Donald Trump discuss

[MisterDom]

If anyone can give me a solid argument that Trump is racist that is completely rooted in facts, I'll accept it. Until then, don't call him racist unless you actually know your crap.

There is no such thing as an objective, unbiased view in politics. Sorry.

To defend my quote "from an unbiased standpoint", I am biased. I was ORIGINALLY not biased, and other friends who were also originally unbiased came to the same conclusion. Clinton was better than Trump. We're biased now, but we weren't a while ago. Hope that clears the misunderstanding.

And to the arguement: Trump's announcement speech when he declared his run for the presidency varies in the degree of racism among people's views, and for an acceptable (enough) reason: he was talking about illegal immigrants. However, if you don't admit that what he said at that moment is a bit offensive then you clearly lack kind morals. I know some people don't like political correctness but our world is the one we live in: there's a reason it exists, and there is a limit to how far you go until your words are offensive, if not racist. You don't get to make that line. Not even a specific person can make that line. I'm Jewish, but I can't say what's anti-semitic or not.

But again, some see it as not racist. Understandable. However, that's not the most offensive thing he said about Mexicans.

The most offensive thing wasn't even about an illegal immigrant. He said (or tweeted... can't remember) that a court case can't be decided by a Mexican judge (born in U.S.) because the judge would be biased against him for all the offensive stuff he has said about illegal immigrants, which is the most bull**** cover-up I've ever heard of when he defended his original statement, which he didn't defend originally.

Judges look at the law, whether they like you or not, or agree with you or not, and thinking all Mexicans hate you is stereotypical itself. You also see the same things happen at his own rallies: throwing his fans out because he thought they were protesters.

He's over-exaggerated the poverty blacks live in, has tweeted anti-semitic comments (don't defend them because her daughter converted to Judaism), has a literal WHITE SUPREMECIST as a chief advisor (who would want a white supremecist for a chief advisor?) that has said there's "too many Asian CEOs," said awful things about muslims, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on... why do you think the alternative-right love him so much and a wave of hate crime has been released onto America?

Lets get on to the sexist comments, because you originally said he isn't sexist. You're an IDIOT if you don't think he's sexist:

"Sometimes I just start kissing her. I don't even wait, I move on them like a *****.. and when you're a star they let you do it ... grab them by the *****." - 45th president of The United States, Donald J. Trump

What he describes is SEXUAL ASSUALT. Now you'll swiftly shift the blame on Hillary's husband Bill Clinton for his "sexual assaults" to justify this because you know it always clears up his sins, right? Wrong! You CAN'T justify them because 1) it doesn't clear the fact up he said these things, and 2) Bill Clinton has ONE claim on his sexual assault "experiences" (most of these "experiences" were only affairs) lacking clear evidence. Trump has what... 9 or more? Some also lacking evidence, true, but regardless, a bigger number PLUS all the comments he's actually said about women.

If you then swiftly say it was "just locker-room talk," than you clearly lack an open mind. I've been in the locker room, and we never said **** like that. We did say some personal things, but never something that was so disgusting. It's the worst excuse in the history of politics in any sort of state/nation EVER! When he got out of the "locker-room" he walked up to some girl and was a little touchy, which also proves it wasn't just "locker-room talk."

Let's not mention how he runs his beauty pageants ("inspects the room making sure everything is fine" but gets to see some of these women unclothed which is the ACTUAL reason he's in the locker room), or hired/fired women for their beauty, and approved several anti-women slogans against Hillary, has TWEETED some sad and frankly misogynistic statements, and etc.

After all of that, and you still don't think he's sexist, you clearly don't even know what sexism is, and/or don't believe in factual evidence. Hope this proved what you wanted to be proven.

 

[FlusteredBat]

So the supposed evidence which "proves" that Trump is racist basically amounts to treating blacks and hispanics exactly as he would anyone else under the same circumstances. Well done.

"Failure"

 

[FallenHero]

Why don't you like the electoral college?

Honestly after looking more into the electoral college I think it is a good thing.

 

[MisterDom]

So the supposed evidence which "proves" that Trump is racist basically amounts to treating blacks and hispanics exactly as he would anyone else under the same circumstances. Well done.

"Failure"

You obviously didn't read a single word I said, and would anyone be saying more than half of black people in this country are unemployed and have terrible schools? It isn't what you hear everyday, and it frankly isn't even true. Saying "you can't separate the good muslims from the bad" is ignorant. I appreciate that you view it as the best possible way to protect the country, but that also isn't true and wouldn't benefit anyone. You don't deny housing to black people: that's discrimination. You don't use what some people call a racial slur in a debate, that's insensitive and actually racist. If you think these things are normal things to say, then I'm sorry my friend, but YOU might also be racist.

And also, Robert Byrd regretted his decision in being involved in the KKK, and advised way after he left the klan to never join it, and don't be swayed to its ways like he was. And regardless, he has contributed greatly toward this country and for a SUPER long time; saying he has done service to this country doesn't associate yourself with a racist. Has has done a lot for this country, breaking two records for longest serving. Congressman (at the time) and longest serving senator (still keeps that record today). President Andrew Jackson has been a very influential figure, some good and some very bad, and there's a reason he's on the twenty dollar bill. Does saying that make me a racist? Are all Americans Nazis because it has good relations with Germany in the present day? It doesn't exactly work does it?

Meanwhile, Trump has ACTUALLY appointed a white supremacist named STEVE BANNON as a chief advisor, and Sen. Sessiosns as (a possible?) attorney general, who is pretty racist. I didn't even need to write to argument above: what you're saying is beyond hypocritical of Trump, if what you accused Hillary associating herself with the KKK was actually true, and it isn't.

I swear you people search for the most deep ammo you can find that actually isn't at all effective. I don't blame you guys for not having any good arguements because all the facts point against you, but at least don't argue **** as stupid as that lmfao XD.

 

[FlusteredBat]

You obviously didn't read a single word I said, and would anyone be saying more than half of black people in this country are unemployed and have terrible schools? It isn't what you hear everyday, and it frankly isn't even true. Saying "you can't separate the good muslims from the bad" is ignorant. I appreciate that you view it as the best possible way to protect the country, but that also isn't true and wouldn't benefit anyone. You don't deny housing to black people: that's discrimination. You don't use what some people call a racial slur in a debate, that's insensitive and actually racist. If you think these things are normal things to say, then I'm sorry my friend, but YOU might also be racist.

