4-Year Survival Plan

[Somewhere_]

I don't particularly agree with this, but I'm not entirely surprised and I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to establish by bringing this up. Oftentimes with protests, depending on how heated they can get, of course some are going to devolve into riots. That doesn't really devalue the message of what they're trying to send, but that's just me and we can agree to disagree there if you'd like.

It does devalue their message. If you were debating someone in real life, and when they lost the debate (assuming you win), they physically assault you... doesnt that take away all of their credence? When you take away credence, the value of the message decreases.

The rioters have lost all respect and credence. It is NOT acceptable to riot, damage property, deface sidewalks, buildings, monuments, assault people, etc. When you lose, you DONT act violently. You take the loss with dignity. The rioters should have acted like Clinton: Clinton called Trump personally and congratulated him. She took the loss very well and acted classy. No shenanigans.

I don't see how it's hypocritical. Those that are protesting are united... they're united against hatred, they're united against bigotry, they're united against hate crimes and racism, so they're standing against the very things the Clinton and by extent the Sanders campaign told them to fight against. This movement is a message not only against the toxic rhetoric and the racism, hatred etc that's been prevalent throughout the Trump campaign, but also, again, to send a message to the government that they are not afraid to stand up for themselves and be loud if Trump or his VP or Congress for that matter infringe upon their rights.

I just explain how its hypocritical. They are rioting in the streets against a fair democratic process that elected Donald Trump. That is inherently anti-democratic. Peaceful protesting, on the other hand, is fine. But these are riots.

And Trump's "racism" is not an excuse. He is not racist. I am sorry they falsely interpret his message in that way, but they are wrong.

Lets assume Trump is actually racist. Even then, these riots are not justified because he cannot institute racist policies or do anything as president that is racist.

And the riots themselves make their message lose credence. It is futile and makes them look bad.

 

[Nah]

Personally, I don't think the protests will accomplish much. I'm focused on getting through the next four years stronger than before and while protesting will feel good, there are other productive things that I think could be done instead.

Was gonna ask before but forgot, but now that I've remembered I'll ask: What exactly did you have in mind?

 

[Star-Lord]

I truly have seen it all when people say Trump supports LGBT people when his running mate was Mike "Electrocute The Gays" Pence like are you for real? There is a very real reason gay people were afraid of Trump's administration coming into power this thread is such a joke

 

[Sir Codin]

This whole thing is a joke. The whole country is a joke.

Part of me believes staying is needed to make this better, but I'm also considering to say "fuck it" then pack and leave or hope Calexit becomes a thing. The West Coast states are SEETHING. They want to leave. And California does have the capacity to leave and survive on its own. The state alone is like....6th strongest economy in the world.

All the west states that voted blue can probably break off and form their own country or ask Canada to have us. I like the sound of that:

The blue Canadian province of "We didn't vote for this guy."

 

[Aliencommander1245]

JDJACKET, a single video from July with him using LGBT people as pawns against "terrorists" to further his own image is not at all any kind of point against people mentioning his anti-LGBT stances.

Donald "i will repeal marriage equality" Trump and Mike "I advocate literal torture for gay people" Pence are not at all messiah of LGBT rights. Lets take a step beyond Trump & Pence, even, and look at his cabinet, yeah?

Reince Preibus is head of staff, someone who's defending the anti-marriage equality stance of the GOP and reiterated it's opposition to the supreme court ruling, and just... lied about anti-lgbt GOP policies when asked about them(Claiming that conversion therapy wasn't part of the party platform, and that trying to bill laws to prevent gay couples from having/adopting children was because it's "proven it's better for the child that way" despite that being the opposite of what's true), ending said interview saying he didn't think the GOP was anti-gay at all.

He's put Stephen Bannon on.. chief strategist, i think? Could be wrong. That guy is just a nutcase. Member of the alt-right, and chairman of the fringe news company "Breitbart News Network" that's exactly what you'd assume from something that guy is in charge of and has published everything bigoted under the sun in some form or another.

