thomasmer
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,107
๐๐ป 565
July 2014
|
Donald Trump, by thomasmer on Nov 11, 2016 9:33:37 GMT 1, 46% of Americans didn't vote.
They can deal with this shit storm and maybe vote properly next time.
200,000,000 people and you cant find one better to lead than Trump.
46% of Americans didn't vote.
They can deal with this shit storm and maybe vote properly next time.
200,000,000 people and you cant find one better to lead than Trump.
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Donald Trump, by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 9:51:16 GMT 1, With all due respect to my American friends on here, I do find it both irritating and conceited when your fellow Americans refer to your president as "the leader of the free world". He's the leader of America. And what is meant by "the free world"? It used to mean non communist countries during the Cold War. What does it mean now? And assuming that the uk is part of this free world, I can assure all Americans that I don't consider trump my leader.
I think it has to do with the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms?
Countries that don't have the right, are not truly free
With all due respect to my American friends on here, I do find it both irritating and conceited when your fellow Americans refer to your president as "the leader of the free world". He's the leader of America. And what is meant by "the free world"? It used to mean non communist countries during the Cold War. What does it mean now? And assuming that the uk is part of this free world, I can assure all Americans that I don't consider trump my leader. I think it has to do with the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms? Countries that don't have the right, are not truly free |
|
Fake
Artist
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,376
๐๐ป 2,144
July 2008
|
Donald Trump, by Fake on Nov 11, 2016 9:59:19 GMT 1, With all due respect to my American friends on here, I do find it both irritating and conceited when your fellow Americans refer to your president as "the leader of the free world". He's the leader of America. And what is meant by "the free world"? It used to mean non communist countries during the Cold War. What does it mean now? And assuming that the uk is part of this free world, I can assure all Americans that I don't consider trump my leader. I think it has to do with the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms? Countries that don't have the right, are not truly free
With all due respect to my American friends on here, I do find it both irritating and conceited when your fellow Americans refer to your president as "the leader of the free world". He's the leader of America. And what is meant by "the free world"? It used to mean non communist countries during the Cold War. What does it mean now? And assuming that the uk is part of this free world, I can assure all Americans that I don't consider trump my leader. I think it has to do with the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms? Countries that don't have the right, are not truly free You personally think that? |
|
Hubble Bubble
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 4,117
๐๐ป 3,567
December 2010
|
Donald Trump, by Hubble Bubble on Nov 11, 2016 10:50:06 GMT 1, 46% of Americans didn't vote. They can deal with thiss**t storm and maybe vote properly next time. 200,000,000 people and you cant find one better to lead than Trump.
46% of Americans didn't vote. They can deal with thiss**t storm and maybe vote properly next time. 200,000,000 people and you cant find one better to lead than Trump. 300,000,000 |
|
.dappy
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 9,841
๐๐ป 9,462
December 2010
|
Donald Trump, by .dappy on Nov 11, 2016 12:17:31 GMT 1, ... from the United States Census Bureau part of the the US Dept of Commerce:
The United States population on January 1, 2016 was: 322,761,807
... from the United States Census Bureau part of the the US Dept of Commerce:
The United States population on January 1, 2016 was: 322,761,807
|
|
tartarus
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,628
๐๐ป 2,169
February 2013
|
Donald Trump, by tartarus on Nov 11, 2016 12:27:34 GMT 1, ... from the United States Census Bureau part of the the US Dept of Commerce: The United States population on January 1, 2016 was: 322,761,807
... from the United States Census Bureau part of the the US Dept of Commerce: The United States population on January 1, 2016 was: 322,761,807 Still need to take out all the under 18's (or 21's maybe?) though. |
|
|
|
Wearology
Junior Member
Staff at FatFreeArt
๐จ๏ธ 3,596
๐๐ป 4,512
April 2008
|
Donald Trump, by Wearology on Nov 11, 2016 13:17:39 GMT 1, ... from the United States Census Bureau part of the the US Dept of Commerce: The United States population on January 1, 2016 was: 322,761,807
living in the US to that number so it is more like 340,000,000.
... from the United States Census Bureau part of the the US Dept of Commerce: The United States population on January 1, 2016 was: 322,761,807 You would probably have to add between 15 - 20 million undocumented people living in the US to that number so it is more like 340,000,000. |
|
|
|
Donald Trump, by Lroy on Nov 11, 2016 14:34:56 GMT 1, What makes me suck too ( what will make Me suck too ) is that during 4 years we will see his dickface on all parody, drawings, art, streetart, mugs etc etc ..,).
It gives and It will give him publicity and more with media talking also of him at each word that he will pronounce ..
We will be in the spirit Trumpettisation !!!
What makes me suck too ( what will make Me suck too ) is that during 4 years we will see his dickface on all parody, drawings, art, streetart, mugs etc etc ..,).
It gives and It will give him publicity and more with media talking also of him at each word that he will pronounce ..
