4-Year Survival Plan

Hands · Nov 14, 2016

Caaethil said:
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.

Victimisation? Seems a bit excessive.

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

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

It's not a strawman, you legitimately made the claim that Trump won because of people on the left calling out racism. Very few people are calling anyone racist simply for voting Trump, people usually call someone racist for being, you know, racist. So I guess buddy you kinda answered your own final question.

Also you can ask anyone in the presidential thread my views on Clinton, so please stop going off on tangent about her when talking to me.

Somewhere_ · Nov 14, 2016

Hands said:
It's not a strawman, you legitimately made the claim that Trump won because of people on the left calling out racism. Very few people are calling anyone racist simply for voting Trump, people usually call someone racist for being, you know, racist. So I guess buddy you kinda answered your own final question.

Also you can ask anyone in the presidential thread my views on Clinton, so please stop going off on tangent about her when talking to me.

Well, there is some truth to his statement. Remember: Donald Trump is a populist. Given the nature of populists, when the character of the populist (Trump) is attacked, the supporters and even potential supporters take the attack personally.

There were unending attacks on Trump, calling him a racist, sexist, homophobe, islamaphobe, etc. Unending. Never ceasing. Constant. These attacks were taken personally by supporters and potential supporters.

So yes, calling people racist did drive them to the polls. Mostly on Trump, but there were accusations of his supporters too. Many in fact.

Hands · Nov 14, 2016

BadSheep said:
Well, there is some truth to his statement. Remember: Donald Trump is a populist. Given the nature of populists, when the character of the populist (Trump) is attacked, the supporters and even potential supporters take the attack personally.

There were unending attacks on Trump, calling him a racist, sexist, homophobe, islamaphobe, etc. Unending. Never ceasing. Constant. These attacks were taken personally by supporters and potential supporters.

So yes, calling people racist did drive them to the polls. Mostly on Trump, but there were accusations of his supporters too. Many in fact.

If people are voting because things that were actually outright said were called out then they shouldn't be voting. You should vote for policy, not if you're a baby who got upset because someone said groping women without consent wasn't cool.

Somewhere_ · Nov 14, 2016

Hands said:
If people are voting because things that were actually outright said were called out then they shouldn't be voting. You should vote for policy, not if you're a baby who got upset because someone said groping women without consent wasn't cool.

Im not saying their vote was logical. Im saying that populism and Trump in particular appeal to many people on a psychological level.

And to focus only on the groping there is very singular. It is the accusations of sexism, not the accusations of groping (very slight difference I know, but an important difference nevertheless). Remember, most of these people aren't sexist.

Caaethil · Nov 14, 2016

Hands said:
It's not a strawman, you legitimately made the claim that Trump won because of people on the left calling out racism.

Calling out implies that they're somehow revealing it. No, don't change my wording. They're making accusations. Baseless ones, against entirely innocent people. More strawmen, try again.

Hands said:
Very few people are calling anyone racist simply for voting Trump, people usually call someone racist for being, you know, racist. So I guess buddy you kinda answered your own final question.

This, 'buddy', is rather out of touch with reality when Hillary Clinton literally put half of Trump supporters into a 'basket of deplorables'. Hillary Clinton, the leader of this campaign, thinks there's a 50% chance that I'm a deplorable and here you are saying things like 'Very few people are calling anyone racist simply for voting Trump'.

Hands said:
Also you can ask anyone in the presidential thread my views on Clinton, so please stop going off on tangent about her when talking to me.

Gonna need to be a bit more specific than that man.

Nah · Nov 14, 2016

Caaethil said:
Gonna need to be a bit more specific than that man.

https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?p=9464109#9464109

Hands · Nov 14, 2016

Caaethil said:
Calling out implies that they're somehow revealing it. No, don't change my wording. They're making accusations. Baseless ones, against entirely innocent people. More strawmen, try again.