I think you have to be fairly willfully ignorant to at this point be saying that Trump and his campaign/team isn't/aren't (Insert any faucet of bigotry here)

 

[Adore]

Well, for those of you worried about the LBGTQ community:

Spoiler:

Whether or not it can be put into practice is another ordeal altogether. You can, however, potentially, nail him for lying if it goes the opposite way, so it has the potential to become ammunition for the anti-Tumps out there.

Spoiler:

You might not like Pence, but at the end of the day, Pence is Pence and not the President (unless one of the left wing nachos slay Trump). Better cross your fingers no one tries to tank Trump, lest Pence becomes the CIC ohohoho!

So he used us to inspire more hate towards other people and held a rainbow flag upside down (which is considered a sign of disrespect in flag code).

The bar could not be set lower.

 

[Hands]

Yes, exactly. I think that's the biggest thing here. Trump didn't win because of racism, misogyny, or anything else of the sort. In my eyes, Trump is the product of what the left has become (I'm saying that as a liberal). The narrative that anyone who votes for X is a racist, sexist bigot can only push people so far before they put their feet down and say no. They don't want to be put into a basket of deplorables.

We saw it in Brexit and we saw it in this election. The people are tired of it. I'm one of them. It gets quite draining when your Facebook feed is drowned out with how 'racism has won' and other such nonsense. It makes you afraid to even tell them what you think.

That is the most baseless and, without being rude, dumb rhetoric I've ever seen. If you honestly let people telling other people not to be awful to people made you vote for someone who didn't say those things then you're a thin skinned child and shouldn't of been allowed to vote in the first place.

Trump won for a myriad of reasons including, but certainly not limited to, globalization, government misspending, a perceived anti establishment choice, an economic plan that, on the surface puts workers first, numerous promises to reinvest in American industry, an isolationist stance on war, peace (no matter how loose) with the Russians, acknowledgement of the fears of the working class and a clean political record. Trump didn't win because some alt right kids online were sick of being called out for saying awful things about the victims of police brutality or bathroom designations.

 

[Kanzler]

Naming and shaming =/= telling other people not to be awful to people

 

[Hands]

Naming and shaming =/= telling other people not to be awful to people

I'm not even sure how that qualifies as a reply to what I said. If you're one of these alt right idiots hiding behind anime profile pictures on twitter or fb calling people cucks and spreading racist remarks then you deserve to lose your anonymity. Not that this really has anything to do with my wider comment and this stupid narrative that Trump won (whilst gaining the average amount of GOP votes) because the left called an egg an egg.

 

[Kanzler]

I'm not even sure how that qualifies as a reply to what I said. If you're one of these alt right idiots hiding behind anime profile pictures on twitter or fb calling people cucks and spreading racist remarks then you deserve to lose your anonymity. Not that this really has anything to do with my wider comment and this stupid narrative that Trump won (whilst gaining the average amount of GOP votes) because the left called an egg an egg.

Well, first of all, I'm not.

Look, I don't think that it's beyond anybody's imagination that if you label people and call them names that are really loaded (like sexist, racist, etc) you're going to offend them and alienate them. Attacking and denigrating somebody's identity is not necessarily the same thing as denouncing that kind of behaviour. My problem with this technique that is that it makes things personal, and that's usually not going to convince anybody when you make things personal.

Now, you might say you're in the right to do that, that you have the moral high ground, and you wouldn't be wrong. You certainly would be in a position to call an egg an egg but it's not really about what you have the right to do, is it? What it's about is convincing people who think differently from you to act in a way that helps everybody. Personally, I felt that Trump won more so because Clinton wasn't very convincing re: the economy in those swing state, but the personally-directed outrage of the left and mainstream media only made things worse - like, if you're considering Trump because you're convinced he'll help you get jobs back and revitalize the town your living in and all the sudden people are calling people like you sexists and racists, that's really going to piss you off, especially if it's coming from someone who's economically privileged and still has a job, who doesn't understand the dire economic straits you're in and despite all that talk like they're better than you and like they know your situation better than you do.

 

[Sektor]

So he used us to inspire more hate towards other people and held a rainbow flag upside down (which is considered a sign of disrespect in flag code).