And also, Robert Byrd regretted his decision in being involved in the KKK, and advised way after he left the klan to never join it, and don't be swayed to its ways like he was. And regardless, he has contributed greatly toward this country and for a SUPER long time; saying he has done service to this country doesn't associate yourself with a racist. Has has done a lot for this country, breaking two records for longest serving. Congressman (at the time) and longest serving senator (still keeps that record today). President Andrew Jackson has been a very influential figure, some good and some very bad, and there's a reason he's on the twenty dollar bill. Does saying that make me a racist? Are all Americans Nazis because it has good relations with Germany in the present day? It doesn't exactly work does it?

Meanwhile, Trump has ACTUALLY appointed a white supremacist named STEVE BANNON as a chief advisor, and Sen. Sessiosns as (a possible?) attorney general, who is pretty racist. I didn't even need to write to argument above: what you're saying is beyond hypocritical of Trump, if what you accused Hillary associating herself with the KKK was actually true, and it isn't.

I swear you people search for the most deep ammo you can find that actually isn't at all effective. I don't blame you guys for not having any good arguements because all the facts point against you, but at least don't argue **** as stupid as that lmfao XD.

I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, but yeah, best not subject oneself to the hysterical ramblings of hypocrites and liars.

 

[MisterDom]

I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, but yeah, best not subject oneself to the hysterical ramblings of hypocrites and liars.

When you yield is when you know I'm right, and I'm sure most people who know a least a little English could reliably infer you were clearly talking about me. You sound like a toddler trying to cover up something that is clearly true, throwing random insults with no context, and not even making a defense because you can't.

 

[Rᴏb]

I never understood the locker room controversy. People bull**** with each other; what's the issue?

 

[FlusteredBat]

When you yield is when you know I'm right, and I'm sure most people who know a least a little English could reliably infer you were clearly talking about me. You sound like a toddler trying to cover up something that is clearly true, throwing random insults with no context, and not even making a defense because you can't.

Most people who aren't completely brainwashed by the mainstream media would see that you're giving yourself way too much credit.

We're not even debating here. You're just throwing holier-than-thou sentimental tantrums then posturing as if you've expressed some sort of scientific fact--exactly like any other leftist regressive rioting against Trump's legitimate victory.

 

[MisterDom]

Most people who aren't completely brainwashed by the mainstream media would see that you're giving yourself way too much credit.

We're not even debating here. You're just throwing holier-than-thou sentimental tantrums then posturing as if you've expressed some sort of scientific fact--exactly like any other leftist regressive rioting against Trump's legitimate victory.

We're not debating here because you can't respond to anything I'm saying, and you're not. I'm not throwing "holier/than-thou sentimental tantrums," I'm saying I'm right because I'm swatting every one of your petty counteraeguements that don't prove anything. You might think they're not facts because "they're from the mainstream media" but that simply isn't true. These facts ARE universal; Trump has praised authoritarian leaders and has said he didn't want to follow the Geneva Conventions and wanted to break apart NATO (previously) and said he wanted a temporary all Muslim ban on immigration. The mainstream media doesn't actually cover policy as much as you think; it isn't the best source of information, and policy is what I primarily made my decision by, so don't say I belong in this group of "sheeple." I didn't even follow the mainstream media, I followed reliable sources that I READ on BOTH candidates. You probably think I'm a smartass, but I guess that's also a fact.

And by the way, I lean only slightly liberal, and not enough to make me vote Democrat every time. That's why I previously said that I classify myself as an independent. You can't assume all my political views because I know your arguements are awful and I'm telling you.

And also, about the "riots":

Most of them aren't riots. Maybe like 5-10 out of what... ~150 protests turned violent? Most of them are actual protests, which I believe is legal according to the first amendment. I'm not endorsing violence, because it is unacceptable, but you can't classify all Hillary supporters as those who like to riot.

Anything else?

 

[Luigi#1]

Most people who aren't completely brainwashed by the mainstream media would see that you're giving yourself way too much credit.

We're not even debating here. You're just throwing holier-than-thou sentimental tantrums then posturing as if you've expressed some sort of scientific fact--exactly like any other leftist regressive rioting against Trump's legitimate victory.

You uh, got any points in this whole conversation or are you just gonna make a few quips at "Leftists" and link different crappy Youtube videos, because you aren't making yourself look extremely intelligent, or even remotely smart at all for that matter.

You haven't had any counter points to anything MisterDom has said, you just kinda brush his points and call him stupid. Use real points, not ad hominem.

 

[FlusteredBat]

You uh, got any points in this whole conversation or are you just gonna make a few quips at "Leftists" and link different crappy Youtube videos, because you aren't making yourself look extremely intelligent, or even remotely smart at all for that matter.

You haven't had any counter points to anything MisterDom has said, you just kinda brush his points and call him stupid. Use real points, not ad hominem.

Conservatives have been expressing their superior arguments against the globalist Marxist rot for decades now, but have been too cowardly to fight back against the endless barrage of verbal abuse coming from their emotionally ******** opposition (who have consequently gained a catastrophic level of hegemonic traction).

Trump's victory demonstrates that we're not just going to sit back and take it anymore. We don't play nice with b*tchy little manipulative a**holes who think they hold the moral high ground despite the world collapsing around them as a result of leftist ideology.

Stop being a useful idiot and learn some humility.

 

[Luigi#1]

Conservatives have been expressing their superior arguments against the globalist Marxist rot for decades now, but have been too cowardly to fight back against the endless barrage of verbal abuse coming from their emotionally ******** opposition (who have consequently gained a catastrophic level of hegemonic traction).

Trump's victory demonstrates that we're not just going to sit back and take it anymore. We don't play nice with b*tchy little manipulative a**holes who think they hold the moral high ground despite the world collapsing around them as a result of leftist ideology.

Stop being a useful idiot and learn some humility.

