4-Year Survival Plan

[Hands]

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.


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


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.


Just one little harmless woman, right?


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.


Bulk? Bulk, do I hear you say?

By golly, are you calling them racists? :D


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

A bulk, not the bulk, a bulk. A bulk means a large chunk. And yes, I am calling people who refer to M Obama as an ape or to all Muslims as terrorists or who say Syrian refugees deserve to die racist because they absolutely are. These same people also supported Trump. It really, really isn't hard.

I'm fairly sure I fired off a bunch of reasons in an earlier post listing far more key reasons Trump is the president elect, I've got a good feeling you've simply skimmed over it.

Edit: Also were is absolutely the correct word, were is past tense, you made the suggestion in a prior post which makes it past tense.

 

[Caaethil]

You mean the one single thing in which she was specifically targeting groups like the KKK rather than his entire voter base,

You think half of Trump supporters are like the KKK? Bloody hell man, you're proving my point.

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

You're welcome.

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

It's funny. On one hand, Hands is telling me that by no means is the left calling Trump supporters racists. And here you are, calling Trump supporters racists.

If you think voting for Trump is racist in itself I'm pretty much done with this conversation. Please clarify so I can see if I need to end this discussion entirely.

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

Well I guess it's a good job that I never said "teh SJWs!!!", isn't it?

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.

I did. Guess what, it was unjustified nonsense. It was people saying "Well if you think that you must be racist". And you know, I'm not a racist. Unless you mean to say I am?

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"".

My support is not behind any such candidate. I'm British, dude.

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?

I'm not the one who draws the line, I'm saying some have crossed that line wherever it is. Are you saying there haven't been riots?

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.

Yes, people have the democratic right to be anti-democracy. When did I say they didn't? Why are the two things (exercising your democratic right to protest and being anti-democracy) mutually exclusive?

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

Also the president elect himself

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

Taking posts out of context is fun, isn't it? The person said I was calling specific protests anti-democracy, and he said that before I even made any similar claim. I wasn't accusing him of saying something unrepresentative of what I believe - I do believe anti-democracy protests are going on. I was accusing him of misrepresenting my previous posts. Taking something I said after the fact is useless.

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)

"calling people stuff" vs "calling Trump supporters X" - I don't see much of a difference?

Ah yes, slightest missteps like... constant streams of misogynist, xenophobic ect statements and rhetoric.

Not what I was talking about. Strawman.

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

Prove it..? I thought this was supposed to be a discussion. Your argument is "X was not the reason, for A, B and C other reasons. Y was the reason."

A bulk, not the bulk, a bulk. A bulk means a large chunk. And yes, I am calling people who refer to M Obama as an ape or to all Muslims as terrorists or who say Syrian refugees deserve to die racist because they absolutely are. These same people also supported Trump. It really, really isn't hard.

Bulk implies a much larger number of people than we're actually talking about, and will unless you can present some real numbers to suggest that the number is actually this large.

I'm fairly sure I fired off a bunch of reasons in an earlier post listing far more key reasons Trump is the president elect, I've got a good feeling you've simply skimmed over it.

I actually did read it, thanks for having faith.

But listing other factors that helped Trump become president is fairly inconsequential as far as disproving a point.

Edit: Also were is absolutely the correct word, were is past tense, you made the suggestion in a prior post which makes it past tense.

The riots are still happening. Present tense.

 

[Hands]

Bulk implies a much larger number of people than we're actually talking about, and will unless you can present some real numbers to suggest that the number is actually this large.

So you can provide an accurate number to disprove me then? Or perhaps you can provide the over 50% (that means over a half, not under a third, just so we don't end up in the same embarrassing boat as you put us in in the Brexit thread) who voted Trump because they were tired of this apparent shaming that you have provided zero evidence of? I understand that at this point splitting hairs is about all you have left but come along, the phrase "a bulk" doesn't specify anything other than a large portion. I could link a thousand images and videos and it still wouldn't give us a set number.

I actually did read it, thanks for having faith.

I'm not a religious man my friend, faith from me is earned, not donated. So when you claim "Your post has not presented an argument as to why it is other than claiming it is." to a fairly robust list of numerous observable factors that got Trump elected there really isn't much of a case to put even a remote amount of faith in you.

But listing other factors that helped Trump become president is fairly inconsequential as far as disproving a point.