This, 'buddy', is rather out of touch with reality when Hillary Clinton literally put half of Trump supporters into a 'basket of deplorables'. Hillary Clinton, the leader of this campaign, thinks there's a 50% chance that I'm a deplorable and here you are saying things like 'Very few people are calling anyone racist simply for voting Trump'.

Gonna need to be a bit more specific than that man.

There is literally a 3 page argument between me and Colours/Ivysaur, a separate two page argument with Ivysaur and a seperate two page argument with aliencommander on my anti Hillary stance. You don't have to support Hillary to see the trash side of Trump.

I genuinely am at a loss to how little you seem to grasp irony. Earlier you were suggesting the left en masse caused Trump, that the left were rioting. Now you're suggesting one woman who was chronically unpopular with the left's comments somehow speak for all of us. But heaven forbid we criticise the legitimate issues with your candidates and a bulk of his supporters. Trump won for a myriad of reasons. None were lower on the list than what you claim to be the core reason.

Somewhere_ · Nov 14, 2016

Hands said:
There is literally a 3 page argument between me and Colours/Ivysaur, a separate two page argument with Ivysaur and a seperate two page argument with aliencommander on my anti Hillary stance. You don't have to support Hillary to see the trash side of Trump.

I genuinely am at a loss to how little you seem to grasp irony. Earlier you were suggesting the left en masse caused Trump, that the left were rioting. Now you're suggesting one woman who was chronically unpopular with the left's comments somehow speak for all of us. But heaven forbid we criticise the legitimate issues with your candidates and a bulk of his supporters. Trump won for a myriad of reasons. None were lower on the list than what you claim to be the core reason.

Hillary Clinton does not represent progressives well as she is a neoliberal, but she does represent some common ground, so Caaethil has not contradicted himself (unless I'm missing something?).

And the left did help produce Trump because the rise of Trump was partly reactionary. Not to mention, the left chose a terrible candidate to represent them.

Aliencommander1245 · Nov 14, 2016

Caaethil said:
Hillary did it. Basket of deplorables, remember?

You mean the one single thing in which she was specifically targeting groups like the KKK rather than his entire voter base, but when people started complaining that she did call them all that, despite it not being true, she apologised for it coming off as going after all his voters? That thing?

Yeah what a horribly negative campaign from hillary there, sure is really attacking anyone who likes her opponent.

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

We're not having a conversation, but alright thanks for that scathing in-depth critique of my point, it's certainly made me rethink my stance

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

If someone can justify to them self why voting for the racist candidate with racist policies is not supporting racism, or racist in itself I think that speaks a lot for their own moral system

Caaethil said:
That's not an argument, that's a statement.

No... it's not? I'm telling you it's more complex than "teh SJWs!!!" and saying that is said """SJW""" is indigenous and not reflective of the issues actually involved in Trump's rise

Caaethil said:
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.

I'm not suggesting that it comes with baggage, just that maybe you should take a step back and look at why it does, and why your friends could have such an extreme reaction, and why you'd put your support behind the candidate like that.

Take, for example, if said friend is LGBT in some fashion and would be angry because they're genuinely fearful of what a Trump presidency brings, can you really call that baggage "unwarrented"? If your support is behind the candidate that could legitimately hurt your friends, or family, fear that they might not be happy about that isn't.... wrong, or indicative of ""how the liberals have made the world"".

It's the same as if you were bigoted in some way and felt like that was "unwarranted baggage" you had to hide from your friends because knowing that might make them not want to be around you

Caaethil said:
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.

And what indicates if something is a riot or a protest? If some property is damaged by someone during an otherwise peaceful protest, does it become a riot? Is it only a riot if you don't agree with what they're protesting?

Caaethil said:
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.

It's not, it's exercising your democratic right to protest. The majority of people voted for Clinton, yet Trump won, and people are angry and protesting the system and the decision.
People are protesting the fear and violence incited by Trump and his followers, and the biogtry only empowered by Trump's victory. A man who has put a white nationalist into his cabinet.

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

Caaethil said:
Protesting and rioting over the result of a democratic election is 100% anti-democracy.