... You just did the thing I called you out on. Honestly I'm kind of astonished right now.
Thing is, like I said, you have no counter points, you really haven't said anything substantial. Your video says:

You're wrong therefore you are a moron is not an ad homenim attack... an ad homenim attack would be "you're a moron therefore you're wrong".

Let's examine a few of your posts.

These are your people.

Are you not embarrassed?

Do you feel no shame?

Stop trying to obscure truth with terms like "undocumented", say "illegal" because that's what they are.

Accusing Trump of racism (or any other toxic -ism) didn't work, you guys only succeeded in highlighting your own projected bigotry.

No actual points other than attacking the people opposing Trump. Didn't say anything about Trump himself, illustrating no point against the one you replied to. Just complained about his opposers.

I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, but yeah, best not subject oneself to the hysterical ramblings of hypocrites and liars.

Probably the most ad homenim statement of them all, post calls people hypocrites and liars without any clear points why.

Most people who aren't completely brainwashed by the mainstream media would see that you're giving yourself way too much credit.

We're not even debating here. You're just throwing holier-than-thou sentimental tantrums then posturing as if you've expressed some sort of scientific fact--exactly like any other leftist regressive rioting against Trump's legitimate victory.

"Most people who aren't completely brainwashed" is a clear insult, "would see that you're giving yourself way too much credit" is not a point. Same with the latter statement, which while tries to address the argument, doesn't point anything out, simply brushing points away as tantrums. Using general terms like "Leftist regressive" is really just an insult.

Conservatives have been expressing their superior arguments against the globalist Marxist rot for decades now, but have been too cowardly to fight back against the endless barrage of verbal abuse coming from their emotionally ******** opposition (who have consequently gained a catastrophic level of hegemonic traction).

Trump's victory demonstrates that we're not just going to sit back and take it anymore. We don't play nice with b*tchy little manipulative a**holes who think they hold the moral high ground despite the world collapsing around them as a result of leftist ideology.

Stop being a useful idiot and learn some humility.

It's the same stuff again. Continuous insults, no point against Trump, I think the summary of this post is "We're tired of being attacked by these [insert generic name calling here], so we won't take it."
There is no point here, and you literally call the opposition ********.


So from all this, all you've really said in your posts are insults towards people who oppose Trump, without any points about Trump himself. By not making points in support of Trump himself, and brushing off any anti Trump point with out counter points, and only insulting people making these points. This goes under the "you're a moron, therefore your wrong."

In conclusion, with all of these points I've shown to prove your using ad homenim, I believe I have earned the right to say;
You're wrong, therefore you are a moron.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Luigi#1

Bub, this thread has been up since last year and I've participated since page one. Your first feeble contribution is toward the end of page eight yet you swagger around as if you've long-established a rock-solid case which I'm failing to address.

You've got nothing, so stop making an unoriginal pretentious a*s of yourself.

EDIT: That goes for you as well, MisterDom

More food for thought...

 

[MisterDom]

Luigi#1

Bub, this thread has been up since last year and I've participated since page one. Your first feeble contribution is toward the end of page eight yet you swagger around as if you've long-established a rock-solid case which I'm failing to address.

You've got nothing, so stop making an unoriginal pretentious a*s of yourself.

Luigi#1 has just proven you're an idiot (just like everyone else who identifies in the alt-right, and how you talked even back in September 2015 sounds pretty close to that dangerous ideology-- don't say you're not), so you argue that he hasn't humiliated you all along? Dare I say it, but that's the worst arguement I heard from ANYONE who has defended Trump, or even Trump himself. All Luigi needed to prove that you're a ****ing idiot is all your ****ty defenses of Trump and your ****ty insults toward people who have proven you know next to nothing after the election, whom have been showing up for a small fraction of the time this thread has actually been being used. He deserves his "swagger" because unlike you who has been posting here since page 1 defending yourself, he has proven he is much more intelligent than you in one post.

You're also basically using ad hominem AGAIN because all you know how to "debate" is throw a random fragmented statement that is supposed to what? Hurt our precious little liberal feelings that can't take a race joke? Boo-hoo! I think I'm gonna cry all night because I can't take all the insults and it's sooo sad that we're not always politically correct and racists live in this country and someone doesn't know my proper pronoun 500% of the time and people say black instead of African-American and Gay instead of Homosexual and people celebrate Columbus Day and think every Muslim is terrorist and think Feminism is bad because they didn't like my no-shave statement and therefore hate women and people actually voted for Trump! WAAAAH!!!! WHY CAN'T PEOPLE JUST GET ALONG!!??



Instead being the one who is actually throwing the insults, actually debate the politics or don't discuss them if you don't know anything, and if you've proven something at all, it's that you don't know anything. Insults only make you look stupid. They don't work. Hence why I made fun of what you think liberals are like: you're not hurting my feelings and making people incapable of smiting your dumb***.

You my dear friend, have nothing.

Stop making yourself an unlimited supply of laughter against your ignorance and insecurity, unless you wish to entertain us to which I say, thank you!

 

[MetalFan13]

To defend my quote "from an unbiased standpoint", I am biased. I was ORIGINALLY not biased, and other friends who were also originally unbiased came to the same conclusion. Clinton was better than Trump. We're biased now, but we weren't a while ago. Hope that clears the misunderstanding.

And to the arguement: Trump's announcement speech when he declared his run for the presidency varies in the degree of racism among people's views, and for an acceptable (enough) reason: he was talking about illegal immigrants. However, if you don't admit that what he said at that moment is a bit offensive then you clearly lack kind morals. I know some people don't like political correctness but our world is the one we live in: there's a reason it exists, and there is a limit to how far you go until your words are offensive, if not racist. You don't get to make that line. Not even a specific person can make that line. I'm Jewish, but I can't say what's anti-semitic or not.

But again, some see it as not racist. Understandable. However, that's not the most offensive thing he said about Mexicans.

The most offensive thing wasn't even about an illegal immigrant. He said (or tweeted... can't remember) that a court case can't be decided by a Mexican judge (born in U.S.) because the judge would be biased against him for all the offensive stuff he has said about illegal immigrants, which is the most bull**** cover-up I've ever heard of when he defended his original statement, which he didn't defend originally.

Judges look at the law, whether they like you or not, or agree with you or not, and thinking all Mexicans hate you is stereotypical itself. You also see the same things happen at his own rallies: throwing his fans out because he thought they were protesters.

