Donald Trump and US politics

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Kellog wrote:

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

I think he's guilty of vehicular manslaughter, but not 2nd degree murder, and most definitely not domestic terrorism.

How was this action any different to similar incidents that have been perpetrated throughout Europe. Let me guess, he isn't a 'brown' person!

The latest I saw a few hours ago, Sessions was looking into whether or not the driver had assistance in what happened, especially in planning. The tone didn't indicate they had found anything of such nature yet, but sounded like they expected to find both planning and proof of intent to both harm and cause terror.

That's the difference. If such was there, than of course it is a terrorist attack. Unlike our previous president, Trump's team is actually digging into the potential terrorism act without an overabundance of evidence - which was Obama's standard for terrorism. There were numerous attacks made that Obama either didn't call such until it was blatantly obvious to everyone, or didn't call at all - despite proof of intent and planning, along with collusion with known terrorist groups. They still haven't released the manifesto of one of the terrorist attackers in Oregon for instance.

That's not a little deal - it is significant. Trump's acumen can be questioned, but his intent isn't to hide violent groups from prosecution or public scrutiny, as Obama did several times.

Please don't resort to calling out previous Presidents. Whatever Obama did or didn't do, is in no way related to how the current incumbent behaves. Moreover, compare Trumps statements regarding Charlottesville with those he made about similar attracts in Europe.

"

pneuma wrote:

It all hinges on "premeditated", which the courts are currently uncovering.

Not that there's much else to talk about atm... North Korea still doing good? Mueller still have a job?
No healthcare plan changes or really any other legislature of any kind planned.

Busy playing golf.

"

Kellog wrote:

"

pneuma wrote:

It all hinges on "premeditated", which the courts are currently uncovering.

Not that there's much else to talk about atm... North Korea still doing good? Mueller still have a job?
No healthcare plan changes or really any other legislature of any kind planned.

Busy playing golf.

Sounds like a solid 4-year plan to me.

Only real fear is Pence becoming president before the term is out and pushing for more reduction in the separation of church/state, or an attack somewhere used as an excuse for yet more nanny-statism.

"

soneka101 wrote:

Some of you guys were acting kinda dumb earlier. One made the argument: "we are the majority" and when someone said: "no, you are not, you lost the popular vote" you guys jumped into "But that doesn't mean that Trump didn't won!!1!".

That's dumb. Nobody is denying that Trump won, but it's a fact that he doesn't represent the majority. Just look at his approval ratings.

The majority of the U.S it's not in favor of the guys in Charlottesville. The majority of the US is white, but a whole lot of white people would hate to be seen as racist.

I never made any claims my view point is shared by the majority. I'm to the right of Donald Trump. But let me make one thing clear, I'd never threaten someone with violence just for expressing an opinion about something. But if someone wants to throw rocks at me for expressing mine, I got not a forgiving or merciful bone in my body for your health, well being, or existence.

But here is something you'd probably be surprised to hear: I would have preferred Bernie Sanders over any of the establishment Republicans. Because I despise establishment Republicans that much. That and people would get a taste of "Socialism" and figure out that regardless of the hype, it doesn't work, so maybe that's a shitty idea. I know this, but granting a learning experience to others would be preferable to another copy-paste establishment Republican cuck.

And I know a lot of white people who will do or say anything to the right crowd to go out of their way to not sound racist, but privately, a lot of people hold views that are different.

An uncle of mine who's an industrial engineer made a comment to me about a certain mall that "used to be nice", until "people from the inner city showed up". I was surprised by his comments and always assumed he was a cosmopolitan kinda guy. Of course, I knew what he meant. He would never say anything like that at work, or post it on his facebook page, but he told me that. Lots of white people hold such views, even if they won't directly spell it out for you.

