The News Thread

[Einherjar86]

Dems pushed Trump to the media and promoted him until he secured the nomination, per the Pied Piper strategy.

That I agree with.

Trump definitely saw declines among educated whites.

So did Clinton though, based on what I've read--education roughly correlated with higher incomes. That doesn't mean the highest incomes necessarily; mainly it means upper-middle class white voters.

Trump's gains may have been among lower, working-class voters; but they didn't comprise the majority of his constituency. That still belongs to upper-middle-class and upper-class republicans, many of whom may have preferred someone other than Trump but who had no problem voting him into office. By contrast, many democrats preferred someone other than Clinton, and had no problem demonstrating that in their voting patterns.

Stein got far fewer votes than Johnson. You guys just get a lot more butthurt when third parties spoil your anointed candidates.

Well she wasn't my anointed candidate. She was just better than the alternative. (That's not an invitation for argument; it's over and done, I'm not interested in rehashing the pros and cons between the two)

As I said, many pissed off democrats did vote for Stein, but more probably didn't vote at all.

 

[Dak]

Hillary Clinton was not rejected based on her Foreign Policy compared with Obama because overall they had almost identical platforms. She just has zero humanity and it's repulsive.

 

[Einherjar86]

She just has zero humanity and it's repulsive.

I like how you presume to judge her humanity as lacking compared to Donald Trump's, especially through something as adulterated as the media systems that portray her. The visceral hatred of Clinton unnaturally extreme. It's a wonder to observe.

 

[CiG]

She's very hateable. She's Johnny-come-lately on every progressive principal she claims to have, lied about an endless amount of things, smeared Trump's entire voting block as a basket of deplorables, is a warhawk, is corporatist out the ass and perhaps worst of all is soaked in this entitled aura as if the presidency is a monarchy and her rightful position was stolen from her, and even desperately tried to levy her gender against the voters in an attempt to shame them into not squandering an opportunity to put the first female president into the white house.

Fuck her, fuck her a million times more and then some.

 

[Dak]

I like how you presume to judge her humanity as lacking compared to Donald Trump's, especially through something as adulterated as the media systems that portray her. The visceral hatred of Clinton unnaturally extreme. It's a wonder to observe.

Maybe humanity wasn't quite the right term to descibe what I meant, but I think it works anyway as well. She's got a long pro-war record; Libya is still a flaming wreck thanks to her. Trump is very human, for all of his other flaws. He's relatable to many people, even people who wouldn't ever want him to sit at their dinner table. He projects, to whatever degree in the eye of the beholder, confidence and ability to get things done.

Hillary Clinton, on top of the things CIG mentioned, was ever at best able to come across as a schoolmarm, which few people like, and inspires no confidence. On a normal day she comes across as more droidlike than anything - approaching uncanny valley territory. For whatever else Trump might come across as, he certainly doesn't come across as a droid.

 

[CiG]

I wonder how much hot sauce she's been eating with all her free time. She loves it so much she always carries a bottle in her handbag!

 

[Einherjar86]

Maybe humanity wasn't quite the right term to descibe what I meant, but I think it works anyway as well. She's got a long pro-war record; Libya is still a flaming wreck thanks to her. Trump is very human, for all of his other flaws. He's relatable to many people, even people who wouldn't ever want him to sit at their dinner table. He projects, to whatever degree in the eye of the beholder, confidence and ability to get things done.

Hillary Clinton, on top of the things CIG mentioned, was ever at best able to come across as a schoolmarm, which few people like, and inspires no confidence. On a normal day she comes across as more droidlike than anything - approaching uncanny valley territory. For whatever else Trump might come across as, he certainly doesn't come across as a droid.

What you describe as droidlike is what makes her human. That's why so many democrats cringed at some of the things she said/did--not because she was nonhuman, but because she tried so hard to be relatable that it came off as artificial and clinical. That's a very human quality, in fact--just not an admirable one.

Trump is human for all the wrong reasons. He appeals to people because he advocates and embodies simplicity, anger, and folk politics, which is the exact opposite of what people should want in a political leader on the world stage of global modernity. He doesn't know how to run a country, and he barely knows how to run a business. I doubt he knows how a treaty is ratified. But hey, if you can have a beer with the guy... (except Trump doesn't drink, so that theory's shot).

She's very hateable. She's Johnny-come-lately on every progressive principal she claims to have, lied about an endless amount of things, smeared Trump's entire voting block as a basket of deplorables, is a warhawk, is corporatist out the ass and perhaps worst of all is soaked in this entitled aura as if the presidency is a monarchy and her rightful position was stolen from her, and even desperately tried to levy her gender against the voters in an attempt to shame them into not squandering an opportunity to put the first female president into the white house.

Fuck her, fuck her a million times more and then some.

For every objection you have for Clinton, there are more for Trump. I don't care how violent you think democrats are, Trump is the one who's stoked the flames of all-out antagonism between parties. The "basket of deplorables" comment only came after he'd already said countless deplorable things directed at others.