??????????????????????????????????????????????

Also the president elect himself

http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/11/13596932/trump-protestors-electoral-college-tweets

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.

Caaethil said:
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.

But again, they all supported a candidate and policies bigoted in all those ways. Anyway, the original point from you was that it was a culture of "calling people stuff" that Trump's rise was caused by, now you've sidestepped and it's entirely the fault of calling Trump supporters X (Which is just a strawman, again)

Caaethil said:
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.

Ah yes, slightest missteps like... constant streams of misogynist, xenophobic ect statements and rhetoric. "Political correctness" is a garbage concept invented by people to try and justify their own awful opinions. By putting up a strawman and saying "Oh man PC police make everything X-ist" it's a way of pretending people's personal X-ism means less or is more of an exaggeration. Ignoring that most, if not all, arguments to that calibre are literally just rallying against a made up strawman, the idea Trump won the election because he was openly racist is... not at all true, as I'd said earlier.

To claim that was a big reason for his popularity just isn't right, when that almost entierly falls upon his lies and rhetoric, and the "i'll say whatever they want to hear" mentality he had over the entire election

Somewhere_ · Nov 14, 2016

To be fair though, I think SJW's did help cause Trump. I said it before, but Trump's presidency can be partly attributed to reactionaries pissed off at SJW's, feminism, PC culture, left-wing silencing tactics, etc. SJW's are minority, but loud and prominent at that. So yea, they in addition other stuff sparked a reactionary movement.

Talk to some some pro-Trump people, conservatives, or anyone that may have voted Trump. How do you think the Alt-Right was birthed? It was largely reactionary lol. It was out of opposition to Cultural Marxism and political elites (on both the right and left).

Florges · Nov 14, 2016

1. Continue to advocate my Hispanic families, even if some, if not all, will be deported. While they are here, I am going to make sure they receive the best education their children can get.
2. Continue paying monthly contributions to Planned Parenthood.
3. Advocate that hate is wrong to my preschoolers so they can, hopefully, thrive in an era where they can educate others to be tolerant.

This is all I can really do.

Aliencommander1245 · Nov 14, 2016

JDJacket said:
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

Hate homosexuality ≠ Hate Gays
Hate high amounts of melanin ≠ Hate dark skinned people
Hate Christianity ≠ Hate Chritstians

It's something that you can't very easily untangle. I'd say you're pretty uninformed on Islam as a whole from this big post but i'd be hard pressed to cut it down and address each point individually, mostly my points stem from the fact you're not bringing up parts of the religion itself, and ignoring people who practice it in western countries, in place of complaining about laws of countries in interpretations of the religion and it's practices

JDJacket said:
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.

When a huge majority of people practising a religion come from a specific ethnicity, (Or a perceived one in the case of western society seeing "middle eastern" as one big blob) and a religion is largely practice in a certain geographical area containing these people then you certainly can be racist against a religion.

In fact, your weird ideas that somehow Muslims are some kind of group transcending their religion is kind of proof of this, honestly, and your notions that they're worse off as a people because of their religion is fairly close to racist ideas

JDJacket said:
You cannot be racist against Judaism.

lol

JDJacket said:
Down with Islam. Free the Muslim people.

Me said:
lol

Somewhere_ · Nov 14, 2016

Aliencommander1245 said:
Hate homosexuality ≠ Hate Gays
Hate high amounts of melanin ≠ Hate dark skinned people
Hate Christianity ≠ Hate Chritstians

It's something that you can't very easily untangle. I'd say you're pretty uninformed on Islam as a whole from this big post but i'd be hard pressed to cut it down and address each point individually, mostly my points stem from the fact you're not bringing up parts of the religion itself, and ignoring people who practice it in western countries, in place of complaining about laws of countries in interpretations of the religion and it's practices

When a huge majority of people practising a religion come from a specific ethnicity, (Or a perceived one in the case of western society seeing "middle eastern" as one big blob) and a religion is largely practice in a certain geographical area containing these people then you certainly can be racist against a religion.