This is what happens when you create a repressive environment for ideas. But this also accounts for "surprises" at the ballot box, like Donald Trump's victory even after he said "No more Muslims". Just some food for thought, Soneka =D.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

An uncle of mine who's an industrial engineer made a comment to me about a certain mall that "used to be nice", until "people from the inner city showed up". I was surprised by his comments and always assumed he was a cosmopolitan kinda guy. Of course, I knew what he meant. He would never say anything like that at work, or post it on his facebook page, but he told me that. Lots of white people hold such views, even if they won't directly spell it out for you.

This is what happens when you create a repressive environment for ideas. But this also accounts for "surprises" at the ballot box, like Donald Trump's victory even after he said "No more Muslims". Just some food for thought, Soneka =D.

So a racist does not like to be called a racist and thus does not anounce to the world that he is, in fact, a racist. This is a bad thing, you say? Would you prefer a world in which racist are openly racists and criticism on that is suppressed? Because I don't think you can have it both ways.

Currently, more people are in favour of "people from the inner cities" being allowed to be whereever they want to be. They are allowed to express their views in words just like those who prefer "nicer" neighbourhoods.

This is freedom. Most people prefer it or pretend to prefer it to the alternatives. It is not suppression of ideas. This mixup probably derives from a long time of having it differently. Welcome to a better world. Whether anyone feels at home or not, is up to them. If they don't they are welcome to work to make it better.

"

Donnerdrummel wrote:

So a racist does not like to be called a racist and thus does not anounce to the world that he is, in fact, a racist. This is a bad thing, you say? Would you prefer a world in which racist are openly racists and criticism on that is suppressed? Because I don't think you can have it both ways.

Freedom of expression of ideas can be had. If someone wants to champion Stalinist Communism, that's their personal prerogative. But they should be able to answer a simple question of "What makes their system the best?". Rather than threats of violence toward non believers.

"

Currently, more people are in favour of "people from the inner cities" being allowed to be whereever they want to be. They are allowed to express their views in words just like those who prefer "nicer" neighbourhoods.

Are you familiar with "White Flight"? Why aren't more affluent white people living in the inner cities, why did most who're financially able, move to suburbia? You know what's absolutely hilarious? In places like Detroit where white flight occurred, developers are moving back in and renovating lots of old buildings. It's called "gentrification", and it's mostly trendy, upscale liberals who move into these areas, and they get called racist for not sharing their posh improvements with the people in the inner cities! Developers are bulldozing neighborhoods of colored people to build posh, upscale accommodations, and giving colored people the boot. Police start heavily patrolling areas they never patrolled before, not because of less people, but because there are rich white people there now.

The facade you think you live is a lie. You cannot just facade over racism. It'll just rear its head and bite you in the ass when you least expect it, sometime in the future. It'll be a pressure cooker that explodes.

Unless they come up with some sort of fool proof litmus racist detector test that everyone is required to use, and if anyone has a racist thought in their mind, they get euthanized, there isn't gonna be a stop to it. I bet there are a few Commies here who'd love to do exactly that. We're talking some 1984 v2.0 stuff here.

"

This is freedom. Most people prefer it or pretend to prefer it to the alternatives. It is not suppression of ideas. This mixup probably derives from a long time of having it differently. Welcome to a better world.

If you don't go out of your way to marry your children off to a person of another race, or raise your kid to be "gender fluid", you're some kinda bigot or a racist. That's the current reality. For that world to exist and persist, I'd just as soon see a nuclear war finish humanity off.

"

Donnerdrummel wrote:

So a racist does not like to be called a racist and thus does not anounce to the world that he is, in fact, a racist. This is a bad thing, you say?

>reading along
>nodding in agreement

"

Donnerdrummel wrote:

Would you prefer a world in which racist are openly racists

>thinking "yes"

"

Donnerdrummel wrote:

and criticism on that is suppressed?

>thinking "wtf, no"

"

Donnerdrummel wrote:

Because I don't think you can have it both ways.

It's this attitude that is partially to blame for all this. No, it is emphatically NOT a case of "either we silence the racists or we are supporting them." People should feel comfortable saying what they really think (e.g. racism), and then other people should feel comfortable telling them what they really think (e.g. you're an idiot, you racist).