What? Let's talk numbers then because this mess is legitimately starting to wear thin now. Trump only wrangled half a million more votes than McCain did in 2008, a similar amount more than Romney too. Clinton lost over a million. Trump didn't smash some massive record because everyone was so butthurt that people were targeting them, he won essentially because the working class abandoned the Dems over globalisation, the destruction of US industry and the perceived threats of war and terrorism. He won because she was a bad pick. This is beyond observable if you take the trends from every post Bill Clinton election. It's the same as why the North and Scotland abandoned the Labour party here. Because they no longer done their job. Clinton done a laughably low amount of campaigning in traditional blue working class areas and as a result she lost those voters. People consistently cited Clinton's constant scandals and globalisation as core reasons they were voting Trump. Many cited that he'd be tough on Terrorism, on China, on immigration. Some even said they were voting for him simply because he wasn't Hillary.

The riots are still happening. Present tense.

I don't know if you're just trolling by being deliberately dense right now. I directly referenced some of your posts from a day or to ago thus making the posts I was referring to PAST TENSE

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=p.....69i57j0l5.1449j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Here, that might be of help. What you are trying to say here is the correct sentence on my part would have been "Earlier you are suggesting the left en masse caused Trump, that the left were rioting." Do you not see how nonsensical that statement is?

I would say you've got a pretty fragile idea of what a riot is, but if its anything like your ideas of why people voted then I'm almost certain a man crossing the road without looking would constitute as a riot in your eyes.

 

[Margaery Tyrell]

My support is not behind any such candidate. I'm British, dude.

If you have no ties or connection with American politics then why are you even coming into a discussion centered around American policies and politics that is aimed AT American people who are concerned with their own well being lmao

this really isn't the thread for flexing your debate skills as a person observing, millions of people living here will be affected negatively both by a great portion of Trump's policies, not to mention the spike in white nationalism and fascists

but thanks man, i'm so glad you have no inclination to listen to literally anyone on this thread who, you know, LIVES in America
like we don't know what the hell is going on in our own country lmao

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



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.

If that's the only premise you wish to judge the discussion on, then sure, you're correct, but connotations and context don't exist in a void outside of language and meaning
I could say more but I think at this point we'll just argue in circles and not actually reach an agreement or compromise (which is fine)

 

[Somewhere_]

If that's the only premise you wish to judge the discussion on, then sure, you're correct, but connotations and context don't exist in a void outside of language and meaning
I could say more but I think at this point we'll just argue in circles and not actually reach an agreement or compromise (which is fine)

It was just a bunny trail to be honest. It wasnt even the main discussion xD

 

[Margaery Tyrell]

It was just a bunny trail to be honest. It wasnt even the main discussion xD

Which is true, there's been a lot of spin-off discussions that don't really respond or contribute to the original aims of this thread, but its cool tbh

I really don't know what else could be said in regards to the original discussion unless a good portion of people are interested in, I don't know, providing links or updates on what to do in the interest of keeping a check on the upcoming administration

I've actually heard that the possible top advisor for Trump is Steve Bannon, who has openly associated himself with Atl-right ideology - it wouldn't hurt to call senators and ask them if they will join other senators in voicing their opposition to him becoming a part of the White House staff.

 

[Kanzler]

Which is true, there's been a lot of spin-off discussions that don't really respond or contribute to the original aims of this thread, but its cool tbh

I really don't know what else could be said in regards to the original discussion unless a good portion of people are interested in, I don't know, providing links or updates on what to do in the interest of keeping a check on the upcoming administration

I've actually heard that the possible top advisor for Trump is Steve Bannon, who has openly associated himself with neo-Nazi ideology - it wouldn't hurt to call senators and ask them if they will join other senators in voicing their opposition to him becoming a part of the White House staff.

I don't know if that opposition would mean anything. I think, not sure, that the President's staff is basically his own personal decision. They could try convincing Trump to change his mind, and I'm sure that staff shake-ups happen now and then, but I don't think they have any institutional power to help get rid of him.

 

[Somewhere_]

Which is true, there's been a lot of spin-off discussions that don't really respond or contribute to the original aims of this thread, but its cool tbh

I really don't know what else could be said in regards to the original discussion unless a good portion of people are interested in, I don't know, providing links or updates on what to do in the interest of keeping a check on the upcoming administration

I've actually heard that the possible top advisor for Trump is Steve Bannon, who has openly associated himself with neo-Nazi ideology - it wouldn't hurt to call senators and ask them if they will join other senators in voicing their opposition to him becoming a part of the White House staff.

The alt-right is not a neo-nazi ideology. Not even close. There is no argument. To claim that is to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the alt-right. We have a whole thread about this on PC.

Bannon is arguably anti-semitic, which is totally possible to be honest. Though sources are not very credible: an ex-wife. ex.

 

[Sir Codin]

I just want to say think twice about impeachment.

I'd rather have four years of Trump possibly being reined in than four years of Pence not being reined in.

