eligible to vote. Coincidentally, these grandfathers lived during the antebellum South, and were almost exclusively white, since the black Southerners were, well, slaves.

Voter suppression along racial lines isn't going to involve a law that literally says "Black people can't vote lol." They have to make up an excuse to indirectly exclude them from the conversation, so that gullible "useful idiots" or actively malicious operatives can point and say "We're not suppressing black people. We're just qualifying the electorate!" and wash their hands of the whole thing. Use your brain.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10197  (isolation #20)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:06 pm

In post 10188, karnos wrote:
In post 10186, Psyche wrote:
In post 10183, karnos wrote:I said: "The argument only works if you are assuming some group (minorities, duh) are incapable of obtaining IDs."

You proceeded to show me how you think certain blacks are incapable of obtaining IDs.

Thank you for proving my point, but I still think it's a racist argument to say that black people can't obtain an ID.

And FYI, every state has an ID card option. You don't need to pass a driving test to get an ID card.

This is because you moved the goalposts. Before you were claiming obama believes minorities are incompetent/lazy.


There is no legal restriction on minorities obtaining ID cards. Incompetence or laziness are really the only two possibilities, no?

I am excluding the possibility that Obama would suggest the blatantly illegal idea that illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote, as much as I disagree with him I don't think his corruption goes that far.

Do you have another explanation as to why a minority individual would be unable to obtain an ID?


lol

You really are like a vending machine of classic Republican rhetoric. How many quarters do I have left?
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10199  (isolation #21)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:08 pm

Meh, it's more he doesn't have any actual arguments to fall back upon so he's just filling the thread with nonsense. It's the patented Trump Troll strategy.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10207  (isolation #22)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:38 pm

In post 10206, Davsto wrote:
In post 10204, karnos wrote:
In post 10199, Wraith wrote:Meh, it's more he doesn't have any actual arguments to fall back upon so he's just filling the thread with nonsense. It's the patented Trump Troll strategy.


What argument do I need to fall back on? My original argument is still 100% valid.

Did you see Davsto's wall explaining how minorities are lazy & incapable of getting an ID? Isn't that exactly what I said Obama meant?

I mean, I joke about you being incapable of basic reading comprehension, but man if that's what you derived from my post you're either in need of serious lessons or just a troll who's attempting to get the worst possible meaning to inflame the argument further.

I'll leave it up to you to decide which one I believe.


His post left me fucking weak. That's probably the funniest thing I'll see all day.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10213  (isolation #23)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:55 pm

In post 10209, karnos wrote:
In post 10206, Davsto wrote:I mean, I joke about you being incapable of basic reading comprehension, but man if that's what you derived from my post you're either in need of serious lessons or just a troll who's attempting to get the worst possible meaning to inflame the argument further.

I'll leave it up to you to decide which one I believe.


You are the one insisting that blacks are incapable of obtaining a $13 (or free) ID card.


His point is that you're not reading opposing arguments at all and you're just making shit up based on classic conservative rhetoric in a poor attempt to simultaneously discredit the opposing argument and keep up the appearance that you yourself have an actual argument.

He's 100% correct, it is easily verifiable how he is, and you haven't even noticed what you did wrong yet.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10218  (isolation #24)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:03 pm

In post 10214, karnos wrote:A little reality check.

Only 55% of eligible voter aged people voted in the election. A lot of people aren't voting because they don't care, or they don't think their vote matters. This isn't a problem with blacks being unable to get an ID card, that is just fake news. Nearly half the eligible voting population chooses not to vote, and it's not all minorities.

What it really is, is that democrats are pissed off that Trump can get away with threatening to deport illegal immigrants. They wish that the "illegal vote" had more strength in the election, and hope that if states don't have voter ID laws illegal immigrants will be able to get away with voting. Obviously they will never admit to this, but it's the most obvious motive for this behavior.


What motivates individual people to vote or not vote in a given election has no bearing on whether or not "voter ID" laws are discriminatory.

It's also baffling that you think illegal immigrants have any direct influence, real or theoretical, on the American voting process. If they are in the country illegally (especially keeping in mind that more deportations occurred under Obama than Bush), why would illegal immigrants stick their necks out to vote illegally? Doing so would be a shining a beacon down on people who are trying to keep their heads down.

In b4 "liberal conspiracy"
Last edited by Wraith on Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10219  (isolation #25)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:04 pm

In post 10217, karnos wrote:
In post 10213, Wraith wrote:
In post 10209, karnos wrote:
In post 10206, Davsto wrote:I mean, I joke about you being incapable of basic reading comprehension, but man if that's what you derived from my post you're either in need of serious lessons or just a troll who's attempting to get the worst possible meaning to inflame the argument further.

I'll leave it up to you to decide which one I believe.


You are the one insisting that blacks are incapable of obtaining a $13 (or free) ID card.


His point is that you're not reading opposing arguments at all and you're just making shit up based on classic conservative rhetoric in a poor attempt to simultaneously discredit the opposing argument and keep up the appearance that you yourself have an actual argument.

