Topic: US Election Results (Late)

[Captain Jigglypuff]

How about all the shootings still going on in public places in the US? Still think that they aren't forms of terroism NOT caused by Middle Easterners, Mr. Trump? What will you do about THOSE terrorists? Can't kick them out of the country if they are born citizens.

[Laprabi]

[citation needed]

fyi the average person who goes to university also cares about stuff like that in the near future - but how are they more likely to be propagandized? Learning how to properly analyze statistics and facts is propaganda now?

Here's one for you. Judging by some of the stuff I've seen US universities do (accepting a kid into Stanford who's application was literally '#blacklivesmatter' 100 times, although it probably had more to do with the fact he interned on Hillary's campaign), I'd say it's even worse there. It also heavily depends upon the subject you study, but you're ignorant if you think these left-wing professors aren't expressing their views to their students, and often only giving one side of the argument. In fact it very aptly explains why a lot of the UK students that actually bothered to vote (lol) in the EU Ref. voted to Remain. Thankfully at my university I'm only taught by one left-leaning professor and for not even a term (economics at my uni seems fairly apolitical thankfully, I don't like being told what to think) and she's a laughing stock for her warped views.

He gained power through nationalism and has authoritarian tendencies. This is pretty much textbook fascist; he is very Mussolini like as well. He's just ineffective.

Pick one of 'fascist' and 'ineffective'; you can't have both. Or maybe 'impotent' is a better word. The notion of being a fascist leader (Franco, Mussolini, Hirohito, but not Hitler, NatSoc is different to fascism) implies that if you want something done it gets done, leading into one of fascism's criticisms of democracy, which is how it favours talk over action. An example of this is how a couple of years ago the US Congress couldn't even agree on setting a national budget, meaning they had to roll over last year's one.

So they elected a racist/bigot/fascist/misogynist to prove them right? I don't understand this line of reasoning. Trump got elected because he promised coal jobs back throughout the rust belt, and to some he promised to tear down the establishment (which is...  exactly what he's pandering to). Otherwise, he made a bunch of lies up, talked really loud, etc so he got elected. Also, party lines are generally kept the same, so Republicans only voted him in cause he had an R next to his name.

A very small minority of people were pissed about being called bigots, and even then they decided to vote to prove themselves right. This is not why Trump won.

No, they elected a 'racist/bigot/fascist/misogynist' as you describe him as simply to give the middle finger to all these Democrats whose modus operandi was to pander to minorities and name call and strawman everyone who has the audacity to disagree with them. I guess if you want to get to the truth of the matter, maybe Trump won because Hillary spent all her time pandering to minorities and neglected to even think about the biggest voting block in the US, white men? I remember reading she didn't even visit one state she thought was a sure win, well guess what, that state turned red. I guess the Dems thought that their name calling would scare white people into voting for their candidate. Ignore the fact that Hillary has a history of screw ups (Benghazi, those damned emails) and is pretty much a mouthpiece for Wall Street, as well as one of the richest people in the world with her husband. But no, Trump said something mean about someone of a different race/gender therefore he's a racist/sexist and you're also a racist/sexist if you vote for him.

Ah, so you're saying I shouldn't call people as they are? Because that hurts their feelings too much?

To use the terms of the day, that's a problematic line of thinking, if we were all allowed to call people 'what they are', does that extend to 'hate speech' as well? If it's what they are then it must be fine, surely? /s

Your general point is correct, it's not healthy to just call someone a bigot, but you're arguing a point that is pretty vague and untrue and pretty much had overall very little to do with the election. The voter turnout was horrible as well (less than half of the eligible voters voted this past election, and there's plenty of voter suppression and there's plenty of issues with our two party system). As it stands, Trump's 35% approval rating and the constant failures of the Republican Party to do anything correct more or less indicates a shift the other way in 2020, not calling a bunch of people bigots for being bigots.

Take an example that I've literally seen happen; guy and girl in relationship, everything is going great until the girl starts accusing the guy of cheating, even though he hasn't, but she doesn't stop. She keeps going, eventually the guy gets sick of it and cheats on her. Who's fault is it? Is it the guy's fault for cheating, or the girl's fault for constantly accusing the guy of cheating? Thought experiment, the answer doesn't matter. But maybe, just maybe, if the girl hadn't accused the guy of cheating, then he wouldn't have even thought about it?