We will be in the spirit Trumpettisation !!!
|
|
dreadnatty
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 5,431
๐๐ป 6,992
February 2013
|
Donald Trump, by dreadnatty on Nov 11, 2016 15:38:09 GMT 1, I have no clue who he is or what he stands for, and if you put it like that I probably won't agree with many of his political and social viewpoints. But the point he makes just perfectly sums up the USA elections, Brexit, our own Geert Wilders, and even the sentiment on this forum. Go back to the Calais-topic or the One Islam topic to see what I'm talking about. And this guy actually gets it. He gets what he and his leftwing media and political buddies have been doing wrong The leftist cultural elite claims a monopoly on the truth and people are f**kingfed up with that. I heard a left wing politician here in the Netherlands say, live on national television, that sometimes "you have to ignore what 80% of the people in the country wants because WE KNOW BETTER". I mean..do these people even hear themselves talk? Get the f**koff your supreme cultural vegan social justice warrior safe space multicultural micro aggresion high horse and get your ass back to reality. Silky/Mods, is there actually any way we can either remove the political discussions threads from the 'new posts', or make it so we are able to unsubscribe from certain sections of the forum. I get that people feel the need to vent on this forum (ish) but for those of us that come on an art forum to look at and discuss art and escape from the Katie Hopkins' and Piers Morgan's of this world, it's surely an easy fix that keeps everyone happy.
I have no clue who he is or what he stands for, and if you put it like that I probably won't agree with many of his political and social viewpoints. But the point he makes just perfectly sums up the USA elections, Brexit, our own Geert Wilders, and even the sentiment on this forum. Go back to the Calais-topic or the One Islam topic to see what I'm talking about. And this guy actually gets it. He gets what he and his leftwing media and political buddies have been doing wrong The leftist cultural elite claims a monopoly on the truth and people are f**kingfed up with that. I heard a left wing politician here in the Netherlands say, live on national television, that sometimes "you have to ignore what 80% of the people in the country wants because WE KNOW BETTER". I mean..do these people even hear themselves talk? Get the f**koff your supreme cultural vegan social justice warrior safe space multicultural micro aggresion high horse and get your ass back to reality. Silky/Mods, is there actually any way we can either remove the political discussions threads from the 'new posts', or make it so we are able to unsubscribe from certain sections of the forum. I get that people feel the need to vent on this forum (ish) but for those of us that come on an art forum to look at and discuss art and escape from the Katie Hopkins' and Piers Morgan's of this world, it's surely an easy fix that keeps everyone happy. Sadly I dont think there is, at least without paying a coder to come up with something. Ive suggested this several times(as a member and former guardian). This would be great for not only political threads but also threads where people just incessantly fight/bicker. |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Donald Trump, by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 15:46:19 GMT 1, 46% of Americans didn't vote. They can deal with thiss**t storm and maybe vote properly next time. 200,000,000 people and you cant find one better to lead than Trump.
Yep, if they didnt vote they should shut up and live with it.
46% of Americans didn't vote. They can deal with thiss**t storm and maybe vote properly next time. 200,000,000 people and you cant find one better to lead than Trump. Yep, if they didnt vote they should shut up and live with it. |
|
Matt
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,357
๐๐ป 3,449
September 2014
|
Donald Trump, by Matt on Nov 11, 2016 16:13:48 GMT 1, Sadly I dont think there is, at least without paying a coder to come up with something. Ive suggested this several times(as a member and former guardian). This would be great for not only political threads but also threads where people just incessantly fight/bicker.
There are so probaords forums though where some topics do not appear in the latest threads, aren't there ? I can think of at least one where the "for sales" does not appear in the latest post
Def can be done, but I'll admit I have no idea how hard it is
Would be great though if list topics like the Christmas thing, or some annex topics like "politics" or "what car you drive" did not appear on the recent posts. Makes for a much more enjoyable read on art !
Sadly I dont think there is, at least without paying a coder to come up with something. Ive suggested this several times(as a member and former guardian). This would be great for not only political threads but also threads where people just incessantly fight/bicker. There are so probaords forums though where some topics do not appear in the latest threads, aren't there ? I can think of at least one where the "for sales" does not appear in the latest post Def can be done, but I'll admit I have no idea how hard it is Would be great though if list topics like the Christmas thing, or some annex topics like "politics" or "what car you drive" did not appear on the recent posts. Makes for a much more enjoyable read on art ! |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Donald Trump, by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 20:54:11 GMT 1, I think it has to do with the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms? Countries that don't have the right, are not truly free You personally think that?
I think it has to do with the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms? Countries that don't have the right, are not truly free You personally think that? Me? No way. i think its fucking pathetic and a very backward thing to believe. |
|
NYart
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,221
๐๐ป 844
January 2016
|
Donald Trump, by NYart on Nov 11, 2016 21:17:15 GMT 1, With all due respect to my American friends on here, I do find it both irritating and conceited when your fellow Americans refer to your president as "the leader of the free world". He's the leader of America. And what is meant by "the free world"? It used to mean non communist countries during the Cold War. What does it mean now? And assuming that the uk is part of this free world, I can assure all Americans that I don't consider trump my leader.
I'd say NATO nations in general would make up "the free world" and the US is the top contributor financially and typically leads the fight when intervention is needed. So in my eyes that's what makes the term still relevant, it's not a "we're the best and everyone follows suit". Just when it comes to fighting terrorism, oppression, etc, we're typically taking the charge unfortunately. I hope Trump delivers with his 'America first' so we can get away from this and spend our money rebuilding our country instead of destroying others. People like to think our involvement is a moral crusade but no ones asking the Iraqis, Syrians, or Yemenis if they want our help. Sure we may be killing some terrorists but is it helping more than it's hurting?