He's over-exaggerated the poverty blacks live in, has tweeted anti-semitic comments (don't defend them because her daughter converted to Judaism), has a literal WHITE SUPREMECIST as a chief advisor (who would want a white supremecist for a chief advisor?) that has said there's "too many Asian CEOs," said awful things about muslims, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on... why do you think the alternative-right love him so much and a wave of hate crime has been released onto America?

Lets get on to the sexist comments, because you originally said he isn't sexist. You're an IDIOT if you don't think he's sexist:

"Sometimes I just start kissing her. I don't even wait, I move on them like a *****.. and when you're a star they let you do it ... grab them by the *****." - 45th president of The United States, Donald J. Trump

What he describes is SEXUAL ASSUALT. Now you'll swiftly shift the blame on Hillary's husband Bill Clinton for his "sexual assaults" to justify this because you know it always clears up his sins, right? Wrong! You CAN'T justify them because 1) it doesn't clear the fact up he said these things, and 2) Bill Clinton has ONE claim on his sexual assault "experiences" (most of these "experiences" were only affairs) lacking clear evidence. Trump has what... 9 or more? Some also lacking evidence, true, but regardless, a bigger number PLUS all the comments he's actually said about women.

If you then swiftly say it was "just locker-room talk," than you clearly lack an open mind. I've been in the locker room, and we never said **** like that. We did say some personal things, but never something that was so disgusting. It's the worst excuse in the history of politics in any sort of state/nation EVER! When he got out of the "locker-room" he walked up to some girl and was a little touchy, which also proves it wasn't just "locker-room talk."

Let's not mention how he runs his beauty pageants ("inspects the room making sure everything is fine" but gets to see some of these women unclothed which is the ACTUAL reason he's in the locker room), or hired/fired women for their beauty, and approved several anti-women slogans against Hillary, has TWEETED some sad and frankly misogynistic statements, and etc.

After all of that, and you still don't think he's sexist, you clearly don't even know what sexism is, and/or don't believe in factual evidence. Hope this proved what you wanted to be proven.

You mad some really good points, and some, honestly, that I've never heard anyone make... usually people just use the same useless rhetoric about how he's racist and sexist... then when you ask them why they can't give an answer... that's what I'm used to with the people I'm around on a regular basis, so that's why I asked for a confirmation.

I totally respect your opinion, and your points are all absolutely true. As for the "locker room talk," I don't want to try to justify that at all. It was disgusting and wrong, and something no one should ever say. You do have to realize that if he said "they let you do it," it's not assault because the other party has given consent. Again, not trying to justify it at all. Just saying it's not quite as bad as people think. I guess that kind of contradicts itself, but you know what I mean.

You did kind of contradict yourself when you said that you don't get to decide what's anti-Semitic, then said that he has said anti-Semitic things, but I get what you were saying.

I will admit that he has said things that contain varying degrees of racism. However, I am pretty far from pro-Trump, I am just anti-Clinton. I think they both totally suck, but Clinton is worse. I would take a racist over a criminal any day.

Again, congrats on making a good argument, and I enjoyed actually having to think about my response.

 

[FallenHero]

You do have to realize that if he said "they let you do it," it's not assault because the other party has given consent.

Thank you! It really frustrated me how the media just conveniently decided to leave that part out or just not talk about it to create an agenda that he is misogynistic.

I will admit that he has said things that contain varying degrees of racism. However, I am pretty far from pro-Trump, I am just anti-Clinton. I think they both totally suck, but Clinton is worse. I would take a racist over a criminal any day.

I think the same thing as well. I am not sure we can really say Trump is racist or not, but he definitely should have someone else write his speeches so that he doesn't say even more ridiculous things.

Bub, this thread has been up since last year and I've participated since page one. Your first feeble contribution is toward the end of page eight yet you swagger around as if you've long-established a rock-solid case which I'm failing to address.

You've got nothing, so stop making an unoriginal pretentious a*s of yourself.

Your point is? If you don't want to bother arguing with them, then why even bother replying? All you are doing is making yourself look like a pretentious ass by acting as if your points mean more than someone else's just because you posted more. Most of us here are not going to bother going through all of your posts on this thread, so if you don't feel like reiterating the things you've already said I suggest you just don't reply to them or just quote yourself if you really feel the need to.

 

[Luigi#1]

You mad some really good points, and some, honestly, that I've never heard anyone make... usually people just use the same useless rhetoric about how he's racist and sexist... then when you ask them why they can't give an answer... that's what I'm used to with the people I'm around on a regular basis, so that's why I asked for a confirmation.

I totally respect your opinion, and your points are all absolutely true. As for the "locker room talk," I don't want to try to justify that at all. It was disgusting and wrong, and something no one should ever say. You do have to realize that if he said "they let you do it," it's not assault because the other party has given consent. Again, not trying to justify it at all. Just saying it's not quite as bad as people think. I guess that kind of contradicts itself, but you know what I mean.

You did kind of contradict yourself when you said that you don't get to decide what's anti-Semitic, then said that he has said anti-Semitic things, but I get what you were saying.

I will admit that he has said things that contain varying degrees of racism. However, I am pretty far from pro-Trump, I am just anti-Clinton. I think they both totally suck, but Clinton is worse. I would take a racist over a criminal any day.

Again, congrats on making a good argument, and I enjoyed actually having to think about my response.

Hey FlusteredBat take notes on an example of simple and civil conversation.
Also how many points I've made in the thread before this specific dispute is irrelevant. My point is how you were using faulty tactics to argue and you never used evidence, instead insulting others. I also pointed out most of your posts just include random Youtube videos that don't generally help much. Your response to me was literally everything I pointed out, crappy youtube videos and insults without evidence included. I've made a fair enough case in my second response to you, something you choose to ignore, perhaps because you know you are wrong, or really just want to be right. Probably both.

Also edit, the heck does calling me unoriginal even mean towards my argument? I'm genuinely confused at that one.