Also where does that approval rating come from? Don't tell me it comes from the media, you know, the same media who said Trump would never run, Trump was a joke candidate, Trump would never win the election, Trump has ties to Russia (with literally zero proof lol), etc, etc? The same media who have been proven and admitted to oversampling Democrats in their polls? The same media who predicted a 99% chance of Hillary to win? The same media who, time and time and time again, have been proven wrong?

If you're arguing against an "SJW pro-politically correct" that probably hates Trump, you're arguing against a boogeyman that's very little in number and has zero influence on the electorate. I'm not sure what your point is here, but you're not really making a coherent point, because Trump seriously only won due to the rust belt and voting along party lines. He lost the popular vote by 3 million.

An estimated (they'll never know the true figure) 3 million illegal immigrants voted in California. Obviously they would vote for the candidate who offers them a 'path to citizenship' rather than the one that will deport them for being illegal immigrants. That on its own invalidates the popular vote, and think how many more non citizens voted in other states? They discovered non citizens on the electoral roll in Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the only thing they have to stop illegals voting is a tick box on the ballot saying 'are you a US citizen?' which, of course, does nothing. I also heard that a lot of Democrat votes came from dead people, which is about as blatant as you can get with regards to electoral fraud.

I like how you didn't even argue about the fake news stuff; you just came in and went on a tirade.

Fake News was a term coined by Hillary and her ilk to explain why they lost the election. Notice how the term only entered common usage after Nov 8. It's funny because they are more guilty of that than Trump ever was. They're now saying 'alternative facts' too, whatever that means. Although I do find it rather humorous that there are only 5 or 6 'real' news outlets and everything else is deemed 'fake news', despite the fact these media outlets are all owned by the same people.

How about all the shootings still going on in public places in the US? Still think that they aren't forms of terroism NOT caused by Middle Easterners, Mr. Trump? What will you do about THOSE terrorists? Can't kick them out of the country if they are born citizens.

They pretty much all happen in 'gun-free' zones. Think, would a potential spree killer start shooting in an area where they're likely to be killed before they've even killed anyone, or an area where they can go ham and the police will have to be called to stop them? And nah they don't kick them out of the country if they are citizens, they just put them in jail where they belong.

[Lord Raven]

Here's one for you. Judging by some of the stuff I've seen US universities do (accepting a kid into Stanford who's application was literally '#blacklivesmatter' 100 times, although it probably had more to do with the fact he interned on Hillary's campaign), I'd say it's even worse there. It also heavily depends upon the subject you study, but you're ignorant if you think these left-wing professors aren't expressing their views to their students, and often only giving one side of the argument. In fact it very aptly explains why a lot of the UK students that actually bothered to vote (lol) in the EU Ref. voted to Remain. Thankfully at my university I'm only taught by one left-leaning professor and for not even a term (economics at my uni seems fairly apolitical thankfully, I don't like being told what to think) and she's a laughing stock for her warped views.

How is this propaganda? Is it because you're right leaning that anything vaguely left leaning is propaganda? Calling me ignorant because professors are "left-wing" is not doing yourself favors. Didn't you already complain about labeling?

Most university professors - from my understanding, since I'm in my 3rd year of graduate school - so I've been through university for 7 years (and granted it's been in physics but let's not pretend that politics hasn't been a topic for the last 7 years in most fields) are fine with contrary views. They're not the single-minded propaganda places that you think they are, especially not based on my experiences in non-STEM courses in the US.

(accepting a kid into Stanford who's application was literally '#blacklivesmatter' 100 times, although it probably had more to do with the fact he interned on Hillary's campaign)

Cherry picked and probably out of context. What are you even talking about? This isn't even an argument.

Pick one of 'fascist' and 'ineffective'; you can't have both. Or maybe 'impotent' is a better word. The notion of being a fascist leader (Franco, Mussolini, Hirohito, but not Hitler, NatSoc is different to fascism) implies that if you want something done it gets done, leading into one of fascism's criticisms of democracy, which is how it favours talk over action. An example of this is how a couple of years ago the US Congress couldn't even agree on setting a national budget, meaning they had to roll over last year's one.

I can pick both. He's completely ineffective, but it doesn't mean his views don't lean towards fascism. You don't have to be effective at being a fascist to be a fascist. I'm not sure how these words are mutually exclusive.

No, they elected a 'racist/bigot/fascist/misogynist' as you describe him as simply to give the middle finger to all these Democrats whose modus operandi was to pander to minorities and name call and strawman everyone who has the audacity to disagree with them.

You are invoking a strawman then complaining when I do the same. Again, this is not why trump one; this is a minority of voters, and Clinton won the popular vote. You've yet to show me any compelling argument that what you describe is not a boogeyman.