If we want impeachment to be an option, gotta get 'em both.

 

[Somewhere_]

I just want to say think twice about impeachment.

I'd rather have four years of Trump possibly being reined in than four years of Pence not being reined in.

If we want impeachment to be an option, gotta get 'em both.

This is a really good point. Pence has actually advocated extremely homophobic laws, such as therapy to make homosexuals straight. Trump, on the other hand, is the most pro-gay rights Republican.

 

[Margaery Tyrell]

The alt-right is not a neo-nazi ideology. Not even close. There is no argument. To claim that is to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the alt-right. We have a whole thread about this on PC.

Bannon is arguably anti-semitic, which is totally possible to be honest. Though sources are not very credible: an ex-wife. ex.

That was my mistake - still, alt-right ideology, as informal and nebulous as it is, has been described as reactionary and what, nationalistic? Nationalistic for who? I don't think nationalism is inherently bad at all, but it really does depend on the group were talking about.

Also plenty of alt-right ideas claim to reject egalitarianism, which, if anyone were to pay close attention to America anyway, minorities aren't exactly enjoying "egalitarianism" anyway

You can disagree but a strong proponent of something like that really doesn't bode well with me whatsoever.

I don't know if that opposition would mean anything. I think, not sure, that the President's staff is basically his own personal decision. They could try convincing Trump to change his mind, and I'm sure that staff shake-ups happen now and then, but I don't think they have any institutional power to help get rid of him.

I'm not exactly sure myself, but if anything, that kind of action would at least demonstrate that both a large portion of people and senators don't trust or endorse him which would be a benefit to some extent.

I just want to say think twice about impeachment.

I'd rather have four years of Trump possibly being reined in than four years of Pence not being reined in.

If we want impeachment to be an option, gotta get 'em both.

I completely agree with this, and honestly in some ways Pence concerns me far more than Trump (such as Sheep said, conversion therapy and all that).

At this point though, I really doubt impeachment is going to be possible for either one, even if we succeeded in impeaching Trump, Pence is an establishment Republican - he'll play much more closely and comfortably to what the Republican party wants and what mainstream conservatives want as well.

 

[Somewhere_]

That was my mistake - still, alt-right ideology, as informal and nebulous as it is, has been described as reactionary and what, nationalistic? Nationalistic for who? I don't think nationalism is inherently bad at all, but it really does depend on the group were talking about.

Also plenty of alt-right ideas claim to reject egalitarianism, which, if anyone were to pay close attention to America anyway, minorities aren't exactly enjoying "egalitarianism" anyway

You can disagree but a strong proponent of something like that really doesn't bode well with me whatsoever.

The alt-right is definitely reactionary to the increasing Cultural Marxism (social egalitarianism) within Western countries and the growth of liberalism. To an extent, it is also reactionary against democracy (much of the alt-right is pro-democracy).

The alt-right is all about Western nationalism. NOT pro-government nationalism, but pro-culture nationalism. That is, Western culture is inherently superior to other cultures, but it does not claim to be racially superior. The alt-right also respects national sovereignty.

The alt-right rejects social egalitarianism, economic egalitarianism, and some of the time, political egalitarianism.

What are you trying to say about minorities, and how does it relate to the alt-right?

 

[Margaery Tyrell]

The alt-right is definitely reactionary to the increasing Cultural Marxism (social egalitarianism) within Western countries and the growth of liberalism. To an extent, it is also reactionary against democracy (much of the alt-right is pro-democracy).

The alt-right is all about Western nationalism. NOT pro-government nationalism, but pro-culture nationalism. That is, Western culture is inherently superior to other cultures, but it does not claim to be racially superior. The alt-right also respects national sovereignty.

The alt-right rejects social egalitarianism, economic egalitarianism, and some of the time, political egalitarianism.

What are you trying to say about minorities, and how does it relate to the alt-right?

From what you've said, I think, again, debating this would be a useless exercise honestly - we seem to have extremely different fundamental views tbh, and I don't want to incite a pointless explosion or anger

But I will respond to the minorities comment - what I mean by minorities not enjoying egalitarianism is exactly what I said tbh - minorities as a whole do not possess equal opportunity economically or politically. If you'd like me to elaborate further I can, but for now I'll leave it at that.

*to clarify, I'm referring to minorities in the US if that wasn't already understood.
**I realized I didn't answer how it relates to the alt-right - anyway, if the alt-right is anti-egalitarianism socially and so on, then again, not exactly a set of ideas that I'd want being advocated for by one of the top staffers in my government. That's all.

