Donald Trump and US politics

"

Jennik wrote:

Trump uses LEARN on apoplectic!

It's not very effective.



Also, because a lot of fuckwitted Trumps and Trumplings don't understand this, the DNC can run their primary however they want. If they had literally handed Hillary a crown and told Bernie to fuck himself, that would have perfectly legal. The fact that a man who doesn't even identify as a Democrat was treated differently than a lifelong Democrat by a private, Democratic organization shouldn't shock you. Even if I concede that the insane right-wing version of events is accurate (which, as always, would be an insane concession to make), it's still absurd for the moron in the White House to be calling on the FBI for a non-crime.

And to the despicable racists, lose the persecution complex. Stop fighting strawmen with your "it's okay to be white" and "War on Christmas" idiocy. You are not a persecuted class in America.

I also love that the wastes of humanity over at T_D have been rushing to scrub all traces of the Russian troll factory's fake right-wing Twitter woman from their subreddit. Hey morons, almost everything you believe is propaganda, conspiracy nonsense, or counterfactual garbage. Somehow believing that a Twitter account that appeared to be just another insane right-wing fucknut was real is a bridge too far, though? You're a goddamn joke.

All I ever hear from you is REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

"

Jennik wrote:

Also, because a lot of fuckwitted Trumps and Trumplings don't understand this, the DNC can run their primary however they want. If they had literally handed Hillary a crown and told Bernie to fuck himself, that would have perfectly legal.

Correct. However, doing such a thing would be horrendously STUPID because a primary contest tends to reveal the candidate who is stronger with the voters — an important consideration for viability in the general election — and to maintain the appearance of such a contest where none exist is DISINGENUOUS. So I'm not saying such behavior is criminal, but it is the type of unethical shit you'd expect from lying idiots.

"

Jennik wrote:

Even if I concede that the insane right-wing version of events is accurate (which, as always, would be an insane concession to make), it's still absurd for the moron in the White House to be calling on the FBI for a non-crime.

Sometimes people commit actual crimes to cover up their moronic and duplicitous non-crimes.

"

Jennik wrote:

And to the despicable racists, lose the persecution complex. Stop fighting strawmen with your "it's okay to be white" and "War on Christmas" idiocy. You are not a persecuted class in America.

There are places in America where white Christians are persecuted. There are places in America where white "Christians" persecute others. Realism in this situation is not claiming that one side is privileged and the other isn't on a national or international scale, but realizing that each locale (both real-world and internet) is a battleground in a culture war involving two thoroughly bigoted sides, with each side winning in some places and losing in others, and a whole lot of relatively innocent neutrals in the middle.

You want those neutrals to help your bigoted side because you say you're losing. First, I'm pretty sure you control much more ground than them. Second and more importantly, I'm not going to let you use the threat of your bigoted enemy's success as blackmail to get me to support you. Both sides in this conflict are utter shit.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

*Had Bernie won the Dem nomination instead of Hillary, I have a hard time imagining any thinking person actually casting a vote for the man. Aside from being a card-carrying Socialist(!), he made all sorts of preposterous promises which made the most shaky of Donald Trump's look sober and grounded in reality

Sorry, but this is delusional. Against Hillary Rodham Felon, Trump narrowly eeked out victory in several key states; any candidate significantly stronger than Clinton would have defeated Trump soundly. Card-carrying socialist though he may be, Sanders was a much, much stronger candidate than Clinton (which is a bar so hilariously low it is a struggle to imagine those who don't clear it). Sanders would have annihilated Trump. Maybe you should send Mrs. Clinton and her campaign some thank-you cards for their hard work in rigging things so the Democrats lost.

Sure, I'm glad that the Clinton-DNC axis rigged the Primary; not only did it get Hillary the ass-whupping she so soundly deserved, but it also continues to pay dividends in pointing up her personal corruption, along with that of the complicit Party apparatus. However-

Don't you think that Trump would have mounted just as effective a campaign against Sanders, had he not been compelled to take Hillary's payoff? The ol' Socialist wealth-redistributor would've been a YUGE target for a variety of pointed attacks, and red meat for Trump's base. Trump would've had a field day with Bernie, while a legion of Hillary's supporters would've done exactly what Bernie's did, and sat out the General election, and I suspect that there were a LOT more of them to piss off.

Interestingly, the DNC hopes to court Sanders' supporters for 2018. Too bad for them that a cult of personality like that doesn't care about mid-term elections in which their man (or woman) isn't taking part. =^[.]^=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Spoiler

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

*Had Bernie won the Dem nomination instead of Hillary, I have a hard time imagining any thinking person actually casting a vote for the man. Aside from being a card-carrying Socialist(!), he made all sorts of preposterous promises which made the most shaky of Donald Trump's look sober and grounded in reality

Sorry, but this is delusional. Against Hillary Rodham Felon, Trump narrowly eeked out victory in several key states; any candidate significantly stronger than Clinton would have defeated Trump soundly. Card-carrying socialist though he may be, Sanders was a much, much stronger candidate than Clinton (which is a bar so hilariously low it is a struggle to imagine those who don't clear it). Sanders would have annihilated Trump. Maybe you should send Mrs. Clinton and her campaign some thank-you cards for their hard work in rigging things so the Democrats lost.