With all due respect to my American friends on here, I do find it both irritating and conceited when your fellow Americans refer to your president as "the leader of the free world". He's the leader of America. And what is meant by "the free world"? It used to mean non communist countries during the Cold War. What does it mean now? And assuming that the uk is part of this free world, I can assure all Americans that I don't consider trump my leader. I'd say NATO nations in general would make up "the free world" and the US is the top contributor financially and typically leads the fight when intervention is needed. So in my eyes that's what makes the term still relevant, it's not a "we're the best and everyone follows suit". Just when it comes to fighting terrorism, oppression, etc, we're typically taking the charge unfortunately. I hope Trump delivers with his 'America first' so we can get away from this and spend our money rebuilding our country instead of destroying others. People like to think our involvement is a moral crusade but no ones asking the Iraqis, Syrians, or Yemenis if they want our help. Sure we may be killing some terrorists but is it helping more than it's hurting? |
|
.dappy
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 9,841
๐๐ป 9,462
December 2010
|
Donald Trump, by .dappy on Nov 11, 2016 21:27:48 GMT 1, ... I think it is time we all watched this 
... I think it is time we all watched this |
|
|
|
Matt
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,357
๐๐ป 3,449
September 2014
|
Donald Trump, by Matt on Nov 11, 2016 21:49:03 GMT 1, People like to think our involvement is a moral crusade
Not saying this to spite the people who lost their lives on any side of these conflicts, but there was little moral agenda at play in conflicts the US has been involved in for the last 30 years...
Invasion of Irak was clearly linked to no global threat and only vested interests. Not only were no terrorists killed, but the aftermath was the massive accelerator of terrorism in the region (along with the Syrian conflict, but that is a much more complicated one).
The CIA had suggested Cheney and Powell focus on killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was at the time stationed in camps in north Irak. But since they couldn't tie the guy to Saddam in any way they let him be... he is usually regarded as the founder of ISIS
By the way I would say this is not only true of the US. France's invasion of Lybia was purely for political reasons, their efforts in Mali are largely also to keep a stronghold in Africa. Not to mention Russia in Ukraine etc...
Erdogan doesn't seem to be very moral at the moment, but we don't see anyone giving as**t do we
I do agree with you on one thing though : If Trump could have no foreign policy at all, and focus only on the US, that would probably be very good for the rest of the word
People like to think our involvement is a moral crusade To be honest I don't think anyone, especially outside the US, has ever been under that impression... Not saying this to spite the people who lost their lives on any side of these conflicts, but there was little moral agenda at play in conflicts the US has been involved in for the last 30 years... Invasion of Irak was clearly linked to no global threat and only vested interests. Not only were no terrorists killed, but the aftermath was the massive accelerator of terrorism in the region (along with the Syrian conflict, but that is a much more complicated one). The CIA had suggested Cheney and Powell focus on killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was at the time stationed in camps in north Irak. But since they couldn't tie the guy to Saddam in any way they let him be... he is usually regarded as the founder of ISIS By the way I would say this is not only true of the US. France's invasion of Lybia was purely for political reasons, their efforts in Mali are largely also to keep a stronghold in Africa. Not to mention Russia in Ukraine etc... Erdogan doesn't seem to be very moral at the moment, but we don't see anyone giving as**t do we I do agree with you on one thing though : If Trump could have no foreign policy at all, and focus only on the US, that would probably be very good for the rest of the word
|
|
NYart
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,221
๐๐ป 844
January 2016
|
Donald Trump, by NYart on Nov 11, 2016 22:13:00 GMT 1, Well a few recent examples Gaddafi's human rights abuses in Libya, Saddam use of poison gas on the Kurds, and Assad in Syria again with poison gas. All were major factors use to gain public support for intervention, so that's the sense in which I meant 'moral crusade'. I'm definitely aware that those were not the main reasons the government decided to act and more excuses for them getting involved. People are more inclined to support military action if they believe people need their help. Now that it's begun and lives are being lost as collateral damage it raises the question what was worse? The abuses they were facing by their own people, or the collateral damages caused 'trying to protect them'.
So overall what I meant was while people may feel inclinded or obligated to help internationally when people are being victimized I believe it's time to keep a distance. What's the saying 'evil only prevails when good fails to act'? It seems a lot of evil and destruction is caused even when those acting in the name of good take action.
Well a few recent examples Gaddafi's human rights abuses in Libya, Saddam use of poison gas on the Kurds, and Assad in Syria again with poison gas. All were major factors use to gain public support for intervention, so that's the sense in which I meant 'moral crusade'. I'm definitely aware that those were not the main reasons the government decided to act and more excuses for them getting involved. People are more inclined to support military action if they believe people need their help. Now that it's begun and lives are being lost as collateral damage it raises the question what was worse? The abuses they were facing by their own people, or the collateral damages caused 'trying to protect them'.
So overall what I meant was while people may feel inclinded or obligated to help internationally when people are being victimized I believe it's time to keep a distance. What's the saying 'evil only prevails when good fails to act'? It seems a lot of evil and destruction is caused even when those acting in the name of good take action.
|
|
nex
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,573
๐๐ป 1,819
February 2009
|
Donald Trump, by nex on Nov 11, 2016 23:17:43 GMT 1, Allowing evil people to do evil things make you culpable and leaves blood on your hands.
But there are ways and ways to help, the west usually has one solution and bases its intervention on facts other than human rights offences ...
Allowing evil people to do evil things make you culpable and leaves blood on your hands.
