Great read and a perfectly summed up reason on my I supported (and kind of 1% still do) the Donald Trump candidacy.
A neat article but Trump doesn't stand for any of the things that the articles says America needs. Trump has essentially no content and allows people who are upset about one thing -- in this case the loony left -- to put Trump as the solution.
I still ascribe to the Authoritarian theory to his rise over the response to liberalism. If it was a response to liberalism you wouldn't have the level of misinformed voter voting for him.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
It's the quotation marks around 'they' that has become code for Jews throughout the fetid fecal reeking back reaches of the Internet, I had a post at the Guardian taken down because I wasn't aware of this but it's something site mods have to be aware of now.
I wonder how the fundys will rationalize this as they have become overwhelmingly pro Jewish.
On Twitter it's not scare quotes, it's (((JEWEY NAME))), due in part to a (now-banned) Chrome extension created by a Stormfront user to mark "Jewish" words and names. It's kind of been taken back by a lot of Jewish Twitter users, so you see it's use a lot ironically nowadays.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
Great read and a perfectly summed up reason on my I supported (and kind of 1% still do) the Donald Trump candidacy.
I agree it's a good article, but I wouldn't agree with his conclusions. Both sides in the US have extreme intolerance of differing viewpoints; for everyone saying "it's racist to say all lives matter!" there's an equal number saying "it's unamerican to mention anything about gun control!" I feel like there's more disagreement over language then there is about underlying values.
Trump is a disaster as a general election candidate. I don't think anyone would disagree with that (except maybe Scott Adams). His followers are effectively wiping out the validity of their own movement: in their loyalty to him through all of his scandals, they have effectively proven Clinton's deplorables comments to be accurate. Rather than a legitimate movement of grass-roots concerns, they look increasingly like zealots to a personality cult. Their concerns about the political status-quo have been silenced.
My sense as an outsider is that the majority of Americans operate from more of a "let's all just get along" perspective, and they don't really want to talk about the things that might offend others. They aren't super-sensitive themselves, but they're aware that others are. (Hence the emphasis on the Trump campaign not of appealing to black voters, but of at least appearing to make the effort to appeal to black voters, for example.) These are the moderates of both parties, these are the swing voters. And they're more likely to vote in favour of the safe, quiet, positive status-quo over the rabble-rousers, particularly when the economy is solid.
I don't think that's necessarily a positive thing: the lack of an environment where these difficult discussions can be had, results in the arguments being suppressed and the original grievances festering. Rallying with one's own at political events or protests is a show of strength and solidarity, but it's not part of a dialogue either.
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
And that was also easily the most anti-Semitic speech he's given so far. Bannon is unquestionably running the show right now, giving even more reason for Kellyanne to bail from the sinking ship.
Does this mean the son-in-law is also now silent? And why Ivanka has gone silent (having converted to Judaism)?
Yes Junior. We get it. You are a rich white guy who is able to get away with stuff and you have similar minded rich white guy friends.
Regular people of your generation do not say those things. Even between themselves in private. If they do then yes they are horrible people just like your Dad and apparently you Mr. Skittle bowl.
While I still highly doubt that Trump would proceed with the lawsuit against the Times, I really admire their strategy in attempting to goad him into it. Rather than simply defending themselves as researching their work and conveying information in the public's interest, they go right after his reputation.
edit:
Oh, wait, here's the other big implication of the direction that they took: it essentially provides cover to anyone else who comes forward. The argument that libel does not hold because he's already destroyed his own reputation, is an argument that essentially leaves him unprotected against any other accuser, journalist, or publisher.
Trump, with his great temperament completely loses focus on the bigger picture with petty squabbles he has going on all over the place. He should be good and flustered by the final debate.
I haven't really been paying much attention to his speeches lately cause it's exhausting and painful to listen to. Honest question though, isn't the stuff he's saying now about the Clintons actual slander? Criminals, criminal activity, massive cover up, media working for them, blaming for basically every world conflict, etc. Not that they will sue him anyway but I still find it incredible that you could be that hypocritical.
The Following User Says Thank You to station For This Useful Post:
the voters in the primaries judging the candidate by they say is the vetting process, if your voters are morons it's not going to be much of a vetting process.
I haven't really been paying much attention to his speeches lately cause it's exhausting and painful to listen to. Honest question though, isn't the stuff he's saying now about the Clintons actual slander? Criminals, criminal activity, massive cover up, media working for them, blaming for basically every world conflict, etc. Not that they will sue him anyway but I still find it incredible that you could be that hypocritical.
It's tough. As I noted earlier about the NYT article, in the US, the requirement for libel against a public figure is 'actual malice', which means knowingly saying things that aren't true, or saying them with reckless disregard for the truth. In Trump's case, he's largely citing conspiracy theories that exist elsewhere, and it wouldn't be hard for him to plead that since they're already out in the public record, he had no reason to dismiss them. It would be a lot easier to make the case against the websites that are publishing the theories (but a poor tradeoff for the Clintons, as it would look even more like a coverup).
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
During a 1998 appearance on CNBC with host Chris Matthews, current Republican presidential nominee and then simple tycoon Donald Trump declared that if Bill Clinton’s personal pecadillos were enough to prompt impeachment proceedings, his own history with women was more than sufficient to keep him out of the White House.
“Can you imagine how controversial I’d be?” Trump said at the time. “You think about him with the women. How about me with the women? Can you imagine?”
Trump was still confident that “his women” would be better received by the American public.
“Yeah. They might like my women better, too, you know?”
Quick question for our legal minds, how do you sue for libel or defamation for an accusation of an act you've already admitted to, even if you can prove the actual story is untrue?
How exactly can Trump argue his reputation has been damaged when he has already told everyone he likes to do these things?
Quick question for our legal minds, how do you sue for libel or defamation for an accusation of an act you've already admitted to, even if you can prove the actual story is untrue?
How exactly can Trump argue his reputation has been damaged when he has already told everyone he likes to do these things?
And to piggy-back a bit, could Clinton sue for defamation or libel? She's been investigated and cleared, and he still goes about calling her crooked and criminal. Is that not obvious malicious intent?
Quick question for our legal minds, how do you sue for libel or defamation for an accusation of an act you've already admitted to, even if you can prove the actual story is untrue?
How exactly can Trump argue his reputation has been damaged when he has already told everyone he likes to do these things?
Truth is a defence to a defamation action.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Clinton talked about cat GIFs in a speech today, and in what could end up being the most divisive issue in the election she pronounced it with a hard G. Dodged a bullet, she could have lost my support right there.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Clinton talked about cat GIFs in a speech today, and in what could end up being the most divisive issue in the election she pronounced it with a hard G. Dodged a bullet, she could have lost my support right there.
Great strategy to back up her poor technical knowledge with computers
The Following User Says Thank You to Drak For This Useful Post:
Clinton talked about cat GIFs in a speech today, and in what could end up being the most divisive issue in the election she pronounced it with a hard G. Dodged a bullet, she could have lost my support right there.
That's the most disgusting thing I've heard from either candidate in this election.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