Sure, I'm glad that the Clinton-DNC axis rigged the Primary; not only did it get Hillary the ass-whupping she so soundly deserved, but it also continues to pay dividends in pointing up her personal corruption, along with that of the complicit Party apparatus. However-

Don't you think that Trump would have mounted just as effective a campaign against Sanders, had he not been compelled to take Hillary's payoff? The ol' Socialist wealth-redistributor would've been a YUGE target for a variety of pointed attacks, and red meat for Trump's base. Trump would've had a field day with Bernie, while a legion of Hillary's supporters would've done exactly what Bernie's did, and sat out the General election, and I suspect that there were a LOT more of them to piss off.

When I say "annihilated" I don't mean anything ridiculous like a Democratic presidential candidate taking Texas. And I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the DNC-MSM alliance we saw in full blast in 2016 would have done for Sanders what it did for Hillary. But without WikiLeaks showing how current-timelime-Bernie got cheated, I just think alternate-timeline-Bernie would have handily captured the Rust Belt that Trump relied upon so heavily, and thus taken the electoral college easily. I think there's a slim chance Clinton may have beaten alt-Bernie in terms of raw popular vote, but in terms of the college — you know, the actual game — I simply don't see it.

"

Jennik wrote:

Also, because a lot of fuckwitted Trumps and Trumplings don't understand this, the DNC can run their primary however they want. If they had literally handed Hillary a crown and told Bernie to fuck himself, that would have perfectly legal.

Did anyone say that was illegal? No, you just made that up.

The point is that it makes people feel like they have no say. Why vote in the primary at all? Why vote in the general if you didn't get a say during the primary?

Hillary didn't get nearly enough voter turnout, and shit like what the DNC did is a perfectly valid explanation for the loss of morale.

re: "Trump calling on the FBI for a non-crime", I thought that kerfluffle was over UraniumOne, not the DNC stuff.

"

Jennik wrote:

And to the despicable racists, lose the persecution complex. Stop fighting strawmen with your "it's okay to be white" and "War on Christmas" idiocy. You are not a persecuted class in America.

The "War on Christmas" is indeed dumb. Luckily, nobody in this thread actually has ever defended that.

The whole point of the IOTBW thing is to provoke hilarious reactions out of racists.

Just as "Black Lives Matter" doesn't imply non-black lives don't matter, "IOTBW" doesn't imply it's not-okay to be non-white. It's the most innocent statement ever and is a literal blank canvas for racists to put their own problems onto.

The best/worst part is people that really ought to know better still manage to impale themselves on it. You've got what are otherwise intelligent people stating "WE WILL NOT TOLERATE PEOPLE SAYING IT'S OKAY TO BE WHITE!!!"

"

pneuma wrote:

Did anyone say that was illegal? No, you just made that up.

The point is that it makes people feel like they have no say. Why vote in the primary at all? Why vote in the general if you didn't get a say during the primary?

Hillary didn't get nearly enough voter turnout, and shit like what the DNC did is a perfectly valid explanation for the loss of morale.

re: "Trump calling on the FBI for a non-crime", I thought that kerfluffle was over UraniumOne, not the DNC stuff.

Did people just figure it out it isn't totally democratic? It is a hybrid system. Like it or hate it, that is how it is.

You get to pick option A or Option B, that isn't much of a choice. If you're having an election between Stalin and Hitler, who would you vote? Election is a collective action. Your individual vote won't affect the outcome. It is the collective efforts that affect the outcome. Voting contribute to the common good or bad.

"

The "War on Christmas" is indeed dumb. Luckily, nobody in this thread actually has ever defended that.

The whole point of the IOTBW thing is to provoke hilarious reactions out of racists.

Just as "Black Lives Matter" doesn't imply non-black lives don't matter, "IOTBW" doesn't imply it's not-okay to be non-white. It's the most innocent statement ever and is a literal blank canvas for racists to put their own problems onto.

The best/worst part is people that really ought to know better still manage to impale themselves on it. You've got what are otherwise intelligent people stating "WE WILL NOT TOLERATE PEOPLE SAYING IT'S OKAY TO BE WHITE!!!"

You either support freedom of speech or you don't. If white racist crackpot can say whatever nonsense so should black racist crackpot, otherwise you are just a hypocrite for not supporting freedom of speech. It is being dismissive of people viewpoints without hearing them. Guilty of the same the other side is committing.

"

Freedom of speech should never extend to racism. Racists should be punished by law for being aligned with racist values.

Without white supremacy, kkk, nazi, etc. groups, non-hate movements like black lives matter wouldn't exist because they wouldn't NEED to exist.

There also wouldn't be (ie:) NFL players taking a knee, Trumplets.

Still not sure if trolling or slowly going off the deep end.

"

Freedom of speech should never extend to racism. Racists should be punished by law for being aligned with racist values.

Without white supremacy, kkk, nazi, etc. groups, non-hate movements like black lives matter wouldn't exist because they wouldn't NEED to exist.

There also wouldn't be (ie:) NFL players taking a knee, Trumplets.

We have exceptions to free speech or greater limitations on it. Just pointing out there is a difference between just saying it and upholding it.

I seen a discussion a while back where people are unhappy about basically people getting away with doing things that the public consider should be illegal and be punished. How the laws does not align with the public opinions. People are blaming the judge, although he is just doing his job in accordance to the law. My opinions is that the people should change the laws to reflect public opinions and align with what the public consider to be right and proper.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Still not sure if trolling or slowly going off the deep end.

Not trolling. We weaponised the law to deal with the most intolerant segments of society, and they keep their mouth shut.