In fact, your weird ideas that somehow Muslims are some kind of group transcending their religion is kind of proof of this, honestly, and your notions that they're worse off as a people because of their religion is fairly close to racist ideas

Judaism is a religion and an ethnicity. Meaning you can hate Judaism, but not be racist. But you can also hate Judaism and be anti-Semitic.

I dont know why anyone would want to be anti-Semitic, but whatever.

So, while I personally do not hate Islam, you can hate Islam without being racist. Religion and race are totally separate. When you criticize a religion, you criticize the religion regardless of race. Not every Muslim is Middle-Eastern.

You can also hate Islam, but not a Muslim. Islam is an idea- a religion. It is not a person.

To be clear, i am not Islamophobic, nor anti-Semitic. Im just explaining the technicalities. Sorry if its captious.

Margaery Tyrell · Nov 14, 2016

BadSheep said:
So, while I personally do not hate Islam, you can hate Islam without being racist. Religion and race are totally separate. When you criticize a religion, you criticize the religion regardless of race. Not every Muslim is Middle-Eastern.

You can also hate Islam, but not a Muslim. Islam is an idea- a religion. It is not a person.

"I don't hate gay people, I just hate homosexuality!"

I'm sorry but your reasoning on this is a fallacy - as an example to show why, I've given you a rather typical occurrence among homophobic rhetoric. You could argue that homosexuality and Islam cannot be compared to each other blah blah one is a religion and therefore subject to one's choice of belief, the other is an uncontrollable attraction - its irrelevant. Homosexuality is intertwined with homosexuals because people who are attracted to the same gender are included in the idea of and behavioral engagement of homosexuality. Make sense?

You could hate Islam, sure, but Muslims, likewise, are people who believe in and practice the faith of Islam. You could not, on a social level, separate the two. And considering the ethnogeographic origins of Islam and the majority of people who practice it today are not white, it is really no logical leap to conclude that hatred targeting Islam is racist - allowing people to believe that their fear and prejudice towards Muslims (or Islam since apparently its feasible to separate a religion from its members - funny how that doesn't seem to work out when racists assault and harass brown people on the basis of hatred towards Islam even if they don't practice Islam) is a logical normalcy is dangerous.

I apologize if this feels like a personal attack, because that is not my intention - all I'm trying to convey is that this line of thinking only validates the Islamophobia and racism sustained by (typically) white people. And when we tolerate this rhetoric, it will inevitably lead to systemic oppression and violence.

**As an added side note, religion and race are *not* always separate and quite often can be correlated with the race or ethnicity of a person - as I'm sure someone may have talked about Judaism already in this thread, but nonetheless, Jewish people are a notable example. I'm sure we're all familiar with the Holocaust so I really don't need to elaborate further on why allowing hatred towards a targeted religion is dangerous.
***Nevermind, you yourself actually talked about it - still, what I've discussed only enhances the argument I've presented.

Somewhere_ · Nov 14, 2016

Margaery Tyrell said:
"I don't hate gay people, I just hate homosexuality!"

I'm sorry but your reasoning on this is a fallacy - as an example to show why, I've given you a rather typical occurrence among homophobic rhetoric. You could argue that homosexuality and Islam cannot be compared to each other blah blah one is a religion and therefore subject to one's choice of belief, the other is an uncontrollable attraction - its irrelevant. Homosexuality is intertwined with homosexuals because people who are attracted to the same gender are included in the idea of and behavioral engagement of homosexuality. Make sense?

You could hate Islam, sure, but Muslims, likewise, are people who believe in and practice the faith of Islam. You could not, on a social level, separate the two. And considering the ethnogeographic origins of Islam and the majority of people who practice it today are not white, it is really no logical leap to conclude that hatred targeting Islam is racist - allowing people to believe that their fear and prejudice towards Muslims (or Islam since apparently its feasible to separate a religion from its members - funny how that doesn't seem to work out when racists assault and harass brown people on the basis of hatred towards Islam even if they don't practice Islam) is a logical normalcy is dangerous.