The republicans keep talking about being the party of maturity and "stickin' to the issues," but as soon as a democrat challenges their issues they cry foul, like this asshat from Pennsylvania:

“Well, Governor Wolf, let me tell you what, between now and Nov. 6, you better put a catcher’s mask on your face, because I’m going to stomp all over your face with golf spikes,” Mr. Wagner roared, as the sound of cars whizzing past could be heard nearby. “Because I’m going to win this for the state of Pennsylvania. And we’re throwing you out of office. Because I’m sick and tired of your negative ads.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/us/politics/scott-wagner-video-tom-wolf.html

I mean, seriously? These are the kind of attitudes we're seeing over and over again on the right, and it's because of Trump. Not Clinton, not Obama... Trump.

 

[arg]

I hope Fauxcahontas or Creepy Uncle Joe run in 2020, it’ll be a cakewalk for Trump

 

[CiG]

For every objection you have for Clinton, there are more for Trump. I don't care how violent you think democrats are, Trump is the one who's stoked the flames of all-out antagonism between parties. The "basket of deplorables" comment only came after he'd already said countless deplorable things directed at others.

Oh okay so Trump insulted some people and Hillary's counter-punch was to insult like 30% of the whole country instead of Trump? Sound tactic.

One basic thing populists like Bernie and Trump understand is that insulting large swathes of the voting population is a shitty counter-productive move. Hillary doesn't understand this because fundamentally she's of an elitist mindset.

And attributing antagonism between the parties to Trump is just fucking stupid. Even if true, it's always the Democrats taking it to retarded degrees, like the Bernie maniac who tried to shoot up a GOP baseball game, or that horrendous old black woman calling for the harassment of Trump's staff in public, or that dummy saying it's her job to silence white people (another brainiac anti-populist move by the glorious party to project a desire to silence the majority demographic in the country) etc etc.

The republicans keep talking about being the party of maturity and "stickin' to the issues,"

About time they stopped being policy wonk cucks and actually played the Democrats at their own games of low blows, insults and character assassinations. When someone calls you a sexist racist homophobe you don't say "hey c'mon now let's stick to the issues" you say "fuck you asshole."

 

[Dak]

What you describe as droidlike is what makes her human. That's why so many democrats cringed at some of the things she said/did--not because she was nonhuman, but because she tried so hard to be relatable that it came off as artificial and clinical. That's a very human quality, in fact--just not an admirable one.

Trump is human for all the wrong reasons. He appeals to people because he advocates and embodies simplicity, anger, and folk politics, which is the exact opposite of what people should want in a political leader on the world stage of global modernity. He doesn't know how to run a country, and he barely knows how to run a business. I doubt he knows how a treaty is ratified. But hey, if you can have a beer with the guy... (except Trump doesn't drink, so that theory's shot).

For every objection you have for Clinton, there are more for Trump.

She had to try because she's not. It's not a "human quality", it's the quality of a politician who isn't very human and knows they need to appear to be so on some level. Trump is simply Trump. I'm not interested in arguing about what Trump does or doesn't inspire, but pretending all the screaming Democrats , ANTIFA, etc aren't doing at least the same things is no less one-side-sighted as any FOX News watcher. Trump's has no glaring faults from public office record, much less on the national stage. Clinton's political faults and disasters are mountainous, and she's certainly no less entitled acting.

For not knowing how to do anything Trump has far exceeded the achievements of 99.99% of people who ever lived. Maybe it's all on a con, but at some point you have to give the conman his due. You don't always need to know the details about everything to lead. It can help, but it's not necessary. Pretty much everything predicted about how poorly a Trump run US was going to fair has been wrong, and Trumps predicted failure to handle the pressure etc. has proven wrong too. So far. Still 2 years. Few if any presidents have been under this level of media pressure/scrutiny, while also having a kangaroo investigation going on, and still rolling right through it all with a solid economy, trade concessions, and FP wins like North Korea. Not that Trump can be directly credited with any of it, but if he's gonna get the blame if it fails, may as well take the credit when it works.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/us/politics/scott-wagner-video-tom-wolf.html

I mean, seriously? These are the kind of attitudes we're seeing over and over again on the right, and it's because of Trump. Not Clinton, not Obama... Trump.

Well state politics are a different animal. These guys are trying to be Trump but there can probably only be one. Like CIG said, Repubs are just now learning to say "fuck you" after years of simply rolling over for years. When "Cuck-King" Lindsey Graham can find a DealWithIt DGAF attitude, that's some powerful stuff.

https://www.businessinsider.com/lin...ing-to-his-car-move-to-south-carolina-2018-10

A female protester followed closely behind Graham's entourage shouting, "your own white privilege patriarchy," and threatened to vote him out of office.

Graham appeared unfazed by the protester's remarks and encouraged her visit his home state.

"Yeah, please move to South Carolina," Graham said with a smile. "I hope you come, you'd be welcome in South Carolina."