I guess if you want to get to the truth of the matter, maybe Trump won because Hillary spent all her time pandering to minorities and neglected to even think about the biggest voting block in the US, white men? I remember reading she didn't even visit one state she thought was a sure win, well guess what, that state turned red. I guess the Dems thought that their name calling would scare white people into voting for their candidate.

What name calling? Are you talking about the "basket of deplorables" speech where people didn't even bother reading after the first line? The rest of the democrats didn't even name call - that was pretty much the only instance of name calling. Besides, Clinton's campaign was a failure because she didn't appease a particular subset of states, not white men - white men have gone Republican for a long ass time, and she's not winning a good chunk of them over.

Ignore the fact that Hillary has a history of screw ups (Benghazi, those damned emails) and is pretty much a mouthpiece for Wall Street, as well as one of the richest people in the world with her husband. But no, Trump said something mean about someone of a different race/gender therefore he's a racist/sexist and you're also a racist/sexist if you vote for him.

a) Bill Clinton is one of the richest men in the world?
b) those damn emails? that scandal was pennies in comparison to what Trump may or may not be pulling off with Russia
c) You clearly haven't looked into Trump's history of sexism and racism. He has actively been sued for discrimination in housing, he's raped his first wife before marital rape was illegal, he's actively admitted to sexual assault, he constantly sexualizes his daughter, wants to restrict rights on women (namely with respect to abortion + reproduction) he's said that all Muslims should be banned from the US + build a wall around Mexico because only rapists and things come around the border. He also claims he's a great businessman when he's went bankrupt many, many times -- and if nothing else, he's gone bankrupt for corrupt reasons (so he can borrow money from a bank, declare bankruptcy, and sell it for pennies on the dollar so he makes money). He's also known as a scumbag in New York due to incidents like buying out senior citizen homes and kicking them all out leaving them with nowhere else to go so he can polish it into his own personal golden turd. Trump's years in the public have been full of incompetence, scandal, and corruption or some combination of the three.

Much of this is actual policy. Are you intentionally being ignorant of his own personal history or is "but Hillary" a valid argument? The emails were not properly marked which is what made her careless, and Benghazi was investigated to hell and back with a Republican committee and they found no intentional wrong-doing on her part.

He also didn't know anything about the ACA, but kept wanting to repeal it; when he met with Obama, he said "I like these things about the ACA that I just realized it had" like some sort of idiot. They pulled the AHCA because they knew they would get destroyed in 2018 and 2020 if they let it pass because of how much of a disaster it was.

[Lord Raven]

To use the terms of the day, that's a problematic line of thinking, if we were all allowed to call people 'what they are', does that extend to 'hate speech' as well? If it's what they are then it must be fine, surely? /s

You are equating calling someone racist - which means that they have a fault where they see people and treat them like crap for external reasons - to calling someone, say, an n word - which is historically used to tell someone they are inferior because of the color of their skin. The difference is that the n word is pejorative, whereas racist lacks the historical connotation and that there hasn't been a history of oppression towards racists that lends much weight to the word. Besides, the only time most people have been called racist in their lives is by saying legitimately racist stuff, not SJW-cherrypicking-boogeyman racists.

Take an example that I've literally seen happen; guy and girl in relationship, everything is going great until the girl starts accusing the guy of cheating, even though he hasn't, but she doesn't stop. She keeps going, eventually the guy gets sick of it and cheats on her. Who's fault is it? Is it the guy's fault for cheating, or the girl's fault for constantly accusing the guy of cheating? Thought experiment, the answer doesn't matter. But maybe, just maybe, if the girl hadn't accused the guy of cheating, then he wouldn't have even thought about it?

Okay, so the guy does the idiot thing and proves her right instead of breaking up with her. They're both stupid and their relationship is meaningless. This is not comparable to "Oh you're gonna call me a racist you stupid n word?" The guy is ultimately the one at a greater fault because he did cheat in the end - and cheating is worse than being accused of cheating according to many people.

Besides, you've yet to link me anything that shows the campaign was saying "every Trump supporter is a racist" or "people voted the other way because they were called a racist." And again, whether or not you agree with it or not, people are actually racist in this country and throughout the world, and showing you're okay with a Muslim ban or a wall around Mexico for a Mexican rapist boogeyman shows that you somehow believe the racist crap he spews.

So no, that's a girl who accuses a dude of cheating on her, and then the guy cheated before the accusation, but then he cheats some more because he's pissed at his girlfriend. Or she accuses him of cheating on her because he flirts with every girl around him and he doesn't object to other women sending nudes.