He's 100% correct, it is easily verifiable how he is, and you haven't even noticed what you did wrong yet.


I'm quoting his words, I am missing nothing.

Black people are more likely to be impoverished than white people
2. Black people are more likely to live in densely-populated urban areas (due to a myriad of historical and racist factors)
3. Impoverished people are less likely to own an automobile than non-impoverished people, due to a combination of inability to purchase (due to impoverishment and/or racist/predatory loaning practices) and lack of need due to living in dense urban areas
4. Impoverished people are less likely to have completed their education
5. Impoverished people are more likely to have received a sub-standard education
6. Impoverished people are more likely to work a low-paying hourly job(s)


The first point is crucial. This allows him to sub Impoverished when he means black. Essentially Davsto is saying blacks don't own cars, don't complete school, and work low paying jobs. Funny enough, he said the same thing twice for each point (example: less likely to have completed their education/more likely to have received a sub-standard education) so it looks like a longer list, but it's really just a lot of filler.

It comes down to Davsto being a huge racist, claiming blacks can't get good jobs, don't own cars, and are uneducated. If you can read the above quote and come to another conclusion, please enlighten me, because I'm just interpreting the meaning of the words he wrote.


No, the thing you missed is that Davsto was literally copy-pasting what I had just posted as a joke at your expense, and you're now quoting it back to me as if I have no idea what Davsto said.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10224  (isolation #26)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:14 pm

In post 10221, Persivul wrote:
In post 10213, Wraith wrote:His point is that you're not reading opposing arguments at all and you're just making shit up based on classic conservative rhetoric in a poor attempt to simultaneously discredit the opposing argument and keep up the appearance that you yourself have an actual argument.

Referring to an argument as "classic conservative rhetoric" is an attempt to discredit the opposing argument. Amazing that you culdn't see that as you typed it.


I mean, that's true. But I don't really take inherently disingenuous, canned arguments seriously, and I'll call them out accordingly. There are valid arguments that can be made from a conservative standpoint, karnos just doesn't use them for reasons I can only speculate upon.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10257  (isolation #27)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:54 pm

In post 10248, Psyche wrote:
In post 10199, Wraith wrote:Meh, it's more he doesn't have any actual arguments to fall back upon so he's just filling the thread with nonsense. It's the patented Trump Troll strategy.

it's so bizarre
trump has already won
what is the point of acting he still must be fought for


This is the way polarizing topics like this have always been. For practically everyone, politics is essentially a proxy battle for your soul. No, seriously.

You, presumably, believe you are a Good Person. Because you are a Good Person, you consider your own political beliefs to be the Right Way. Your opponents are the Bad People, and they believe in the Wrong Way.

Now, copy-paste this with a Trump supporter. To them, they are the Good People and you are the Bad People. To admit Trump or the Republicans might be wrong, is to admit that they are actually the Bad People. Realizing in hindsight that you are, in your own simplistic worldview, a Bad Person can be an existentially terrifying experience. Thus, most people in general want to avoid that experience at all costs. It does not help that today more than ever there is little to no nuance in arguing politics, especially in public.

Now combine that with the fire-and-brimstone Christianity of the Religious Right. If you are a Bad Person, you're going to Hell after you die. Death is not an escape. You must be a Good Person to get into Heaven.

But, no matter what, there's always that sliver of doubt. What if you reach St Peter at the Pearly Gates and he tells you "Sorry mate but that thing you thought was Right? It was Wrong. You're the Bad Person now"? Are you doomed? Well, you can say "I didn't know. I thought I was Right based on what I knew at the time." If you can successfully argue from ignorance, that's doing Wrong in innocence, and you get a free pass.

So all those eggheads saying climate change is man-made? They have some kind of financial incentive to make those arguments (ignore the oil companies who spend millions lobbying our representatives!). Those people saying racism is still alive and well? They're the real racists because they're "causing division" (ignore those voter ID laws our representatives are implementing that target black people with "surgical precision"). Those journalists saying Trump has very close and suspicious ties to Russia? They're spreading "fake news" because they have a political agenda (ignore that the "fake news" craze because a nutty conspiracy theorist was told the Clintons were running a pedophilia ring out of his local pizza joint and decided to shoot it up).

But that's just the way I see it. I'm one of the Good People after all.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10262  (isolation #28)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:43 pm

In post 10260, kuribo wrote:
In post 10258, shaft.ed wrote:
In post 10257, Wraith wrote:To admit Trump or the Republicans might be wrong, is to admit that they are actually the Bad People.

I can make a very long list of everything I found wrong with Hillary Clinton if you really want me to waste my time doing so

I've never once voted for someone I thought was infallible



I could make a list too but I keep getting told it's white privilege and sexism


I could make a list of why American progressives keep failing but I keep getting told I'm a shill for the DNC
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10286  (isolation #29)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:50 pm

In post 10284, shaft.ed wrote:
In post 10280, Shaziro wrote:
In post 10279, shaft.ed wrote:Also how would we rule out all the convicted felons?