People shouldn't be doxxed and fired and ostracized for holding racist beliefs any more than Muslims should be subject to such things for belief in Islam. I happen to think both ideologies are utterly stupid, but I don't believe idiocy should be a fireable offense because EVERYONE is ideologically wrong on some level. Instead I believe in metrics: how many widgets produced per hour, or how are the customer service surveys coming in? Sure, it's possible for political beliefs to adversely effect service, but that doesn't mean it always effects service; an employee who thinks the boss should be more racist isn't necessarily insubordinate in regards to how customers are to be treated.

Once people with ideas we consider wrong feel safe talking with us about it, we can start helping each other. We can convince them they're mostly wrong and perhaps concede that they're partially correct. We can listen to each other. We can change minds. What we have instead now is cold civil war and competing echo chambers.

Let free speech be free, man.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Let free speech be free, man.

Nope. Erm nope. How does that work out in Charlottesville? Only if they don't attack each other first. Good luck with emotionally charged speeches without getting violence.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

I never made any claims my view point is shared by the majority.

See below:


Even though you didn't say explicitly it seems to be something that you believe in.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

And I know a lot of white people who will do or say anything to the right crowd to go out of their way to not sound racist, but privately, a lot of people hold views that are different.

An uncle of mine who's an industrial engineer made a comment to me about a certain mall that "used to be nice", until "people from the inner city showed up". I was surprised by his comments and always assumed he was a cosmopolitan kinda guy. Of course, I knew what he meant. He would never say anything like that at work, or post it on his facebook page, but he told me that. Lots of white people hold such views, even if they won't directly spell it out for you.

This is what happens when you create a repressive environment for ideas. But this also accounts for "surprises" at the ballot box, like Donald Trump's victory even after he said "No more Muslims". Just some food for thought, Soneka =D.

When I said it was easier to maintain systematic bias than to go full Charlottesville I was taking into consideration people like your uncle. Your uncle might hold those views but he still holds the semblance of a moral person. He won't go left and right saying the N-word because he knows it's wrong and he knows that it could make his life worse. That is why he shows displeasure without being explicit. It's his "moral red line".

You might have a "moral red line" too. You say you won't break bones of leftists unless they do something to you, but you clearly want to, or else you wouldn't talk about going to a rally where odds are high that someone will start a fight. If you honestly didn't want fight nobody you simply wouldn't go. But it seems that you want to hurt people, and with the justification of "they hit me first" you will be able to do it without looking guilty of something you consider to be morally wrong.

----------

Edit: Sometimes this forum pisses me of. I had written something on this post but when I clicked on submit I had to login again, and now that I've re-read my post I found out that it's missing some stuff that I'm sure I wrote... I will put the paragraph missing bellow:

----------

In the end it's all excuses. "I'm not racist because I didn't say the n-word" or "I'm not violent because he hit me first". They are little tricks that people use to avoid backlash for doing things or have beliefs that the majority of the society find repulsive.

Maybe if the society changed your uncle could be more free. Maybe if things were different your uncle could speak his mind without fearing for repercussion. Maybe things could change for you too. Maybe someday you could be able to hit people without having to wait for them to hit you first. Maybe one day you could be able to hit antifa or leftists just because who they are, or maybe one day you could just hurt people you don't like...

That's freedom in a way... Not freedom for everyone of course, but it is freedom for the people that has it. Freedom from morality, freedom from legal repercussion, freedom from societal norms, and etc.

A benefit that one can fully enjoy.

Well, at least until they meet someone that is more free than they are.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

People shouldn't be doxxed and fired and ostracized for holding racist beliefs any more than Muslims should be subject to such things for belief in Islam. I happen to think both ideologies are utterly stupid, but I don't believe idiocy should be a fireable offense because EVERYONE is ideologically wrong on some level.

Hey bruh, do you think there should be a law protecting people from being fired because of their ideology? (like what happened with the dude that worked for google)