The bar could not be set lower.

I'm not asking you to hate anyone. I'm asking you to cry outrage at an idea. An idea that enables grown adults to wed and bed adolescent and prepubescent children. An acceptance of genital mutilation because the 'clitoris is evil'. An ideology that sees thousands of LGBTQ people murdered in the streets of these countries, which number upwards of 50 separate countries. Do you believe in separation of church and state? According to 50+ countries, Sharia law is governmental law. It doesn't bother you that Afghanistan and Iraq's constitutions include huge chunks of Sharia law? What if I told you the US was also responsible for aiding in this travesty?

Entire countries are blinded. By denouncing Islam of the Middle East, I denounce the poor treatment of 50% of the entire Middle Eastern Muslim population: women. If I was racist against Muslims, why would I worry or be disgusted by them treating themselves bad? Think about it.

Please, can someone here enlighten me the difference between hating an idea and an entire race of people? There are Islamic believers of all stripes and colours. I don't hate Muslims, I hate Islam and everything that it stands for. I don't like Christianity nor Buddhism. I attempted to become Buddhist once and my former stepfather was a Mormon, so from a very young age I knew the hazards and blatant stupidity of religion (this is my own opinion, so just because I believe something is stupid doesn't mean other people have to).

Hate Islam ≠ Hate Muslims

You cannot be racist against Christianity. You cannot be racist against Buddhism. You cannot be racist against Judaism. You cannot be racists against Communism, Fascism, Capitalism or Scientology. They are ideas and cannot be likened to any one person and are a collection of thoughts, ideas, and policies.

Down with Islam. Free the Muslim people.

 

[Esper]

Was gonna ask before but forgot, but now that I've remembered I'll ask: What exactly did you have in mind?

Not to be cliche, but what Bernie Sanders is doing right now is a good start. He's been interviewed a couple of times and when asked he's said, 1) yes, Trump won the election because that's how our laws work, 2) working with Trump where possible on things that we can agree with like stopping TPP or getting money out of politics (while still fighting him on anything that tries to scapegoat minorities), 3) he's not interested in talking about whether he would have won because 4) he's trying to build up a progressive movement and highlighting other progressives in elected office such as Keith Ellison who he's pushing to lead the Democratic National Committee. On that last point, he's even got the former DNC chair, Howard Dean, to support Ellison. (Dean himself was being talked about as a possible replacement.)

Basically, Bernie has been on point with moving forward progressive ideas and building up support for people in whatever way he can. If there can be help with that from Trump and Republicans then, well, strange bedfellows and all that.

Personally, I think the best thing we can do is try to cut out the animosity toward other Americans. Yes, Trump did run a campaign that included a lot of racist/sexist/xenophobic overtones, but that doesn't mean that each person who voted for him is a dyed-in-the-wool Klansman. We won't get anywhere as a country is we don't speak to people who have differences. I've previously always though that meant getting Republicans and the like to open their eyes and get exposed to people who are different from them to help them build up tolerance and acceptance, but I know now that we on the left also need to do this and not assume that people on the right are always idiots because we have disagreements on social issues. We want to convince people that our ideas are worth listening to.

In other words, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

 

[Caaethil]

There was no narrative involved though, is the problem. I honestly don't know where this "they called everyone racist!!! tahts why he wno!!!" thing comes from, because it wasn't a mainstream thing. Calling Trump bigoted in all the ways he is, was very much mainstream but calling everyone who votes for him that wasn't.

Hillary did it. Basket of deplorables, remember?

There was and is a lot of "A vote for Trump is a vote for racism/sexism/xenophobia/homophobia" because it is, and there's no real way to deny that.

It's really hard to have a conversation with you sometimes.

Regardless of if people are racist or not, they're voting for the racist candidate who wants to implement racist policies. "I'm not racist/homophobic/xenophobic! I don't like his bigoted policies!" is an incredibly poor argument because regardless of if you like them or not you're still voting for them, still supporting them with the vote you're using.

In the current situation a lot of people can justify that within themselves.