I apologize if this feels like a personal attack, because that is not my intention - all I'm trying to convey is that this line of thinking only validates the Islamophobia and racism sustained by (typically) white people. And when we tolerate this rhetoric, it will inevitably lead to systemic oppression and violence.

**As an added side note, religion and race are *not* always separate and quite often can be correlated with the race or ethnicity of a person - as I'm sure someone may have talked about Judaism already in this thread, but nonetheless, Jewish people are a notable example. I'm sure we're all familiar with the Holocaust so I really don't need to elaborate further on why allowing hatred towards a targeted religion is dangerous.
***Nevermind, you yourself actually talked about it - still, what I've discussed only enhances the argument I've presented.

I dont take it as a personal attack. its okay lol

I understand they are intertwined, but definition-wise they are not the same. Therefore, you cannot say that hating Islam is racist according to the definitions of the terminology.

However, rhetoric can be hateful towards Islam and Muslims. Maybe in practice, it is mostly used this way; however, that does not mean that hate against Islam is ALWAYS hate against muslims. Maybe in practice hate towards Islam is dangerous, but again, this does not mean it is ALWAYS anti-Muslim.

I know I seem like I'm being captious, but its important to make the distinction.

Margaery Tyrell · Nov 14, 2016

BadSheep said:
I dont take it as a personal attack. its okay lol

I understand they are intertwined, but definition-wise they are not the same. Therefore, you cannot say that hating Islam is racist according to the definitions of the terminology.

However, rhetoric can be hateful towards Islam and Muslims. Maybe in practice, it is mostly used this way; however, that does not mean that hate against Islam is ALWAYS hate against muslims. Maybe in practice hate towards Islam is dangerous, but again, this does not mean it is ALWAYS anti-Muslim.

I know I seem like I'm being captious, but its important to make the distinction.

There really isn't much of a maybe when Muslims are daily being harassed, threatened with violence, and considerations on registering them for surveillance is a genuine policy that could be enacted in some variation lmao
Now, MAYBE, stars aren't involved this time around, but when people are being denied refuge on the basis of xenophobia, again, I really don't see how this is debatable - it is a very real reality and people are suffering for it.
You could argue about the semantics of this, but like, hatred towards Islam is coming from people outside of those experiences and customs and honestly have no business making blanket statements or opinions without any substantial knowledge or willingness to learn from actual Muslims on their own faith.
I just don't understand as to how it can be reasonably said that being anti-Islam or hateful towards Islam can possibly be separate from the people who practice it - you CAN make this argument, but past superficial appearances, it doesn't hold together. A person who doesn't agree with some beliefs or practices of Islam does not equate prejudice, but when disagreement becomes *hate* - it really begs the question of why you'd feel that way. Semantic based arguments centered around textbook definitions isn't stopping anyone from targeting Muslims.

Somewhere_ · Nov 14, 2016

Margaery Tyrell said:
There really isn't much of a maybe when Muslims are daily being harassed, threatened with violence, and considerations on registering them for surveillance is a genuine policy that could be enacted in some variation lmao
Now, MAYBE, stars aren't involved this time around, but when people are being denied refuge on the basis of xenophobia, again, I really don't see how this is debatable - it is a very real reality and people are suffering for it.
You could argue about the semantics of this, but like, hatred towards Islam is coming from people outside of those experiences and customs and honestly have no business making blanket statements or opinions without any substantial knowledge or willingness to learn from actual Muslims on their own faith.

This doesnt really relate to my or JD's point, but I agree with you here.

Margaery Tyrell said:
I just don't understand as to how it can be reasonably said that being anti-Islam or hateful towards Islam can possibly be separate from the people who practice it - you CAN make this argument, but past superficial appearances, it doesn't hold together. A person who doesn't agree with some beliefs or practices of Islam does not equate prejudice, but when disagreement becomes *hate* - it really begs the question of why you'd feel that way. Semantic based arguments centered around textbook definitions isn't stopping anyone from targeting Muslims.