But there are ways and ways to help, the west usually has one solution and bases its intervention on facts other than human rights offences ...
|
|
d.r. perseus
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,570
๐๐ป 1,749
December 2014
|
Donald Trump, by d.r. perseus on Nov 12, 2016 3:15:44 GMT 1, Again, this idea falls flat when you realize that same"f**kyou" government folks voted for GOP to win the House, Senate and direct the course of this country for our life times. Again it falls back to picking the lesser of two bad choices. And the only way Trump could have any chance to succeed in his efforts regardless of what he intends to do is with the congressional majority. So if I voted for him it'd be a waste of my vote if I went democratic below him on the ticket.
Again, this idea falls flat when you realize that same"f**kyou" government folks voted for GOP to win the House, Senate and direct the course of this country for our life times. Again it falls back to picking the lesser of two bad choices. And the only way Trump could have any chance to succeed in his efforts regardless of what he intends to do is with the congressional majority. So if I voted for him it'd be a waste of my vote if I went democratic below him on the ticket. yes. Only giving one complete power as allowed within our system is the only way to get things done. You lack insight into our history and apparently don't understand the purpose of balance in our system. |
|
iamzero
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 9,190
๐๐ป 8,545
May 2011
|
Donald Trump, by iamzero on Nov 12, 2016 11:33:57 GMT 1, Interesting.
Interesting.
|
|
|
|
Donald Trump, by Lroy on Nov 12, 2016 12:46:56 GMT 1, Don't panic !
Today, French and foreigners mรฉdias tell us that Trump is not anymore Trump to trump the world, but a kind, polite and lovely person...
Media... rrrr
Don't panic !
Today, French and foreigners mรฉdias tell us that Trump is not anymore Trump to trump the world, but a kind, polite and lovely person...
Media... rrrr
|
|
NYart
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,221
๐๐ป 844
January 2016
|
Donald Trump, by NYart on Nov 12, 2016 18:42:56 GMT 1, Again it falls back to picking the lesser of two bad choices. And the only way Trump could have any chance to succeed in his efforts regardless of what he intends to do is with the congressional majority. So if I voted for him it'd be a waste of my vote if I went democratic below him on the ticket. yes. Only giving one complete power as allowed within our system is the only way to get things done. You lack insight into our history and apparently don't understand the purpose of balance in our system.ย
Good thing our system doesn't allow for complete power ๐๐ป Balance is important between the branches to ensure no one branch has too much power and can control independently of the others. A divide within the branches between parties doesn't help anything just creates obstacles to getting things done. The only way absolute power could happen would be the Supreme Court and congress just saying, "hey do whatever you want you have our complete support", regardless of what party has the majority that would never happen, especially when Trump really isn't a true republican.
Again it falls back to picking the lesser of two bad choices. And the only way Trump could have any chance to succeed in his efforts regardless of what he intends to do is with the congressional majority. So if I voted for him it'd be a waste of my vote if I went democratic below him on the ticket. yes. Only giving one complete power as allowed within our system is the only way to get things done. You lack insight into our history and apparently don't understand the purpose of balance in our system.ย Good thing our system doesn't allow for complete power ๐๐ป Balance is important between the branches to ensure no one branch has too much power and can control independently of the others. A divide within the branches between parties doesn't help anything just creates obstacles to getting things done. The only way absolute power could happen would be the Supreme Court and congress just saying, "hey do whatever you want you have our complete support", regardless of what party has the majority that would never happen, especially when Trump really isn't a true republican. |
|
|
|
Donald Trump, by Dexter Bulldog on Nov 12, 2016 21:01:22 GMT 1, Hey where is the little clip or gif or whatever from that's in the box on the front page of all the threads, the preview picture or whatever it's called. Anyone know, and anyone know what was being said at that time. everytime this thread is on the front page I find myself staring at that for like 30 seconds. It's both hilarious and mesmerizing So absurd that I love it. Thanks
Hey where is the little clip or gif or whatever from that's in the box on the front page of all the threads, the preview picture or whatever it's called. Anyone know, and anyone know what was being said at that time. everytime this thread is on the front page I find myself staring at that for like 30 seconds. It's both hilarious and mesmerizing So absurd that I love it. Thanks
|
|
|
|
RoboJ
Artist
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,202
๐๐ป 1,332
July 2015
|
Donald Trump, by RoboJ on Nov 13, 2016 16:36:40 GMT 1, I get what he is saying but when Trumps sales pitch was build a wall between Mexico to stop the rapists, to ban Muslims that Is racist, xenophobic. We don't live in the 1800's. It's not ok anymore. What's next banning women from voting. There's no way of going around it, it's to create a separation.
I agree with the Clinton bits but the issue was people had to choose either the same again or a trump. There wasn't anything else to choose from. People think trump is something different but he is the extreme product of the establishment. He isn't some outsider from the streets, he's a billionaire who has profiteered at the expense of the US citizens and nobody bats an eye because they just want something different. Anything.
The problem I feel has been social media. What was once a platform to bring people together & share ideas has accidentally become a tool to separate people and create divisions by serving the users what they want to see and nothing else. There is no view from the opposite view point and you don't hear about other peoples issues. We are only fed stories and views which we like thus I am being fed very different content from a Trump supporter rather than us both being given all the information and both sides of the argument.