I think pushing the narrative that Trump supporters voted for Trump because... Trump supporters were called racist, or homophobic? Is fairly disingenuous and not really reflective of the issues/aspects that actually allowed Trump to win

That's not an argument, that's a statement.

Then, perhaps maybe, don't vote for racism and then complain about it (I know you didn't in this circumstance). Racism did win, because Trump was the racist candidate wanting to do racist things. I think, if you're afraid of people knowing what you think on social issues like this, generally you should re-think why you do think the way you do?

I'm afraid of sharing my thoughts on those issues because of the exact issues you think don't exist. We're on completely different pages on why I don't want to talk politics with my friends. To even suggest that supporting Trump does not carry such unwarranted baggage is completely out of touch with reality.

To be very clear, I'm not witholding my opinion from them because I don't want them to give me a reasoned argument against trump. I'm witholding my opinion from them because in some cases we may not even be friends anymore.

Protesting is part of our free speech rights. The fact that a few bad eggs have planted themselves in the middle of these protests to make them look bad does not invalidate the rights of the people protesting, nor does the media and/or police's slandering calls of "riots" change that fact.

RIOTS, Esper. I didn't say PROTESTS, I said RIOTS.

Riots are not okay and they are not free speech.

Personally, I don't think the protests will accomplish much. I'm focused on getting through the next four years stronger than before and while protesting will feel good, there are other productive things that I think could be done instead. I won't tell them to stop because it's their right to protest and have their voices heard.

I'm not entirely concerned with what the protests will do because I didn't mention them.

So don't call it "anti-democracy" please.

Protesting and rioting over the result of a democratic election is 100% anti-democracy. Protesting something means you want it to be changed. This is entirely sequitur. If you protest the result, you are protesting with the goal of somehow changing it. You won't be able to, but that doesn't change the fact you openly want to subvert democracy.

I knew someone else had to see the hypocrisy/irony (for once unsure of which to use) in calling protests "anti-democratic"

Show me who called protests anti-democratic. I'll wait here all day for you.

That is the most baseless and, without being rude, dumb rhetoric I've ever seen.

Oh! Well, since you said 'without being rude', I guess this post is already entirely reasonable and not at all rude. It's not btw, it's actually pretty rude.

If you honestly let people telling other people not to be awful to people made you vote for someone who didn't say those things then you're a thin skinned child and shouldn't of been allowed to vote in the first place.

This sentence isn't coherent, so pardon me if I misunderstand a little.

I'm not exactly sure where 'people telling other people not to be awful to people' came from. I don't know what exactly it has to do with this. I'm guessing you're trying to say that the people calling Trump supporters racist, sexist xenophobic bigots are actually justified in that. In which case... You're demonstrably wrong because not all Trump supporters are racist, sexist xenophobic bigots.

You're making such massive assumptions here. I think I need to clear up one main thing: I'm not American. I didn't even have a vote, seriously man.

And I have no idea what gave you the impression that the serious anti-Trump atmosphere around me is what made me prefer him over the opposition. The serious anti-Trump atmosphere is why I don't like talking about politics with the people around me - I'm immediately lumped in with racists, sexists, xenophobes, homophobes, you name it and I'll be one of them before you know it.

So it's not that I'm a thin-skinned child, it's that you're attacking a strawman and making one of the most... *ahem* 'baseless and, without being rude, dumb' statements I've ever heard. Stop making assumptions about me. Saying that the anti-Trump atmosphere has made me uncomfortable talking politics is one of the most reasonable things I've ever said in my entire damn life and I think a lot of people can probably relate to it - politics is a touchy subject to begin with.

Trump won for a myriad of reasons including, but certainly not limited to, globalization, government misspending, a perceived anti establishment choice, an economic plan that, on the surface puts workers first, numerous promises to reinvest in American industry, an isolationist stance on war, peace (no matter how loose) with the Russians, acknowledgement of the fears of the working class and a clean political record. Trump didn't win because some alt right kids online were sick of being called out for saying awful things about the victims of police brutality or bathroom designations.