My argument is correct because it follows the definitions of the terminology involved; however, in practice, anti-Islam is most often also anti-Muslim. But it is not always anti-Muslim.

Kanzler · Nov 14, 2016

"I will say this, and I'll say it to the camera: [turns to the camera] Stop it."

Also, DNC getting some fresh blood, it looks like. Over the next four years, I would ask you to seriously consider getting involved with the progressive candidate in your area (if that's the way you roll), in helping them organize and get the message out and help change the Democratic party.

Adore · Nov 14, 2016

JDJacket said:
An ideology that sees thousands of LGBTQ people murdered in the streets of these countries, which number upwards of 50 separate countries.

I'm only going to respond to a couple of points and be on my merry way since others have already responded more eloquently than I could have.

LGBT people are more likely than any other minority group to be the target of violent hate crimes in the US. We are not morally superior on this issue, and only within the last ~13 years have we made any attempt to be.

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?

Lol... And the US Constitution references the [Protestant] Christian God on numerous things. Those influences have affected policy both directly (illegally) and indirectly since the birth of the country. In fact, most major political and social movements in this country have religious origins. We have been good about scaling back on direct references to that in the laws themselves, though, so I will concede that.

What if I told you the US was also responsible for aiding in this travesty?

I am well aware of that, but thank you for bringing this up! The US' involvement in the Middle East began under Republican regimes and has escalated exponentially under every Republican since at least Nixon. Trump's rhetoric is, once again, fueling the fire that will lead to more problems. Along with Trump's blatant racism and homophobia, that is one of the big reasons why I am extremely critical of him.

Caaethil · Nov 15, 2016

Hands said:
There is literally a 3 page argument between me and Colours/Ivysaur, a separate two page argument with Ivysaur and a seperate two page argument with aliencommander on my anti Hillary stance. You don't have to support Hillary to see the trash side of Trump.

I know that. How do I know that? Well, I certainly don't support Hillary, and I've established that I see the trash side of Trump. So I don't really need you to explain that the two ideas are compatible.

Hands said:
I genuinely am at a loss to how little you seem to grasp irony.

I am genuinely at a loss to how little you seem to grasp reasonable discussion.

Hands said:
Earlier you were suggesting the left en masse caused Trump, that the left were rioting.

Well the riots I'm talking about are post-Trump. So not so much were as are.

The left caused Trump, yes, I think that's true. People were tired of shame and tired of the corruption in the left.

The left are rioting, yes, I think that's true. There's videos of it.

Hands said:
Now you're suggesting one woman

Just one little harmless woman, right?

Hands said:
who was chronically unpopular with the left's comments somehow speak for all of us.

It was one example, unless you expect me to poll every democrat in America. Just... type in on Google "Trump supporters are racist" or something. See for yourself what people are actually saying. Look at what the media is actually saying.

Hands said:
But heaven forbid we criticise the legitimate issues with your candidates and a bulk of his supporters.

Bulk? Bulk, do I hear you say?

By golly, are you calling them racists? :D

Hands said:
Trump won for a myriad of reasons. None were lower on the list than what you claim to be the core reason.

Your post has not presented an argument as to why it is other than claiming it is.

4-Year Survival Plan

More options

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Somewhere_

i don't know where

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Somewhere_

i don't know where

Caaethil

#1 Greninja Fan

Nah

Hands

I was saying Boo-urns

Somewhere_

i don't know where

Aliencommander1245

Somewhere_

i don't know where

Florges

The Garden Pokémon

Aliencommander1245

Somewhere_

i don't know where

Margaery Tyrell

Growing Strong

Somewhere_

i don't know where

Margaery Tyrell

Growing Strong

Somewhere_

i don't know where

Kanzler

Adore

Party.

Caaethil

#1 Greninja Fan