 

[SJMistery]

WAO. Calm down people. If you did not want this angelcakehole in the White House, just creste your own credible alternative, gang up all the minor candidates and parties, and help anybody you can to see that Republicans vs Democrates is not the only option. In short words, make sure nobody votes him again... Not like I care, living on the other side of the Atlantic, I have little influence on the results, minimal consequences, and even less responsibility for all that mess. But here on Catalunya, that's how we do it. And it normally works.

Kids, here is the reason politic debates are generally banned on the Internet.

EDIT: Insulting through MPs? Seriously FlusteredBat the only thing you can do left to prove all of us how biased you are is invoking the Godwin Law. If you are wrong and you know it, just accept it. Going offensive to try to discredit the opponent with insulting words or antagonizing it until it just thinks "okay, this guy is either a troll or a moron" and gives up on trying to get you out of your stubborn attempts to prove your stupidity...
That only proves to everybody how much you deserve a mute.

 

[Rᴏb]

Let's move on from FlusteredBat, the dude doesn't even know how to defend himself.


I'm still stuck on why people have such a huge issue with Trump shooting the **** with Billy Bush. People like to joke around and bull**** with each other. I think it's reasonable to assume that when someone talks about how much he likes to grab women's *******, or abruptly kiss them, they're clearly not being serious.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Let's move on from FlusteredBat, the dude doesn't even know how to defend himself.

Pay close attention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

(prediction)
"No!! You demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect, not me!!" -Rob

Blah blah blah...

 

[Rᴏb]

Pay close attention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

(prediction)
"No!! You demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect, not me!!" -Rob

Blah blah blah...

I haven't even asserted my false sense of superior intellect at all yet :^). I could do that for you now if it helps you feel less insecure about how everyone verbally **** on you earlier?

Or we could like, stay on topic and not feed our egos. Your call.

 

[FlusteredBat]

I haven't even asserted my false sense of superior intellect at all yet :^). I could do that for you now if it helps you feel less insecure about how everyone verbally **** on you earlier?

Or we could like, stay on topic and not feed our egos. Your call.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is quite relevant to the aftermath of Trump's victory--anyone with two brain cells could see that. Those brainwashed communist rioters and their gag-worthy chanting exemplify it.

Now, can anyone point out the "on topic" part of the post I'm replying to? Of course not.

 

[Sucumbio]

-_-

Ggs

Trump is a reality TV star. From the moment America first heard "You're fired" to right up until the election, we saw what? A man playing it up for the cameras. Big mouthed. I run ****. Exaggerated. Over the top. All an act!

Politics are about winning over. That's your job's first staple, staying employed. He saw an opportunity and went with it.

Now that he is actually in? He's suddenly surrounded by umpteen mini Trumps who all want "what's best for America." he's had to admit and back pedal and drop etc.

Clinton won't be prosecuted, an election promise.

He won't back out of the Climate talks,but he'll appoint a climate change denier to run the EPA (lolwut)

He won't seek to end gay marriage, but he'll push to reverse roe v wade by appointing prolife Judge to scotus

He won't deny Americans with pre existing health conditions coverage,and will even extend the parental umbrella to 30, but not before nixing the current aca and throwing 20 million people under the bus (while he grabs the cute passengers' by the... Sorry couldn't resist).

(this is a long list.)

You get the idea. I predict he'll be a sensation in the oval office. As in the reality show won't ever stop. But politically? Too many other cooks in the kitchen. Half, no 3/4 of the entire Legislative Branch are either Republican in name only or Old Guard, he won't have THAT easy a time.

His own transition team continues to in - fight.

He's already trying to placate everyone he's made promises to and realizing he can't. This isn't the first president to have this issue. They all have this issue.

As for the protests, just another day in 2016 America. Clinton herself has not bothered to challenge the results so the sooner people wrap their heads around the fact Trump is it, the better. It's their constitutional right to protest, absolutely. But it's really not worth it. Instead of holding demonstrations they could start thinking about who can run against him in 2020.

 

[Rᴏb]

The Dunning-Kruger effect is quite relevant to the aftermath of Trump's victory--anyone with two brain cells could see that. Those brainwashed communist rioters and their gag-worthy chanting exemplify it.

Now, can anyone point out the "on topic" part of the post I'm replying to? Of course not.

I was referring to my previous post, buddy. Anyone with two brain cells could see that .
No one has really been able to explain to me why the convo with Billy Bush was such a travesty.

 

[Luigi#1]

I was almost ready to block FlusteredBat but honestly his stupidity is becoming pretty entertaining. I've really said all I've had to about him and seemingly most every one else agrees.

As for Trump discuss itself, considering the fact that the President's main job is a figure head for other countries to see it's pretty damn obvious Trump already isn't a good President, looking at his foreign reputation. Right now we're almost seen as a laughing stock, but if by some miracle things actually improve under Trump (Unlikely but I'm hopeful) that should stop soon. However, right now Trump doesn't help our foreign reputation, and Trump's intense and boisterous personality is not the personality of a diplomat.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuokWjhkLws

This is mostly what my thoughts on the election overall are, we are stuck in a bad voting system with two parties running the show instead of being open to other ideas or candidates.

As good or bad as Trump will be he did one thing right in the election, he made himself memorable. Hillary's Slogan was, "I'm with her" vs Trump's "Make America Great Again." One is clearly better than the other and honestly this with how also how much the media put him in the spot light, for better or worse, made him stand out more than Hillary.

Hillary in a way also represents the establishment, something that voters made clear when they voted Trump they wanted to make changes to the system and have not been very happy with it. Exit polls pretty much showed with Trump that the massive amount of people that voted for him wanted something to change with the establishment.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/09/voters-want-change-not-ideology/

There are gender age and other differences that led to this in key states Florida, Wisconsin and many others flipped to the other party which did surprise me and apparently many others.

This election never should have been picking your poison between two candidates, never should have ever been that. But due to the system the parties use along with one being dishonest to push for Hillary over who was honestly the better candidate and more likely would have beaten Trump. Instead they pushed for the "safe" option which lead to people being not content with her in the long. she represented what a lot of people didn't like about higher up politics. That's why I think she lost.

People need to stop siting the electoral college as being problematic, it's there so four states don't run the show for everyone else and gives stronger voices to other states that also have their own interests and problems.