Bloody hell. I'm not saying that there was only one reason why Trump won, I'm saying there was one main reason, and that main reason was, in my eyes, the social climate. With all of the outrageous things the man has said, the only thing that I can possibly imagine giving him a win is the social climate that people are sick of, where everything can offend someone and the slightest mistep makes you a racist, a misogynist, a xenophobe and so on. That's why Trump is popular - he doesn't care about being politically correct. That is precisely why people feel he is in touch with them, rather than just being another snobby politician.

 

[Kanzler]

Protesting and rioting over the result of a democratic election is 100% anti-democracy. Protesting something means you want it to be changed. This is entirely sequitur. If you protest the result, you are protesting with the goal of somehow changing it. You won't be able to, but that doesn't change the fact you openly want to subvert democracy.

You can change a president without subverting democracy, it's called an election 4 years from now. You're reading too much into it.

 

[Esper]

RIOTS, Esper. I didn't say PROTESTS, I said RIOTS.

Riots are not okay and they are not free speech.


I'm not entirely concerned with what the protests will do because I didn't mention them.


Protesting and rioting over the result of a democratic election is 100% anti-democracy. Protesting something means you want it to be changed. This is entirely sequitur. If you protest the result, you are protesting with the goal of somehow changing it. You won't be able to, but that doesn't change the fact you openly want to subvert democracy.

I know you said riots. I'm saying that calling a protest a riot is a way of de-legitimizing someone's free speech unfairly and is a tactic that's been used by the media and others before.

Protests aren't all just protesting the result. Some, I'm sure, are only interested in that. But protests are large and multi-faceted. Many are using them to express dissatisfaction with the racist/sexist/xenophobic message and/or tone of the Trump campaign and their personal insistence that they do not feel like Trump does or will represent them or what they believe. Trump is saying publicly that he wants to unite people. How are people who don't feel he will do this going to let the American public know? Protesting is one way.

Being upset with the result isn't just about saying it isn't legitimate. And even if it is, one can approach it in different ways. One can ask to change the electoral college, for instance. One can ask for a change in how the media covers elections. One can ask for a president-elect who lost the popular vote to take into consideration the desires of the plurality of people who cast a vote for president.

 

[Caaethil]

I know you said riots. I'm saying that calling a protest a riot is a way of de-legitimizing someone's free speech unfairly and is a tactic that's been used by the media and others before.

I'm not calling protests riots, I'm calling riots riots. Have you seen how violent some of these have gotten? Have you taken a moment to watch the videos?

Protests aren't all just protesting the result. Some, I'm sure, are only interested in that.

And those are the ones that I disagree with. But I wasn't even talking about protests in my post so I don't know why this is relevant.

But protests are large and multi-faceted. Many are using them to express dissatisfaction with the racist/sexist/xenophobic message and/or tone of the Trump campaign and their personal insistence that they do not feel like Trump does or will represent them or what they believe.

I'm not entirely convinced the 'stop Trump from becoming president' crowd is as small as you think it is.

Trump is saying publicly that he wants to unite people. How are people who don't feel he will do this going to let the American public know? Protesting is one way.

They're going to let people know that Trump won't unite them by intentionally dividing themselves.

Being upset with the result isn't just about saying it isn't legitimate.

There is actually a sizable number of people who think that because Clinton won the popular vote, Trump's presidency is somehow illegitimate.

And even if it is, one can approach it in different ways. One can ask to change the electoral college, for instance. One can ask for a change in how the media covers elections. One can ask for a president-elect who lost the popular vote to take into consideration the desires of the plurality of people who cast a vote for president.

I mean, they could, but I'm not entirely convinced they are.

 

[Kanzler]

There is actually a sizable number of people who think that because Clinton won the popular vote, Trump's presidency is somehow illegitimate.

That's a major criticism of the electoral college system, probably worth a whole another thread on its own.

 

[Caaethil]

That's a major criticism of the electoral college system, probably worth a whole another thread on its own.