I get what he is saying but when Trumps sales pitch was build a wall between Mexico to stop the rapists, to ban Muslims that Is racist, xenophobic. We don't live in the 1800's. It's not ok anymore. What's next banning women from voting. There's no way of going around it, it's to create a separation. I agree with the Clinton bits but the issue was people had to choose either the same again or a trump. There wasn't anything else to choose from. People think trump is something different but he is the extreme product of the establishment. He isn't some outsider from the streets, he's a billionaire who has profiteered at the expense of the US citizens and nobody bats an eye because they just want something different. Anything. The problem I feel has been social media. What was once a platform to bring people together & share ideas has accidentally become a tool to separate people and create divisions by serving the users what they want to see and nothing else. There is no view from the opposite view point and you don't hear about other peoples issues. We are only fed stories and views which we like thus I am being fed very different content from a Trump supporter rather than us both being given all the information and both sides of the argument. |
|
yorkie
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 867
๐๐ป 708
June 2016
|
Donald Trump, by yorkie on Nov 13, 2016 16:45:51 GMT 1, It's done it's happened and it is now what it is.
Prat or no prat.... time to move on.
Yorkie
It's done it's happened and it is now what it is.
Prat or no prat.... time to move on.
Yorkie
|
|
Pipes
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,438
๐๐ป 2,883
January 2012
|
Donald Trump, by Pipes on Nov 13, 2016 17:18:24 GMT 1, It's done it's happened and it is now what it is. Prat or no prat.... time to move on. Yorkie
No it's not time to move on.
I guess you don't live in USA so it doesn't effect you as much - but for those of us who do - thats rather condescending considering the rhetoric he has spewed over the last year and the potential global ramification of his nonsense.
It's done it's happened and it is now what it is. Prat or no prat.... time to move on. Yorkie No it's not time to move on. I guess you don't live in USA so it doesn't effect you as much - but for those of us who do - thats rather condescending considering the rhetoric he has spewed over the last year and the potential global ramification of his nonsense. |
|
cornholio
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 300
๐๐ป 98
February 2011
|
Donald Trump, by cornholio on Nov 21, 2016 5:44:37 GMT 1, I get what he is saying but when Trumps sales pitch was build a wall between Mexico to stop the rapists, to ban Muslims that Is racist, xenophobic. We don't live in the 1800's. It's not ok anymore. What's next banning women from voting. There's no way of going around it, it's to create a separation.
Trump's wording was ... let's say less than gracious towards mexicans. To put it mildly. (But keep in mind 30% of latinos voted for him - not what you'd expect right? Maybe find out what those people think to get a more balanced perspective?) Anyway that doesn't mean that many people who do have a concern about illegal immigration don't have valid reasons. Yes there are benefits to having immigrants but there are problems too. One thing I don't understand is why is it OK that mexicans can come to the U.S. at their will and just decide to stay if they like. I've known many foreigners in my life, quite a few that would have liked to have gained U.S. citizenship. Most didn't. Some joked about having anchor babies like the mexicans do. Some despised Democrats for their policy on this issue. So why is it OK that Mexicans can ignore U.S. immigration law but others can't?
Second ... Muslims now let's get real here, if it weren't for the fact that hundreds and hundreds of civilians have been killed in the U.S. and Europe and elsewhere by Islamic terrorists, there would be no xenophobia about them. Trump didn't manufacture the xenophobia, they did. Now I'm sure some will argue western intervention in the middle east caused this. But that's not really the case, is it. I mean they walked into the office of a newspaper and murdered many people because they ran a cartoon that made fun of their god. They murdered dozens of people in a concert hall because they think people who enjoy that lifestyle are heathens. That isn't retaliation for western encroachment in the middle east. That's jihad. Now sure, yes, obviously the vast majority of them aren't terrorists. But why should anyone take a chance to find out? Islam is easily the most misogynistic and violent religion in our modern world. But you can't say the slightest thing about it or someone calls you a xenophobe. I don't see how it's not rational to have a concern over letting millions of people into our country when there's a high degree of certainty that at least a few will murder. Meanwhile it's pretty common to see liberals bash christianity all day long. No problem with that though.
But still these aren't exactly the biggest of issues for me personally. But I really don't by the standard liberal arguments on these topics and it really shouldn't be a surprise that it resonates with many. And the hypocrisy between the disdain for christianity coupled with a defense of Islam on the left really was clearly too much for a lot of people.