How the election is handled needs to change, removing the electoral college doesn't fix anything useful. We need different ways to vote and make it clear no one is happy with how this is run. We do it with our voice and do it together. What still makes this hard, is how few people actually vote in each election.

 

[Strong Badam]

I was under the impression that Clinton's campaign slogan was "Stronger Together," not "I'm with her." I'm with her ended up being what many supporters said, since the gendered pronoun could only refer to one candidate.

The electoral college system is an interesting problem: many feel that the way it is now helps rural, less population-dense areas to be heard, where a popular vote would be strongly decided by the alternative. But there's also the issue that rural areas have way lower costs of living and require lower income to thrive, leading to population-dense areas contributing way way way more toward federal taxes than Middle of Nowhere Midwest states and such. Are the urban areas and their contributions to the government being met with disproportionate representation as a result of the electoral college? Maybe. But the issue should be considered without specific election results in mind (2000 and 2016 Pres elections), to prevent a biased decision.

 

[wedl!!]

The Dunning-Kruger effect is quite relevant to the aftermath of Trump's victory--anyone with two brain cells could see that. Those brainwashed communist rioters and their gag-worthy chanting exemplify it.

Now, can anyone point out the "on topic" part of the post I'm replying to? Of course not.

You ever stopped and thought "hey, would people take me more seriously and like me more if I didn't call all people who disagreed with me Marxists"

 

[FlusteredBat]

You ever stopped and thought "hey, would people take me more seriously and like me more if I didn't call all people who disagreed with me Marxists"

Most of these pretentious bleeding-heart progressive don't even understand that they're regurgitating Marxist propaganda.

If you identify with social justice, feminism and/or globalism, then the label "Marxist" certainly applies.

 

[MisterDom]

Most of these pretentious bleeding-heart progressive don't even understand that they're regurgitating Marxist propaganda.

If you identify with social justice, feminism and/or globalism, then the label "Marxist" certainly applies.

Uhhhh I think you don't know what Marxism is...

Neither feminism nor social justice are part of Marxism if I am remembering my facts correctly from a basic philosophy class I took. Social Justice is a very loose term, but the way I believe you are implying it isn't Marxism. Globalism doesn't necessarily mean Communism, which btw isn't the same as Marxism.

Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels emphasized the relations between classes and their role and connection to society throughout history. It's also pretty basic... basically the theory states that an equal and classless society would eventually rise from the ashes of revolution against wealthy greedy dictators. There's more to it, and that is loosely from my memory, but I'm sure that's all I need. It's NOT THE SAME as Marxist-Leninism, which is the one I believe most ignorant Americans fear.

Marxism is a political and economic theory that was the basis for Socialism and Communism, but it's important to note that it was just the basis. It's not the same thing as Communism nor Socialism.

So how does feminism and social justice relate to Marxism? It doesn't make any sense. They both have to due with politics and society, but in vastly different ways. Do you know what feminism is? Globalism isn't all Marxist either...

Please explain to clear up my misunderstanding.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Uhhhh I think you don't know what Marxism is...

Neither feminism nor social justice are part of Marxism if I am remembering my facts correctly from a basic philosophy class I took. Social Justice is a very loose term, but the way I believe you are implying it isn't Marxism. Globalism doesn't necessarily mean Communism, which btw isn't the same as Marxism.

Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels emphasized the relations between classes and their role and connection to society throughout history. It's also pretty basic... basically the theory states that an equal and classless society would eventually rise from the ashes of revolution against wealthy greedy dictators. There's more to it, and that is loosely from my memory, but I'm sure that's all I need. It's NOT THE SAME as Marxist-Leninism, which is the one I believe most ignorant Americans fear.

Marxism is a political and economic theory that was the basis for Socialism and Communism, but it's important to note that it was just the basis. It's not the same thing as Communism nor Socialism.

So how does feminism and social justice relate to Marxism? It doesn't make any sense. They both have to due with politics and society, but in vastly different ways. Do you know what feminism is? Globalism isn't all Marxist either...

Please explain to clear up my misunderstanding.

If you were genuinely curious then you would have done some research beyond introductory overviews and basic definitions. The connection is blatant.

Of course labels such as Marxism and Feminism aren't synonymous, but the ideological overlap is more than apparent. Note that it's irrelevant whether they utilize the exact same terms/groups to describe their respective paradigms--it's all the same "oppression this, oppression that" identity politics, denial of reality and rejection of personal responsibility.

Nothing good ever came out of the Totalitarian Left, and the eventual consequence of leftist thought (no matter how moderate or well-intentioned) is to enable Totalitarianism. That is to foster a dependent underclass whose bottled frustration will be directed at some convenient scapegoat when it becomes apparent politicians cannot fulfill their ridiculous promises.

So "Uhhhh" spare me.

 

[MisterDom]

If you were genuinely curious then you would have done some research beyond introductory overviews and basic definitions. The connection is blatant.

Of course labels such as Marxism and Feminism aren't synonymous, but the ideological overlap is more than apparent. Note that it's irrelevant whether they utilize the exact same terms/groups to describe their respective paradigms--it's all the same "oppression this, oppression that" identity politics, denial of reality and rejection of personal responsibility.

Uhhhh no.

You clearly don't know what Feminism is...

I know there's this stereotype with the right with this internet SJW stuff online, but that's not feminism, and most of that stuff doesn't feature descrimination against men. It's just really annoying how far some people go. Again, most of those people aren't showing the true definition of feminism, or it's extreme feminism on the borderline of not fitting the definition. Feminism is equality among genders, both men and women: it has the word feminine in it because women have been historically oppressed. It's not a war on men, nor is it denying responsibility and reality.

Also, I gave you a basic definition of Marxism because again, that's all I needed to use. There's more to it, but it's the same concept. There is no oppression in Marxism or identity politics... I did some "more research" since you asked to make sure I was correct, and I found nothing about race, nor feminism, just as I knew before.

So uhhhhh I still don't think you know what Marxism is or the ties between those things. Not everything on the left is Marxism.

Nothing good ever came out of the Totalitarian Left, and the eventual consequence of leftist thought (no matter how moderate or well-intentioned) is to enable Totalitarianism.