I hope Fauxcahontas or Creepy Uncle Joe run in 2020, it’ll be a cakewalk for Trump

I don't think PedoJoe or 1/1024 can beat Trump. Sanders would have a chance still but he's oooold.

 

[CiG]

When "Cuck-King" Lindsey Graham can find a DealWithIt DGAF attitude, that's some powerful stuff.

 

[Einherjar86]

Oh okay so Trump insulted some people and Hillary's counter-punch was to insult like 30% of the whole country instead of Trump? Sound tactic.

One basic thing populists like Bernie and Trump understand is that insulting large swathes of the voting population is a shitty counter-productive move. Hillary doesn't understand this because fundamentally she's of an elitist mindset.

Yeah, I think that's true.

And attributing antagonism between the parties to Trump is just fucking stupid. Even if true, it's always the Democrats taking it to retarded degrees, like the Bernie maniac who tried to shoot up a GOP baseball game, or that horrendous old black woman calling for the harassment of Trump's staff in public

That you can't differentiate between those two things is a sign that you're not seeing things clearly. Maxine Waters wasn't advocating assault, she was advocating that people try to hold the administration accountable. Hell, if I saw someone from Trump's admin in the streets, I'd holler a question at them. That's not a "retarded" degree, it's my right as a citizen. Saying I shouldn't do that sounds like censorship, mate.

I don't think it's productive to go around screaming "RACIST" at people; but when it's no longer appropriate to discuss how patterns and behaviors that play out in our society today are direct effects of systems that promote them, then we're no longer operating in a free or reasonable society. The right wants no discussion of racism and sexism. That's part of the problem.

 

[Dak]

The right wants no discussion of racism and sexism. That's part of the problem.

Because the discussion, to use Democrat's new favorite term, is rigged. Racism and sexism have been defined down to simply mean "things the left doesn't like" at this point. Why bother engaging?

Guys like Damore make benign observations and get run out of town as a sexist bigot. Why talk with "these people"? Even Pinker defended him:

 

[CiG]

That you can't differentiate between those two things is a sign that you're not seeing things clearly. Maxine Waters wasn't advocating assault, she was advocating that people try to hold the administration accountable.

I didn't say she was advocating assault, I'm saying she was engaging in the escalation of antagonism between the parties to a retarded degree. Calling for public harassment is absolutely retarded.

Hell, if I saw someone from Trump's admin in the streets, I'd holler a question at them. That's not a "retarded" degree, it's my right as a citizen. Saying I shouldn't do that sounds like censorship, mate.

If you saw one of them in a restaurant or at the cinema would you do it? Many rights can be taken to a retarded degree and I'm not saying anybody should be stopped from doing it, I'm saying political figures calling for it to happen is antagonistic and retarded as fuck. Saying you shouldn't do it is my free speech, saying =/= forcing. Nice try though, I'm not even saying you shouldn't do it, just calling anybody who does a retard and anybody who calls for it on a national scale an antagonistic cunt.

I don't think it's productive to go around screaming "RACIST" at people; but when it's no longer appropriate to discuss how patterns and behaviors that play out in our society today are direct effects of systems that promote them, then we're no longer operating in a free or reasonable society. The right wants no discussion of racism and sexism. That's part of the problem.

The left makes everything about sexism and racism, it's no wonder the right's position in opposition is to try and never talk about it. Of course when they do try to address these things they're smeared in all sorts of different ways, the most disgusting probably being when non-whites or women do it on the right and they get called sellouts, traitors, Uncle Toms, Uncle Chans, House Buddypals etc etc.

Sarsour wants to round up the women critical of feminism, Islam, progressivism etc and confiscate their twats.

Because the discussion, to use Democrat's new favorite term, is rigged. Racism and sexism have been defined down to simply mean "things the left doesn't like" at this point. Why bother engaging?

Guys like Damore make benign observations and get run out of town as a sexist bigot. Why talk with "these people"? Even Pinker defended him:

The left don't want a conversation about sexism or racism, they want ideological capitulation to their views on the subject.

 

[Dak]

the most disgusting probably being when non-whites or women do it on the right and they get called sellouts, traitors, Uncle Toms, Uncle Chans, House Buddypals etc etc.

 

[CiG]

Racism and sexism have been defined down to simply mean "things the left doesn't like" at this point. Why bother engaging?

Kinda like how religious zealots ever-expand what is heretical and blasphemous. It's basically just making everything around you conform to your worldview.

 

[Einherjar86]

You guys are two peas man, two peas.

 

[CiG]

I'm just here to diversify Dak's whiteness like a good right-wing minority should.

 

[Dak]

You guys are two peas man, two peas.

Nah, CIG loooooves movies and I don't all that much care for them.

In all seriousness though, it's probably just shared disagreement with the international cosmopolitan homogeneous suite of opinions.

 

[CiG]

Unification by opposition of something isn't the sturdiest of pea-pods.