I will never deny that the college is terrible. I will deny that Trump shouldn't be allowed to be president because of it. Don't hate the player, hate the game. He played by the rules that the country has in place and they worked out for him. If you want it to change, change it before someone's already been picked.

 

[Hands]

you're trying to say that the people calling Trump supporters racist, sexist xenophobic bigots are actually justified in that.

So it's not that I'm a thin-skinned child, it's that you're attacking a strawman and making one of the most... *ahem* 'baseless and, without being rude, dumb' statements I've ever heard. Stop making assumptions about me.

I really enjoy when someone pretends they don't get the post but then sums up the post almost anyway only to turn it into victimisation. I didn't call you anything, I said if you allow people calling you a racist, usually in response to saying something racist, to change your vote or to be the driving force behind your vote (you, as an individual in this context, seem to think this was key to Trump winning) then you are a baby and you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Imaging if the left just dropped their toys and voted solely on how many times some right wing numbskull has called them a cuck.

That's how reality works buddy, you say something like "PUT WHITE BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE" and have a pro trump profile or banner or are at a pro trump rally someone will call you out for that crap.

Trump didn't win because cry babies on the right were triggered, that is legitimately dumb to think that. Over 60million Americans did not vote Trump because they had been called racist. I doubt even 5% of that figure were so fickle.

 

[Caaethil]

I really enjoy when someone pretends they don't get the post

I didn't get parts of it because it was hard to read. I based my response on what I thought you were trying to say and am completely open to being correct.

but then sums up the post almost anyway only to turn it into victimisation.

Victimisation? Seems a bit excessive.

I didn't call you anything,

It's a bit hard to tell when you use the word 'you' whether you're being general or specific.

I said if you allow people calling you a racist, usually in response to saying something racist, to change your vote or to be the driving force behind your vote (you, as an individual in this context, seem to think this was key to Trump winning) then you are a baby

I like how you tagged on 'usually in response to saying something racist'. I was talking about perfectly normal, reasonable, not deplorable people who would vote Trump and would be labelled as racists for it. Do you understand what I'm saying yet?

and you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

No, that's not how democracies work. You don't get to be quite so fickle about who gets to vote.

Imaging if the left just dropped their toys and voted solely on how many times some right wing numbskull has called them a cuck.

Isn't the "Trump said something nasty" crowd a rather large portion of Hillary voters? People who don't care for a second about policy (not suggesting Trump has better policy) and only about 'he said she said' rhetoric?

That's how reality works buddy, you say something like "PUT WHITE BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE" and have a pro trump profile or banner or are at a pro trump rally someone will call you out for that crap.

Well, 'buddy' you're really good at strawmen. To repeat:

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL RACISTS. I'm talking about normal, good people who are tired of being shamed for voting against others' will.

Trump didn't win because cry babies on the right were triggered,

You greatly oversimplify the issue I'm talking about to make it seem childish. You don't think that Hillary's blatant disrespect for Trump voters didn't tip anyone over the edge? Trump said a lot of things about Hillary, but I don't recall him ever calling out her voters. Correct me if I'm wrong.

that is legitimately dumb to think that.

This isn't what having a healthy discussion looks like.

Over 60million Americans did not vote Trump because they had been called racist. I doubt even 5% of that figure were so fickle.

No, I highly doubt every Trump voter has even been called racist in the first place, so that can't be true, I agree. It's a good job your argument here is a strawman or I'd be a real idiot, wouldn't I?

I'm not saying all 60 million+ of them did it. I'm saying that Trump did not win because 60 million+ people are racists - and this fact helped him win. People are tired of this system where disagreeing with the status quo is considered racist, sexist, homophobic and so on. We saw the exact same thing with Brexit, it's so predictable at this point. The remain campaign flug all of that mud about how everyone else was a racist, and it just wasn't true. If anything, all it did was reveal how much mud they were actually flinging. That's what's happened here - the anti-Trump crowd's accusations have gotten so rampant that it's become increasingly obvious how ridiculous they are.

So yes, I think that's one of the main reasons why Trump won. If Hillary had actually focused on her own assets rather than "I'm better than the other guy", she probably would have won.