Again, Marxism is a political theory, and I believe it doesn't include ways of government. It's not a totalitarianist theory; it's a theory on the political left. If you wanted to regard Totalitarianist leftist things, you should've brought up Communism.

As for leftist thought, I agree with what you said. You're going to need institutions to make sure the left works and not go out of hand to a totalitarian government. Isn't it lucky we have checks and balances?

That is to foster a dependent underclass whose bottled frustration will be directed at some convenient scapegoat when it becomes apparent politicians cannot fulfill their ridiculous promises.

So "Uhhhh" spare me.

Those politicians sound like Donald Trump with the white working class voters that wanted him president. Scapegoat and ridiculous promises. He's already said he won't fulfill them, and the greatest proof of this is from the great, big, beautiful swamp he created, and not prosecuting Clinton, which I'm proud of because he was smart enough to find out that she never broke the law. Isn't so left now, huh?

 

[MisterDom]

Lmao lemme try FlusteredBat logic real quick.

I think instead of being brainwashed by Alex "EVRYTHING IS A CONSPIRACY AGAINST CONSERVATISM" Jones and following the consverative anarchist agenda, you should start believing in real issues like climate change and get some abortions to calm you down.

Everything you say is invalid because it's only emotional and your Fascist Oligarchy that has failed you blames the gallant and holy socialist leaders that have been pushing our country in the better direction for the past eight years.

Listen hear you racist bigot, you sexist misogynist parasite to our progressive democracy...

If you had 30 brain cells you should know that Trump has failed every single one of deplorable supporters, including you. He's built the swamp and represents no one but himself and his donors. Look at his cabinet.

He's a failure for the white working class that has been suffering and turned this election: his amazing Carrier deal is worse than it is good and is only propaganda for his new facist dictatorship.

Listen here you Constitution burning hypocrite that wants progressives that burn the flag to be shot. You allied anarchists don't believe in equality, the 1st, the 4th, the 6th, the 8th, the 13th, the 15th, or the 19th amendments, AND Article 2, 4, 5, and 7. You think we want to rip the Constitution? Hamilton Electors have every right to vote their conscience, especially now when your Communist Russian allies rigged our election and destroyed our democracy; Trump is not fit to do anything either and on this track this will be the worst president in history. People who care for their country would BEG to have W. Bush back in office for eight years than Trump's four.

Listen here you cherry-picking sheep of Prager University. Data is data and that data shows our political agenda is superior in every way, and if you don't think so you can go back to your Neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and Confederate rallies.

Crack a book on science and become an atheist. Take a basic course on Government and Political Ideology. Take a basic course on Economics and realize your holy god, Ronald Reagan (and now Trump), was an idiot for believing in trickle-down economics, let alone on steroids. Take a basic course on the history of war and military tactics to realize your "America First" candidate that's gonna keep us safe doesn't know anything about the military and has no plan to defeat ISIS, unlike our goddess Hillary Clinton. Take a basic course on terrorist groups and the Middle East to find out the difference between the Taliban, Al-Queda, and Hezbollah, and figure out that the de-stabilization of the region has nothing to do with Islam, but you racists that wanted to go in Iraq, or if you wanna go further, the Sykes-Picot agreement during and after WW1.

You are dumber and have no valid opinion you unpatriotic, Russian-loving, Islamaphobic, Nazi endorsing, nuke-friendly, climate-change-denying, pimp for the 2nd amendment, Facist. You Authoritarianism-admiring, war hawking, misogynist, racist, anarchist, failure of an American.

You right-wingers believe in nothing but the Bible, greed, power, lies, war, less effective policy, and descrimination. Learn to care for your country rather than yourselves.

That was more difficult to type than I thought lol. If you're a legit, and I mean LEGIT conservative, I have lots of respect and don't mean these harsh insults. Sorry!

 

[FallenHero]

Lmao lemme try FlusteredBat logic real quick.

I think instead of being brainwashed by Alex "EVRYTHING IS A CONSPIRACY AGAINST CONSERVATISM" Jones and following the consverative anarchist agenda, you should start believing in real issues like climate change and get some abortions to calm you down.

Everything you say is invalid because it's only emotional and your Fascist Oligarchy that has failed you blames the gallant and holy socialist leaders that have been pushing our country in the better direction for the past eight years.

Listen hear you racist bigot, you sexist misogynist parasite to our progressive democracy...

If you had 30 brain cells you should know that Trump has failed every single one of deplorable supporters, including you. He's built the swamp and represents no one but himself and his donors. Look at his cabinet.

He's a failure for the white working class that has been suffering and turned this election: his amazing Carrier deal is worse than it is good and is only propaganda for his new facist dictatorship.

Listen here you Constitution burning hypocrite that wants progressives that burn the flag to be shot. You allied anarchists don't believe in equality, the 1st, the 4th, the 6th, the 8th, the 13th, the 15th, or the 19th amendments, AND Article 2, 4, 5, and 7. You think we want to rip the Constitution? Hamilton Electors have every right to vote their conscience, especially now when your Communist Russian allies rigged our election and destroyed our democracy; Trump is not fit to do anything either and on this track this will be the worst president in history. People who care for their country would BEG to have W. Bush back in office for eight years than Trump's four.

Listen here you cherry-picking sheep of Prager University. Data is data and that data shows our political agenda is superior in every way, and if you don't think so you can go back to your Neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and Confederate rallies.

Crack a book on science and become an atheist. Take a basic course on Government and Political Ideology. Take a basic course on Economics and realize your holy god, Ronald Reagan (and now Trump), was an idiot for believing in trickle-down economics, let alone on steroids. Take a basic course on the history of war and military tactics to realize your "America First" candidate that's gonna keep us safe doesn't know anything about the military and has no plan to defeat ISIS, unlike our goddess Hillary Clinton. Take a basic course on terrorist groups and the Middle East to find out the difference between the Taliban, Al-Queda, and Hezbollah, and figure out that the de-stabilization of the region has nothing to do with Islam, but you racists that wanted to go in Iraq, or if you wanna go further, the Sykes-Picot agreement during and after WW1.

You are dumber and have no valid opinion you unpatriotic, Russian-loving, Islamaphobic, Nazi endorsing, nuke-friendly, climate-change-denying, pimp for the 2nd amendment, Facist. You Authoritarianism-admiring, war hawking, misogynist, racist, anarchist, failure of an American.