I get what he is saying but when Trumps sales pitch was build a wall between Mexico to stop the rapists, to ban Muslims that Is racist, xenophobic. We don't live in the 1800's. It's not ok anymore. What's next banning women from voting. There's no way of going around it, it's to create a separation. Trump's wording was ... let's say less than gracious towards mexicans. To put it mildly. (But keep in mind 30% of latinos voted for him - not what you'd expect right? Maybe find out what those people think to get a more balanced perspective?) Anyway that doesn't mean that many people who do have a concern about illegal immigration don't have valid reasons. Yes there are benefits to having immigrants but there are problems too. One thing I don't understand is why is it OK that mexicans can come to the U.S. at their will and just decide to stay if they like. I've known many foreigners in my life, quite a few that would have liked to have gained U.S. citizenship. Most didn't. Some joked about having anchor babies like the mexicans do. Some despised Democrats for their policy on this issue. So why is it OK that Mexicans can ignore U.S. immigration law but others can't? Second ... Muslims now let's get real here, if it weren't for the fact that hundreds and hundreds of civilians have been killed in the U.S. and Europe and elsewhere by Islamic terrorists, there would be no xenophobia about them. Trump didn't manufacture the xenophobia, they did. Now I'm sure some will argue western intervention in the middle east caused this. But that's not really the case, is it. I mean they walked into the office of a newspaper and murdered many people because they ran a cartoon that made fun of their god. They murdered dozens of people in a concert hall because they think people who enjoy that lifestyle are heathens. That isn't retaliation for western encroachment in the middle east. That's jihad. Now sure, yes, obviously the vast majority of them aren't terrorists. But why should anyone take a chance to find out? Islam is easily the most misogynistic and violent religion in our modern world. But you can't say the slightest thing about it or someone calls you a xenophobe. I don't see how it's not rational to have a concern over letting millions of people into our country when there's a high degree of certainty that at least a few will murder. Meanwhile it's pretty common to see liberals bash christianity all day long. No problem with that though. But still these aren't exactly the biggest of issues for me personally. But I really don't by the standard liberal arguments on these topics and it really shouldn't be a surprise that it resonates with many. And the hypocrisy between the disdain for christianity coupled with a defense of Islam on the left really was clearly too much for a lot of people. |
|
cornholio
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 300
๐๐ป 98
February 2011
|
Donald Trump, by cornholio on Nov 21, 2016 5:54:06 GMT 1, Is that not your opinion but a fact? Who makes you the arbiter of such decisions? Yes people did, in fact about 30% of Latinos did and 13% of black males did. Not what you'd think based on what the media was telling us. www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-pollsNobody has been duped, everyone is acutely aware of his faults. He still provides a kind of alternative that we may have never seen before. If he doesn't deliver he will be gone in 4 years. And I repeat - I am no conservative. If we were to go down a list of issues I'm going to side on the liberal side at least 80% of the time. I voted for Bill Clinton and I used to attend leftist political rallies. Some of the things on Trump's agenda I am completely and absolutely 100% opposed to. But then again I am disgusted by the holier than though - I'm right you're wrong - attitude being pushed by the left. As if they must have Clinton. They are the deciders of who is allowed to be president. I can only imagine what the media would be saying if Clinton were elected and conservatives took to the streets en masse protests. Going to DNC rallies and assaulting people. The lack of tolerance for opposing opinions from the "tolerant" left is horrific. I can't quite understand how you can support someone with zero experience, mocks disabled people, saying 'black lives matter' is trouble, sexist, wants to block all Muslims entering, build walls, and DOES NOT BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE, wants closer ties with putin, should be made the most powerful man in the world, is quite worrying. Neither was the best candidate, but the worst certainly won (and polled fewer actual votes). Do you support the various views espoused? Or think it's 'political correctness gone mad'? Ok to impersonate disabled people and want to deport 11 million? And leave 20 million without healthcare? Grope women using power and stature? Defensible for anyone?
First implying I'm a "Trump supporter" is a gross exaggeration.
But by the way his "zero experience" was actually a huge asset. You know the whole outsider thing vs career politician thing.
And even if I were a "Trump supporter" it's a weak argument anyway. I could do the same thing to any "Hillary supporter" and claim they endorse pay for play politics. Claim they think it's OK that democracy is for sale to the highest bidder. Claim they think it's OK that the candidate with the most billionaire backers wins. That they endorse a party who manipulates the primaries to pay back insider politicians they favor. Claim that they endorse a person who is manipulative, lies and acts above the law. But both candidates were deeply flawed people and neither of them do I admire. This election was about personality flaws vs character flaws. Personality flaws won.
I really no longer care to drag out a tit for tat bullsht argument over politics here. For the tenth time I am a mostly liberal person. However Trump provided some intriguing points of interest. But even saying something like that gets me castigated by phony "progressives" who are mourning the loss of a bought and paid for two faced globalist. So I guess I've lost a lot of love for liberals now too - sorry. Still not exactly a Trump "supporter." I just have about an equal disdain for both sides now. And having a very liberal background I guess I have even more disdain for the liberal side now that I've really seen their hypocrisy and flaws and for so many years refused to believe it. Both sides have created this fantasy they are good fighting the forces of evil. It's almost funny, but maybe more scary. But the truth is they're both evil.
Again, I'll say what I first said. If 4 years ago someone told me that in 2016 an outsider populist would win the election. Someone who wasn't a career politician, who disavowed Super PACs and dark money in politics. I would have bet $10,000 that it would have been the Democratic candidate. Boy would I have been wrong.
