Donald Trump and US politics

I am a skeptic, and the core of my political all of my beliefs is this idea that all change must be resisted to ensure that it is just and true. Any idea left unopposed can and will likely will be manipulated and perverted—it will be even when opposed. This ideal somewhat aligns itself with what I believe is conservativism, and this does not directly oppose itself to what I believe is liberalism. IMO, this liberal vs conservative thing is a false dichotomy, and those subscribed to it become a conglomerate homogeny ripe for manipulation and perversion.

E.g., I think we can all agree that racism is an archaic concept that has no place in a modern society; however, the ideas so many unquestioningly advance do not appear to combat racism, but rather perpetuate it and/or entangle it with other things that would be obsensibly worse (to want to change).

So, when people sit there and argue about the nuances of straw men, I’m like... look in the fucking mirror. There are some people in here that have not declared a bigoted ideology, and some others who are clearly very bigoted about combatting supposedly bigoted boogeyman.

Head, ass; ass, head.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Jennik, I wouldn't even say it's not okay to be whatever ethnicity you are.

I wouldn’t even censor you.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

There are some people in here that have not declared a bigoted ideology, and some others who are clearly very bigoted about combatting supposedly bigoted boogeyman.

The paradox of tolerance. Being "bigoted" against the intolerant is perfectly reasonable. Allowing intolerance to run rampant is irrational and dangerous. Also, boogeymen don't exist. Racists do.

"

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

You forgot the mirror again.

"

Jennik wrote:

Scrotes, the change was organic, not overnight. It's not like I can point to an exact moment in time when every conservative jumped off that particular cliff. We can all look at the reality we live in today and see them drowning in the ocean, though.

Richard Spencer started the alt-right, not the alt-left.
The KKK endorsed Trump.
All those white-nationalist militia groups are far-right, not far-left.
The right celebrates Confederate generals as heroes, not the left.

I can go on, but we both know there are countless other examples. Trump rode in on a wave of racial hate, with chants of "build the wall" and a plan to ban Muslims. Anyone who refuses to accept a fact as blatant as the right's embrace of racism is in complete denial. It's a willful delusion.

Not every right-winger is racist, but the right's overwhelmingly more racist than the left.

Well, this post is much less crazy than typical Jennik, so that's good.

I agree that the hard right is racist, but I don't think they're overly numerous. It's not like the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville had overwhelming attendance, despite drawing a national crowd. Spencer and his ilk are certainly right-wing.

The vast majority of Republicans are center-left, blending the remnants of mostly defunct evangeloconservativism with new blood from the libertarian right. The NRA is more of the heart of the GOP than the KKK is.

The most powerful presence the racist hard right holds is on the internet. As a tiny minority, a continuous focus recruitment is necessary to survival, and since their ideology is so patently false the hard right has developed by necessity a skill with low-cost internet propaganda. Or, to put it simply, the only place where neo-nazis wield significant control over the message is 4chan. I do think Trump's strategy for victory involved 4chan and thus, to a certain extent, keeping neo-nazis enthusiastic enough about him to continue their meme warfare on his side. So, yeah, I don't think it's inaccurate to say Trump "rode a wave of racial hate." There's a reason he hemmed an hawed about David Duke.

But I don't look down upon this strategy with contempt. I find it disgusting, but necessary. Unfortunately, the hard right and its counterpart, the racist (against whites) hard left have become significant demographics in one sense or another... and while the hard right might hold /pol/, the hard left owns Twitter, Facebook, etc. While I despise both these groups, I recognize the utility in both Republican and Democrat candidates to draw support from these fringe groups in order to defeat their opponents in a two-party system. It would be pleasant if we had enough relative centrism that we could have a purely center-right vs center-left contest — mind you, I'm a hardcore centrist — but reality fails to be pleasant in this case, because we've allowed political extremism to fester to too great an extent.

Simply put, not utilizing the hard right (for Republicans) or the hard left (for Democrats) is like fighting with one hand tied behind one's back. I take it for granted that the next Democrat nominee MUST be a woman or person of color, ideally both (and ideally Tulsi Gabbard — who if she's smart, won't denounce intersectional feminism even if pressed to do so).

I don't consider The Wall inherently racist, but I do understand why racists might like it for the wrong reason. Same with the travel ban (which didn't ban Muslims). I also disagree that the right is more racist than the left — the left's brand of racism is far more accepted and popular. But I might concede that Trump utilized racism to concoct a successful Presidential campaign, where Clinton failed to do so.