You right-wingers believe in nothing but the Bible, greed, power, lies, war, less effective policy, and descrimination. Learn to care for your country rather than yourselves.

That was more difficult to type than I thought lol. If you're a legit, and I mean LEGIT conservative, I have lots of respect and don't mean these harsh insults. Sorry!

Took me a second to realize you were just mocking him lol.

 

[davidvkimball]

Title says it all. What your opinions on old man Trump running for US president? Imo, he needs to stay in the entertainment biz and leave politics to people who wanna do something positive.

Your thoughts?

I'd like to broaden the discussion for a second.

I attribute the popularity of Trump to 2 main things:

1. His apparent anti-politically correct disposition
2. His appeal as a celebrity/entertainer

The first one comes from this deep-rooted annoyance at the social justice warrior community for trying to police everyone's behavior and name-calling anyone that doesn't agree with their views. People are just tired of it and want someone that (at least appears to be) no-nonsense. Trump is definitely perceived to be a "non politician" (even though he totally is one), so frustrated people were eager to jump on that train.

The second one comes from how our society has evolved in the United States. We are currently experiencing a rebirth of innovation, a Renaissance 2.0 if you will, which have led to the following:

1. Abundance of leisure time
2. Obsession with entertainment
3. Ever-shortening attention spans

Thus, an average American's propensity to actually dig into issues of substance is at an all-time low. Trump is an entertaining figure, and it's why the media reported on him all the time, and ignored people like Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders who actually offered up substantive arguments about issues that face our country today.

Contrast, if you will, a Trump and Hillary debate with a Paul and Sanders debate. You essentially have ad hominem attacls and red herring arguments with the first (which we've seen consistently from both), whereas with the second it would be a civil discussion. Paul and Sanders, ideologically anyway, represent the two prevailing worldviews in their purest form. Trump and Clinton are simply moderate politicians.

As far as my opinions on him? I think he is a clever business man, but he is not fit in the slightest to be our commander and chief. But I see him as far, far less dangerous than Hillary Clinton. All Trump will do is get advisers who will do his work for him, he'll make moderate, safe choices to try and keep him in office, and not get much done. That's just my forecast, it could be completely wrong. But they're predicting a bit of an economic recession coming up, so people are probably going to blame Trump and make him unpopular.

Sadly, since Trump won, it means there's a for-sure Trump 2020 ticket. That's sad for me since I was ready for an actual conservative to get elected, which won't happen now. And when Trump server his term(s) and gives the "Republican" Party a bad name, the Democrats may just get a foot in the door for the next appointee.

Well that was a bit longer than I intended but it's fun to think about. Thanks for creating this thread.

 

[Bobalicious]

Trump has good economical policies, that's for sure. Yes, he may have outlandish ideas that are bluntly terrible, but those will not get approved. Do you really think that America will let him build a wall and force Mexico to pay? No. That's why I think people are really over exaggerating about how America is doomed and whatnot.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Trump has good economical policies, that's for sure. Yes, he may have outlandish ideas that are bluntly terrible, but those will not get approved. Do you really think that America will let him build a wall and force Mexico to pay? No. That's why I think people are really over exaggerating about how America is doomed and whatnot.

Mexico will (indirectly) pay for a border wall because they want to get into/trade with the US. Those who actually believe Trump wishes to "force" the bill upon Mexico are only broadcasting their ignorance. There's plenty of evidence which demonstrates how unchecked immigration from fundamentally incompatible cultures undermines sovereignty (and even civilization itself), simply behold Europe.

 

[MisterDom]

If Mexico were to "indirectly" pay for this wall (which was previously predicted to cost $25 billion but probably a little less now that he said some of it will just be like the current fence), than Mexico would have to keep participating in trade like they're doing now. However, Trump has repeatedly bashed trade deals we have with them like NAFTA and has expressed policies that are anti-free trade in general. A deportation force that would potentially force millions of people out the country will cost money, hurt the workforce, and get rid of millions of people who pay federal taxes. Trump has said he'd probably draw out of NAFTA, or renegotiate it which I was open to previously, but haven't remained at all hopeful through this absolutely horrifying transition.

His economic policy really isn't all too good. His huge tax cuts go too far to the point where the bigger possibility for growth (the reason Republicans want tax cuts) won't compensate for costs, and imposing tariffs on all goods just discourages trade and hurts us. This isn't to be confused with the 35% tariff he's proposed on companies that leave the US for cheap labor which also won't be effective because they don't need to trade with the US, parts that stay can hold the government hostage and threaten to move jobs until they get huge tax breaks like what Carrier did (which also hurts taxpayers), and cheap labor is pretty dang cheap in developing countries and might still give them profit. There are ways companies can work around that specific tariff. His plans to cut normal regulations on companies, Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, Medicare, and several government agencies would help some taxpayers (especially rich taxpayers), but at what cost? Those things are widely accepted as very beneficial and even required according to experts, and I certainly believe every one of those programs/regulations should exist. Also, his high interest rates could make the dollar more valuable and hurt manufacturers, the people who turned this election around in Trump's favor. His tax cuts certainly don't help the middle class. Renegotiating NAFTA and TPP could help the middle class, but completely withdrawing from those trade deals will hurt everyone.

Trump also wants an arms race with Russia now (which is horrifying enough), which would mean a lot more military spending (as if $580 billion wasn't enough for a minimum to keep bases running). Drastically increasing military spending isn't going to help, especially against a power that's apparently about to have lifted sanctions and therefore better access to arms.

Trump could turn this around, but it's looking bad. A lot of experts say his current plans are contradictory and harmful, and could potentially add $7 trillion to the debt and cost America millions of jobs. I'm certainly no expert on economics and am missing a few points here, but it doesn't take someone smart to know that Trump needs to fix some details.

Running a country is very different from running a business (which he wasn't good at in the first place). Trump's trade policy contradicts any possible way for Mexico to "indirectly" pay for a border wall.

 

[wiiztec]

I was under the impression that Clinton's campaign slogan was "Stronger Together," not "I'm with her."

She had several official slogans

 

[MisterDom]

The official one I believe was just "Stronger Together"