Is that not your opinion but a fact? Who makes you the arbiter of such decisions? Yes people did, in fact about 30% of Latinos did and 13% of black males did. Not what you'd think based on what the media was telling us. www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-pollsNobody has been duped, everyone is acutely aware of his faults. He still provides a kind of alternative that we may have never seen before. If he doesn't deliver he will be gone in 4 years. And I repeat - I am no conservative. If we were to go down a list of issues I'm going to side on the liberal side at least 80% of the time. I voted for Bill Clinton and I used to attend leftist political rallies. Some of the things on Trump's agenda I am completely and absolutely 100% opposed to. But then again I am disgusted by the holier than though - I'm right you're wrong - attitude being pushed by the left. As if they must have Clinton. They are the deciders of who is allowed to be president. I can only imagine what the media would be saying if Clinton were elected and conservatives took to the streets en masse protests. Going to DNC rallies and assaulting people. The lack of tolerance for opposing opinions from the "tolerant" left is horrific. I can't quite understand how you can support someone with zero experience, mocks disabled people, saying 'black lives matter' is trouble, sexist, wants to block all Muslims entering, build walls, and DOES NOT BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE, wants closer ties with putin, should be made the most powerful man in the world, is quite worrying. Neither was the best candidate, but the worst certainly won (and polled fewer actual votes). Do you support the various views espoused? Or think it's 'political correctness gone mad'? Ok to impersonate disabled people and want to deport 11 million? And leave 20 million without healthcare? Grope women using power and stature? Defensible for anyone? First implying I'm a "Trump supporter" is a gross exaggeration. But by the way his "zero experience" was actually a huge asset. You know the whole outsider thing vs career politician thing. And even if I were a "Trump supporter" it's a weak argument anyway. I could do the same thing to any "Hillary supporter" and claim they endorse pay for play politics. Claim they think it's OK that democracy is for sale to the highest bidder. Claim they think it's OK that the candidate with the most billionaire backers wins. That they endorse a party who manipulates the primaries to pay back insider politicians they favor. Claim that they endorse a person who is manipulative, lies and acts above the law. But both candidates were deeply flawed people and neither of them do I admire. This election was about personality flaws vs character flaws. Personality flaws won. I really no longer care to drag out a tit for tat bullsht argument over politics here. For the tenth time I am a mostly liberal person. However Trump provided some intriguing points of interest. But even saying something like that gets me castigated by phony "progressives" who are mourning the loss of a bought and paid for two faced globalist. So I guess I've lost a lot of love for liberals now too - sorry. Still not exactly a Trump "supporter." I just have about an equal disdain for both sides now. And having a very liberal background I guess I have even more disdain for the liberal side now that I've really seen their hypocrisy and flaws and for so many years refused to believe it. Both sides have created this fantasy they are good fighting the forces of evil. It's almost funny, but maybe more scary. But the truth is they're both evil. Again, I'll say what I first said. If 4 years ago someone told me that in 2016 an outsider populist would win the election. Someone who wasn't a career politician, who disavowed Super PACs and dark money in politics. I would have bet $10,000 that it would have been the Democratic candidate. Boy would I have been wrong. |
|
Jaylove
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,599
๐๐ป 1,073
November 2016
|
Donald Trump, by Jaylove on Nov 21, 2016 5:54:11 GMT 1, I get what he is saying but when Trumps sales pitch was build a wall between Mexico to stop the rapists, to ban Muslims that Is racist, xenophobic. We don't live in the 1800's. It's not ok anymore. What's next banning women from voting. There's no way of going around it, it's to create a separation. First mexicans aren't a race, some are indistinguishable from Eruopean - Americans anyway. But OK, yes Trump's wording was ... let's say less than gracious towards mexicans. To put it mildly. (But keep in mind 30% of latinos voted for him - not what you'd expect right?) Anyway that doesn't mean that many people who do have a concern about illegal immigration don't have valid concerns. Yes there are benefits to having immigrants but there are problems too. One thing I don't understand is why is it OK that mexicans can come to the U.S. at their will and just decide to stay if they like. I've known many foreigners in my life, quite a few that would have liked to have gained U.S. citizenship. Most didn't. Some joked about having anchor babies like the mexicans do. Some despised Democrats for their policy on this issue. So why is it OK that Mexicans can ignore U.S. immigration law but others can't? Second ... Muslims now let's get real here, if it weren't for the fact that hundreds and hundreds of civilians have been killed in the U.S. and Europe and elsewhere by Islamic terrorists, there would be no xenophobia about them. Trump didn't manufacture the xenophobia, they did. Now I'm sure some will argue western intervention in the middle east caused this. But that's not really the case, is it. I mean they walked into the office of a newspaper and murdered many people because they ran a cartoon that made fun of their god. They murdered dozens of people in a concert hall because they think people who enjoy that lifestyle are heathens. That isn't retaliation for western encroachment in the middle east. That's jihad. Now sure, yes, obviously the vast majority of them aren't terrorists. But why should anyone take a chance to find out? Islam is easily the most misogynistic and violent religion in our modern world. But you can't say the slightest thing about it or someone calls you a xenophobe. Meanwhile it's pretty common to see liberals bash christianity all day long. No problem with that though.
Err what? You're actually trying to validate what Trump said? And then the whole Muslims thing is just woah. Just goes to show you that no matter how heinous, vile, despicable the act, there will always be people who are completely OK with it.