Of course, that doesn't make Trump racist. Manipulating racists into supporting you isn't sympathizing with racists; it is playing them for fools. Do you think the hard right likes the Wall Stall, or this talk of DACA amnesty (and the 6-month warning)? Of course not. Right now, Nazis on 4chan are mocking Trump supporters for believing Trump was /theirguy/. He'll never be racist enough for them, because — spoiler — he isn't.

I hope the US breaks free of the two-party system. Being forced to even pretend to cater to racism is repugnant.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Jennik, I wouldn't even say it's not okay to be whatever ethnicity you are.

I wouldn’t even censor you.

lol

"

Jennik wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

There are some people in here that have not declared a bigoted ideology, and some others who are clearly very bigoted about combatting supposedly bigoted boogeyman.

The paradox of tolerance. Being "bigoted" against the intolerant is perfectly reasonable. Allowing intolerance to run rampant is irrational and dangerous. Also, boogeymen don't exist. Racists do.

I live the ideal you profess. I hate white racists; I hate black racists. The hard left has co-opted many a liberal with nonsense like yours.

Since Jennik is openly /leftypol/, we know he doesn't argue in good faith, as he knows for a fact that there are many /pol/acks who find Trump waaay too kosher and regularly bash him for that. Calling Trump a nazi president is absolutely absurd.

The left's racism is more subtle but that doesn't mean it's not there. For example, the left loves to take agency away from minority groups. And they openly hate on the majority and have even tried to redefine racism in order to be able to do so.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Since Jennik is openly /leftypol/, we know he doesn't argue in good faith,

I'm not sure.

But yeah, probably.

Scrotes, you can place me in a ton of boxes. I have a huge number of characteristics and likes. Like most people, though, I don't belong to groups for all of these aspects of myself. I don't actually belong to any groups related to my interests. This isn't remotely uncommon, either.

You can't look at the number of people who are active members of the KKK to see how many rdwesight-wing racists exist. The number is far, far higher than that. Most people, for various reasons, will not join that particular club. It takes a special kind of person to not only join a club specifically devoted to racism, but a club that is absolutely despised by most people. KKK members are uncommonly shameless and dedicated to their racism.

The "racism against white people" is something that's vastly blown out of proportion by right-wing media and insanity factories like T_D. Not only is the percentage of the population who holds these beliefs trivially small, they're not the ones in power. There's a new controversy with Republicans in power being blatantly racist every week (Facebook posts about lynching, racial epithets, etc.). Not so much on the left.

You still constantly fall victim to false equivalencies. Yes, there are racists on the left and the right. No, the two sides aren't remotely comparable. Your bit about "and its counterpart, the racist (against whites) hard left" makes no sense to me. The vast majority of Americans who are racist against white people are apolitical, as far as I can tell.

The crazier branches of the left you find online are Bernie cultists and commies (ignoring the fact that Democrats don't actually cater to the crazier left, unlike Republicans and the crazier right (which, as Donnie showed, is all of it right now)). I've spent time talking to them (mostly attempting to reason with them, though it's just as impossible as with a Trump cultist like Xav). If these (almost all white) people hate white people, they sure as hell never talk about it.

Which branch of the left do you believe is the racist one? I haven't seen it online. I can find countless examples of racists on the right everywhere from the pure, Aryan homeland (when someone's willing to host it) to Reddit and Fox "News." Right-wing racism's mainstream. The left, though, hating on white people? Not so dime-a-dozen.

As for Trump's racism, I know you've seen at least most of the countless examples I've seen. I don't know why you're in denial on this. We have plenty of inarguable examples like Trump having apartment applications from black people marked with a (C) for colored so he could turn them down. The birther manufactured controversy was built on racism. Trump has always been racist.

Forgot why I stopped by again.



What was it Trump said about "only the best people?" If they're the best, it's mighty strange that it's the most incompetent batch of fuckwits America's ever suffered. We can't tell yet if they're also the most corrupt, but it's sure as hell not looking good. Billionaires and idiots, and most of the billionaires are also idiots.

Fucking shameful, Republicans. Fucking shameful.

"Trump was always racist", but he never got called a racist before he became a presidential nominee. Funny how that works. The rental controversy was his father, not him. He did the birther thing to "Canadian" Ted Cruz too, has nothing to do with racism. Bullshit examples.