 

[Somewhere_]

From what you've said, I think, again, debating this would be a useless exercise honestly - we seem to have extremely different fundamental views tbh, and I don't want to incite a pointless explosion or anger

But I will respond to the minorities comment - what I mean by minorities not enjoying egalitarianism is exactly what I said tbh - minorities as a whole do not possess equal opportunity economically or politically. If you'd like me to elaborate further I can, but for now I'll leave it at that.

*to clarify, I'm referring to minorities in the US if that wasn't already understood.
**I realized I didn't answer how it relates to the alt-right - anyway, if the alt-right is anti-egalitarianism socially and so on, then again, not exactly a set of ideas that I'd want being advocated for by one of the top staffers in my government. That's all.

What do you mean we have different views? I was just explaining the alt-right without inserting my own opinion of it lol.

Yes, you are right. Minorities in the US - on average - make less money than the white population, with the exception of asians, who make more money than the white population. And I think I might be missing another minority group that makes more money on average than whites.

And identifying social differences is another conversation that is much, much more proud than economic egalitarianism, which should be quite obvious: the wealth gap is massive.

 

[Margaery Tyrell]

What do you mean we have different views? I was just explaining the alt-right without inserting my own opinion of it lol.

Yes, you are right. Minorities in the US - on average - make less money than the white population, with the exception of asians, who make more money than the white population. And I think I might be missing another minority group that makes more money on average than whites.

And identifying social differences is another conversation that is much, much more proud than economic egalitarianism, which should be quite obvious: the wealth gap is massive.

When you mentioned that there was already a thread on the Alt-right on PC I searched for one and read the posts and you described yourself as arguably being alt-right, hence my comment - though considering the time stamp it was admittedly an outdated assumption, so I really can't speak for whatever political views you have.

And I don't have much to add to those two comments beyond I would agree - however, with a look at demographics on wikipedia (I know, I know), it should be noted that the total Asian population (according to this data) is roughly around 4.8% in comparison to 72.4% white Americans make up the US population.

I'm confused as to what you mean by "more proud than economic egalitarianism", could you rephrase that or explain, I'm kind of out of it lmao

 

[Somewhere_]

When you mentioned that there was already a thread on the Alt-right on PC I searched for one and read the posts and you described yourself as arguably being alt-right, hence my comment - though considering the time stamp it was admittedly an outdated assumption, so I really can't speak for whatever political views you have.

It is somewhat outdated, but Im similar. I dont like to associate myself with the alt-right because they are often viewed negatively. I also do not like the trolls and stuff; however, I am attracted to alt-right intellectuals, though I do not agree with them 100%. Some of my beliefs line up with the alt-right and others do not. I see the alt-right more as a transition to libertarianism because nationalism is necessary to retain and obtain free markets, and Cultural Marxism is counterintuitive.

And I don't have much to add to those two comments beyond I would agree - however, with a look at demographics on wikipedia (I know, I know), it should be noted that the total Asian population (according to this data) is roughly around 4.8% in comparison to 72.4% white Americans make up the US population.

So yea, Asians are a small minority in the US.

I'm confused as to what you mean by "more proud than economic egalitarianism", could you rephrase that or explain, I'm kind of out of it lmao

oh i think it was spellcheck or something. I typed it up real quick. I think i meant to use "difficult" rather than "proud" haha.

 

[Sektor]

*Boop*

I'd buy that for a dollar.

Ha! He's already firing people! If the best NBC news can come up with is "As Trump Leaves Press Behind for Steak Dinner, Incoming Admin Already Showing Lack of Transparency" I'm not as concerned as they'd probably like me to be.

Steak dinner. National news guys.

 

[Adore]

You should be concerned.

Trump is appointing white supremacist Stephen Bannon as his chief White House strategist.

 

[Hands]

*Boop*

I'd buy that for a dollar.

Ha! He's already firing people! If the best NBC news can come up with is "As Trump Leaves Press Behind for Steak Dinner, Incoming Admin Already Showing Lack of Transparency" I'm not as concerned as they'd probably like me to be.

Steak dinner. National news guys.

In fairness to the nutty media, the election cycle is over, they need something to report on.

Although the apt. of Bannon is worrying me a lot.

 

[Adore]

Congress still has to approve his appointments, but given that the Senate and House are also controlled by Republicans it is very likely that he will be appointed without a public outcry.

So if you are concerned about Bannon's appointment (or any other congressional things you're not in favor of), google how to contact your senators and congresspeople and then call their office. Tell them that you are concerned and why. Ask them to block his appointment. Don't email or write, though; they get so many letters and emails that the majority go unseen. To really get their attention and make them (re-)consider their position, talk to them on the phone.

I plan to do this in the morning.

That's one of the most effective ways to "survive" the next 4 years, in my opinion.