Also where does that approval rating come from? Don't tell me it comes from the media, you know, the same media who said Trump would never run, Trump was a joke candidate, Trump would never win the election, Trump has ties to Russia (with literally zero proof lol), etc, etc?

"Literally zero proof" lol someone hasn't been following the news. There's a lot of currently circumstantial evidence, and there was definitely election interference from Russia. The collusion with Russia is something that is not to be discounted.

It comes from a Gallup poll, and it's closer to 39% than 35%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx Look at their methodology and criticize the methodology rather than single-mindedly saying "it's the media so it must be false." Just because they're wrong on predictions doesn't mean they're wrong on news.

Trump is a joke and Trump will continue to be a joke. He's done nothing successful except screw over some more poor people and mess with some minority families, deporting some dudes with actual visas and actively waste funds on golf trips.

The same media who have been proven and admitted to oversampling Democrats in their polls?

[citation needed]

(fyi - more people did vote Democrat than Republican in this election)

The same media who predicted a 99% chance of Hillary to win

Nate Silver gave her a 70% chance to win much closer to election time, and he was actively saying "you need to go out and vote and not take your state for granted if you actively do not agree with Trump." It's not the media's fault you don't pay attention to multiple different sources.

The same media who, time and time and time again, have been proven wrong?

[citation needed]

An estimated (they'll never know the true figure) 3 million illegal immigrants voted in California. Obviously they would vote for the candidate who offers them a 'path to citizenship' rather than the one that will deport them for being illegal immigrants. That on its own invalidates the popular vote, and think how many more non citizens voted in other states?

[citation needed]

You know how hard it is to vote in the US and register to vote in the US right? What in the hell makes you think there was voter fraud in any capacity? The evidence doesn't even exist - and I've heard stories of people who voted Trump stuffing the ballot box in a few places, but that kind of thing is exceedingly rare. If you think 3 million illegal immigrants voted, then give me whatever you're on.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/nov/18/blog-posting/no-3-million-undocumented-immigrants-did-not-vote-/

If you want to make a claim that lacks substance in every conceivable way, why are you so quick to shoot down everything that you don't like? It's fascinating to me, because I really don't care if Russia did influence our election and sanctions were enough of a punishment for it, I care more about Trump's collusion - but I pray that he did not collude with Russia, because that's the worst possible outcome.

They discovered non citizens on the electoral roll in Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the only thing they have to stop illegals voting is a tick box on the ballot saying 'are you a US citizen?' which, of course, does nothing. I also heard that a lot of Democrat votes came from dead people, which is about as blatant as you can get with regards to electoral fraud.

[citation needed]

I'm assuming you cited the same set of statistics that Donald Trump did - basically, stuff that doesn't exist. Even the Republicans don't think there was any voter fraud.

The spread of fake news - which is propaganda, a term you were so fond of accusing anything left wing with (or so I assume) - was definitely an issue in this election, but it's always been an issue during Obama's presidency. Remember the birther conspiracy? Plenty of fake news about that, and the entirety of pizzagate was making its way around with absolutely zero proof.

Fake News was a term coined by Hillary and her ilk to explain why they lost the election. Notice how the term only entered common usage after Nov 8.

You clearly don't live in America. Fake news was literally news that wasn't real, and news shows that satirized news shows. It entered the conservative lexicon after Clinton became president, but it was a real term used during the election. And it was a very real phenomena, which I talked about in great detail earlier, as did an article I posted.

It's funny because they are more guilty of that than Trump ever was. They're now saying 'alternative facts' too, whatever that means.

Alternative facts is a term coined by Trump's own campaign manager, what the hell? She said that Sean Spicer's claim that there were more people at Trump's inauguration (a blatant lie if you look at every conceivable way of proving this possible) was an "alternative fact" as opposed to a "lie." It's more or less making fun of Kellyanne Conway.

Although I do find it rather humorous that there are only 5 or 6 'real' news outlets and everything else is deemed 'fake news', despite the fact these media outlets are all owned by the same people.

[citation needed]

They pretty much all happen in 'gun-free' zones. Think, would a potential spree killer start shooting in an area where they're likely to be killed before they've even killed anyone, or an area where they can go ham and the police will have to be called to stop them? And nah they don't kick them out of the country if they are citizens, they just put them in jail where they belong.

What are you talking about?



Anyway, Steve Bannon removed from the NSC - thank god.

[SirBlaziken]

The guy is ultimately the one at a greater fault because he did cheat in the end - and cheating is worse than being accused of cheating according to many people.