^A thing I have never understood the argument for^

Not that I think you're arguing for it, but I have never understood why people do.

they're the reason for the War on Drugs (TM)


Didn't you hear? Racism is dead!

That's why the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 mandated the same sentence for possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine or 500 grams of powder cocaine. And then the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 changed it so mandatory first-offense sentencing only applied to possession of crack cocaine.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10289  (isolation #30)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:02 pm

In post 10287, Accountant wrote:wait I hate racism and all but what does crack/powder cocaine have to do with race


One is cheaper
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10292  (isolation #31)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:20 pm

In post 10290, Accountant wrote:
In post 10289, Wraith wrote:
In post 10287, Accountant wrote:wait I hate racism and all but what does crack/powder cocaine have to do with race


One is cheaper

???????


Incarceration rates of black males exploded between 1985-1995
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10294  (isolation #32)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:27 pm

In post 10293, Untrod Tripod wrote:
In post 10287, Accountant wrote:wait I hate racism and all but what does crack/powder cocaine have to do with race
cocaine is a rich person drug


you ruin everything UT
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10368  (isolation #33)  » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:29 pm

In post 10357, zoraster wrote:Is there somewhere, outside of a screenshot, that shows that was actually in the report?


It's very obviously not in the report. None of the pages are headed by "TOP SECRET INTELLIGENCE REPORT (CONT.)" which is a laughable attempt at imitation.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10369  (isolation #34)  » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:30 pm

In post 10367, chamber wrote:This is why people don't like you. Both sides are wrong and have faults. When we are wrong you love rubbing it in our faces. When you are wrong, you love rubbing it in our faces.


He very obviously doesn't care, and revels in his own ignorance and bigotry. Which is why you should only bother engaging him if you want a laugh.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10374  (isolation #35)  » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:55 pm

In post 10371, Untrod Tripod wrote:wait, when was the original thing confirmed as fake?


It wasn't, the information (on Trump in particular) is just unverified.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10375  (isolation #36)  » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:57 pm

4chan does this a lot, when something big comes out that goes against one of their pet causes. They make very bad imitations of the thing they're trying to discredit, spread it across social media as "TOTALLY FAKE THING PROVEN FAKE", then when no legitimate media organization is fooled they spread memes everywhere saying "SEE HOW 4CHAN FOOLED THE CROOKED MEDIA LELELELELEL"

It's all to convince gullible idiots on social media that the whole thing was a 4chan prank all along.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10391  (isolation #37)  » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:17 pm

In post 10390, Lurker wrote:Besides, the "real news" (This is not a position regarding previous posts) is these confirmation hearings right now. At least that's what I'm trying to focus on.


Really the only takeaways are that Mattis is the only sane appointee, Ben Carson really doesn't want the job, and the rest are just typical GOP slimeballs. Or corporate billionaires like Tillerson.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10401  (isolation #38)  » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:24 pm

In post 10398, Political Clout wrote:
In post 10396, Psyche wrote:which do you think is more likely:
donald ran for president to get revenge on obama
donald ran for president to promote his brand


President elect Trump was supremely popular in the 80s. And was speculated that he might run was even on Oprah. What you are saying is demonstrably false. Like Ronald Reagan or JFK. They had more to lose than to gain by running. Being in the public eye and being examined so closely i.e their business. His empire is already made. He is a billionaire. The assumption that promoting his brand would make him more money is fallacious in the sense that President Elect Trump deals in real estate. It's not something middle class americans are interested in. Well not his type of realestate. Your way of thinking shows your mindset. That of child.


So popular that when he tried to use the USFL as a means to cheat his way into a cheap NFL franchise jury nullification occurred specifically to screw him over because they thought he was so slimy.

Truly a statement on our culture these days that Americans were better at spotting transparently greedy narcissistic billionaires in the freaking '80s than today.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10409  (isolation #39)  » Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:55 pm

In post 10406, Tere wrote:
In post 10386, karnos wrote:
In post 10374, Wraith wrote:
In post 10371, Untrod Tripod wrote:wait, when was the original thing confirmed as fake?


It wasn't, the information (on Trump in particular) is just unverified.


Wrong, it was confirmed false. For example, Michael Cohen's passport has verified that he wasn't in the reported city at the time- in fact he has never been there in his entire life. It's all fake.


Source please? I mean, he's posted a picture of the cover of his passport on Twitter, but that proves nothing? (I could do that and say I've never been to Japan (spoiler: I have) )


Oh good so I'm not just Twitter-illiterate.
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10428  (isolation #40)  » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:54 pm

In post 10425, karnos wrote:Image

There is hope in the next generation.


Oh did you make that yourself?
Show

Wraith
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: May 29, 2010
Location: East Coast
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10460  (isolation #41)  » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:27 pm

In post 10456, Kublai Khan wrote:Why does karnos take anti-Trump news so personally? Why does he boast about Trump's "accomplishments" as if they are his own?


He's battling for his soul. On the internet, I guess.
Show


[ + ]

Return to General Discussion