I get what he is saying but when Trumps sales pitch was build a wall between Mexico to stop the rapists, to ban Muslims that Is racist, xenophobic. We don't live in the 1800's. It's not ok anymore. What's next banning women from voting. There's no way of going around it, it's to create a separation. First mexicans aren't a race, some are indistinguishable from Eruopean - Americans anyway. But OK, yes Trump's wording was ... let's say less than gracious towards mexicans. To put it mildly. (But keep in mind 30% of latinos voted for him - not what you'd expect right?) Anyway that doesn't mean that many people who do have a concern about illegal immigration don't have valid concerns. Yes there are benefits to having immigrants but there are problems too. One thing I don't understand is why is it OK that mexicans can come to the U.S. at their will and just decide to stay if they like. I've known many foreigners in my life, quite a few that would have liked to have gained U.S. citizenship. Most didn't. Some joked about having anchor babies like the mexicans do. Some despised Democrats for their policy on this issue. So why is it OK that Mexicans can ignore U.S. immigration law but others can't? Second ... Muslims now let's get real here, if it weren't for the fact that hundreds and hundreds of civilians have been killed in the U.S. and Europe and elsewhere by Islamic terrorists, there would be no xenophobia about them. Trump didn't manufacture the xenophobia, they did. Now I'm sure some will argue western intervention in the middle east caused this. But that's not really the case, is it. I mean they walked into the office of a newspaper and murdered many people because they ran a cartoon that made fun of their god. They murdered dozens of people in a concert hall because they think people who enjoy that lifestyle are heathens. That isn't retaliation for western encroachment in the middle east. That's jihad. Now sure, yes, obviously the vast majority of them aren't terrorists. But why should anyone take a chance to find out? Islam is easily the most misogynistic and violent religion in our modern world. But you can't say the slightest thing about it or someone calls you a xenophobe. Meanwhile it's pretty common to see liberals bash christianity all day long. No problem with that though. Err what? You're actually trying to validate what Trump said? And then the whole Muslims thing is just woah. Just goes to show you that no matter how heinous, vile, despicable the act, there will always be people who are completely OK with it. |
|
cornholio
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 300
๐๐ป 98
February 2011
|
Donald Trump, by cornholio on Nov 21, 2016 6:06:14 GMT 1, Err what? You're actually trying to validate what Trump said? And then the whole Muslims thing is just woah. Just goes to show you that no matter how heinous, vile, despicable the act, there will always be people who are completely OK with it.
I'm not validating Trump. I'm pointing out the reasons it resonated with folks. The complete inability of people like you to even grasp things beyond sound bites is pretty heinous. It's pretty easy for people to blame xenophobia on a "demagogue" like Trump because that's the narrative you want to use to explain it. Impossible for you to look around and recognize what's happening and understand where the root of angst in all of this is truly coming from.
You are a perfect case in point, everything is now so polarized it's not even possible to have a rational adult conversation about this topic - you simply denigrate and stigmatize the opposing point of view and its messenger. It's akin to a right winger calling you a lazy socialist. It's completely myopic, nonconstructive and adolescent. You (like most) still see the world as if it were some phony good versus evil fight. I am not either extreme - I hate both extremes.
As I've said before, pushing millions of immigrants into a culture that they're very different from (while it might warm your cockles to make you feel like a great humanitarian - the reality is if you think you can do this without it creating many problems on all level you're naive.
This is in fact a very good article you might want to read.
www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/world/europe/denmark-migrants-refugees-racism.html
Err what? You're actually trying to validate what Trump said? And then the whole Muslims thing is just woah. Just goes to show you that no matter how heinous, vile, despicable the act, there will always be people who are completely OK with it. I'm not validating Trump. I'm pointing out the reasons it resonated with folks. The complete inability of people like you to even grasp things beyond sound bites is pretty heinous. It's pretty easy for people to blame xenophobia on a "demagogue" like Trump because that's the narrative you want to use to explain it. Impossible for you to look around and recognize what's happening and understand where the root of angst in all of this is truly coming from. You are a perfect case in point, everything is now so polarized it's not even possible to have a rational adult conversation about this topic - you simply denigrate and stigmatize the opposing point of view and its messenger. It's akin to a right winger calling you a lazy socialist. It's completely myopic, nonconstructive and adolescent. You (like most) still see the world as if it were some phony good versus evil fight. I am not either extreme - I hate both extremes. As I've said before, pushing millions of immigrants into a culture that they're very different from (while it might warm your cockles to make you feel like a great humanitarian - the reality is if you think you can do this without it creating many problems on all level you're naive. This is in fact a very good article you might want to read. www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/world/europe/denmark-migrants-refugees-racism.html |
|
chads007
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 3,696
๐๐ป 2,595
December 2012
|
Donald Trump, by chads007 on Nov 21, 2016 7:42:02 GMT 1, Err what? ย You're actually trying to validate what Trump said? ย And then the whole Muslims thing is just woah. ย Just goes to show you that no matter how heinous, vile, despicable the act, there will always be people who are completely OK with it. I'm not validating Trump. I'm pointing out the reasons it resonated with folks. The complete inability of people like you to even grasp things beyond sound bites is pretty heinous imo. It's pretty easy for people to blame xenophobia on a "demagogue" like Trump because that's the narrative you want to use to explain it. Impossible for you to look around and recognize what's happening and understand where the root of angst in all of this is truly coming from.ย
So a tiny 0.00000 whatever of a billion odd from a religion are involved in terrorism (not to mention terrorism by other groups which goes unreported), validates your view or that of others in that 'its all their fault'?
That's the most gross, sweeping statement I've read here and makes you look an ignorant fucking tosser.
Err what? ย You're actually trying to validate what Trump said? ย And then the whole Muslims thing is just woah. ย Just goes to show you that no matter how heinous, vile, despicable the act, there will always be people who are completely OK with it. I'm not validating Trump. I'm pointing out the reasons it resonated with folks. The complete inability of people like you to even grasp things beyond sound bites is pretty heinous imo. It's pretty easy for people to blame xenophobia on a "demagogue" like Trump because that's the narrative you want to use to explain it. Impossible for you to look around and recognize what's happening and understand where the root of angst in all of this is truly coming from.ย So a tiny 0.00000 whatever of a billion odd from a religion are involved in terrorism (not to mention terrorism by other groups which goes unreported), validates your view or that of others in that 'its all their fault'? That's the most gross, sweeping statement I've read here and makes you look an ignorant fucking tosser. |
|