Anyway, Steve Bannon removed from the NSC - thank god.

I'll just address both parts in one quote.

Part 1: I agree the guy is more at fault. Though accusing him is a really crappy thing to do and he may not have thought of it before being accused, should he have honestly done it? I could be accused of shooting some random guy on the street and not have, then go and shoot someone. That doesn't mean i'm not at fault because 'I didn't have the thought until you accused me'. So I agree wholeheartedly here

Part 2: Faith in humanity TEMPORARILY restored.

[The Hooded Trainer]

To throw in my argument against all this "dont call people racist" thing, making that point really only covers the actual racists. Its racist right wingers adopting a left wing tactic and twisting it to help them: youve been arguing that we need to treat everyone with respect and its not okay to judge character based on skin colour or gender or sexuality or whatever, so now im saying its also not okay to judge character based on "opinions" or "political stances" either. And the ground of what actually counts as a racist opinion is quickly shrinking, thanks to this. So you get:

-its not racist to say black people are more likely to commit crimes, thats just a fact
-its not racist to say we need to stop the refugees coming into our country, thats just good sense
-its not racist to say islam is at its heart awful and violent and that all muslims are dangerous, thats statistically accurate, and besides, islam isnt a race anyway so how could it be racist?

Do people not realise this is where evil spreads from? Its not like hitler came out and said, "lets kill all the jews, i dont like them because im prejudiced against them and am a massive racist". He hid his bigotry under thick layers of nonsensical but, at the time and to the people who followed him, reasonable sounding arguments.

I dont know if that made any sense but basically, what im saying is that, while we shouldnt throw the race card around willy nilly, its more important to ensure that we dont let racists define the idea of racism.

[Lord Raven]

I'll just address both parts in one quote.

Part 1: I agree the guy is more at fault. Though accusing him is a really crappy thing to do and he may not have thought of it before being accused, should he have honestly done it? I could be accused of shooting some random guy on the street and not have, then go and shoot someone. That doesn't mean i'm not at fault because 'I didn't have the thought until you accused me'. So I agree wholeheartedly here

Part 2: Faith in humanity TEMPORARILY restored.

His argument hinges on playing to emotions that people are innocent until proven guilty, and yet it forgets the part where people are called racist because they're proven guilty of such a thing. He's also making the point that people are too sensitive in his own veiled way, even though racism these days is more about dogwhistles, even though much of it is blatant and combative even still.

[lets all go out for some frosty chocolate milkshakes]

while i dunno why people even entertained laprabi's weirdly specific ">accuse le gf of cheating >be le epic cucked by gf >mfw" thought experiment, on what side do you reckon steve bannon stood regarding the very recent Bomb Strikes on syria and whether that played into his sudden loss of job




personally i wanted trump to make the idiotic mistake of trying to invade iran instead cos that would have been his operation barbarossa (iran is strategic suicide to invade) but fingers crossed maybe syria will be his undoing instead. you would have thought both russia and the usa would have learned about quagmire invasions in the middle east in the last 20 odd years but oh well,

[Captain Jigglypuff]

I'm having a schadenfreude high right now watching the idiot's voters and supporters realizing the horrible mistake they made of letting a crazy sexist racist egotistical loudmouth become President. I'll enjoy looking at their faces as they walk down the street thinking, "Good lord, what have I done?!" and laughing silently at them. And the best part is that they can't blame me because I didn't vote for the guy! But I also refuse to protest because I know that is a lost cause because it won't change a thing and I know when I have lost and accept it.

[Lord Raven]

I'm having a schadenfreude high right now watching the idiot's voters and supporters realizing the horrible mistake they made of letting a crazy sexist racist egotistical loudmouth become President. I'll enjoy looking at their faces as they walk down the street thinking, "Good lord, what have I done?!" and laughing silently at them. And the best part is that they can't blame me because I didn't vote for the guy! But I also refuse to protest because I know that is a lost cause because it won't change a thing and I know when I have lost and accept it.

Protests are making the Republicans feel helpless. They pulled the healthcare bill, they realize now they don't drive the debate.

while i dunno why people even entertained laprabi's weirdly specific ">accuse le gf of cheating >be le epic cucked by gf >mfw" thought experiment, on what side do you reckon steve bannon stood regarding the very recent Bomb Strikes on syria and whether that played into his sudden loss of job

Steve Bannon stood on his own side and possibly told him to do the strike. At any rate, the point isn't to convince him, that was never the point of debate.