Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

But that's just it. He's being largely excused because he hides behind a thin veil of civility. Yet, everyone knows exactly what he's implying. It's a game of lies. When I want to call someone out, I actually CALL THEM OUT instead of pretending to be the victim, because if I weren't open and honest about it, I really WOULD be as horrible and manipulative as they are. This game needs to stop.

You called him out by calling him a name. Which is quite hypocritical, when you called him out for calling people names.

Unlikely you support someone who hates you.

Ok lets put it another way.

Trump won those people over IN SPITE of the fact that he is racist, and sexist, and is a bigot, and is morally bankrupt, and has a VP nobody likes...

Because people chose "Make American Great Again", they didn't chose the racism part of what Trump said.

Well ok sort of... A lot of Americans were for the racism part...

You can keep on saying, "he is racist, and sexist, and is a bigot." However, saying something doesn't make it true.

Morally Bankrupt... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDzRtZLUkc

And he has a VP nobody cares about, because nobody cares about any VP.

The unfortunate thing is we aren't "just saying", seeing as he has said a lot of pretty racist and sexist things over the past year, including saying that Mexico is sending all its rapists and drug dealers and murderers to America, that Megyn Kelly can't perform her duties as a moderator because she was on her period, and saying he can get away with sexually abusing women because he's famous.

We could provide links if you want?

[NullForceOmega]

But that's just it. He's being largely excused because he hides behind a thin veil of civility. Yet, everyone knows exactly what he's implying. It's a game of lies. When I want to call someone out, I actually CALL THEM OUT instead of pretending to be the victim, because if I weren't open and honest about it, I really WOULD be as horrible and manipulative as they are. This game needs to stop.

Because that ever accomplishes anything.

You know, the thing with doubting anyone who plays 'the victim card' is that sometimes you end up doubting actual victims too, just like the inverse is true. You will be civil, or I will report you. That's the rules of war. You don't use chemical warfare, you don't use child soldiers, you keep track of your minefields, and you don't insult other forumites personally. You don't do it. It's what allows us to keep this space for collective use. It's not a game anymore than pretending to surrender so you can get one up on your enemies is (war crime, btw). So stop, Lagslayer. Flamewars are unacceptable.

And being a jerk in other ways is every bit as contemptible as directly insulting people.

[martinuzz]

I've heard December, however, everything I've read about it, especially the fact that it's being led by someone notorious for outlandish claims on celebrities, makes it stink to high heaven of troll.

Quite possible. Can't call someone guilty until convicted. I was just curious to the when.

[Frumple]

Last I heard the claimant actually backed down due to death threats, though that may have been conflating the meeting thing a lil' bit ago. Haven't really looked into it lately.

[GreatJustice]

Just for future reference, this is why supporting the expansion of federal over state power is a bad idea even if you aren't a libertarian. It's one thing to say "Well its okay that Obama can drone American citizens and operates above the law, he's a good person so he should be able to do whatever he wants", but expansion of federal power also applies when Donald Trump wins the election and literally every branch of the federal government is controlled by the Republicans.

I bet nullification sounds like a good idea to those Californians or New Mexicans that might be deported, but unfortunately the 10th Amendment is only for racists so they'll have to put up with it.

[Lagslayer]

These things happen constantly; people just aren't allowed to talk about it. The collective forum is worth nothing if nobody is able or willing to discuss the issues.

So, report me, as I'm sure you will. Everyone already knows the whole thing is a farce, including you. They just don't necessarily know that everyone else knows it, too, so they try to save face and just go along with it.

[MasterFancyPants]

Haha, gun control?  I wish you'd visited this thread earlier, you could have been enlightened.  Trump was speaking *absolute nonsense* when he said she wanted to take your guns.  Much like Republicans claimed against Obama.  Her actual agenda was simply closing loopholes NOTHING MORE.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm

Clinton wanting to start a cold war is so incredibly unfounded that I can't even imagine what could possible convince you otherwise.  Meanwhile Trump literally suggested using nuclear weapons.  But he's vapid and flippant, so let's assume that his handlers will stop him (like they cut off his twitter, which is probably part of how he manged to win).

She was investigated for years about the emails and no misconduct was found.  Colin Powell, Trump, and other Republicans mishandled sensitive data in very similar ways...  Ignored by the mainstream media.

Believe what you like.  It's like I said, rationalism is over.  My bet is we're done playing nice and going for the middle, it's now progress or bust.

"Closing the loopholes" Lingo like this already shows you know nothing about US gun control.
Clinton has and still does support an AWB 2.0. Guess what that, bans certain guns by name. (Ones that are responsible for less than 250 deaths per year [Less than knives 1550 and Sticks 435] BTW)
Obama has already banned guns. See: https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/m1-rifle-antique-south-korea-import/ (That's a liberal site, fyi)
He also supported another AWB.

Clinton is hostile towards Russia and wants to interfere with them as the US did before and during the height of the Cold War, I don't see how you are going to get around that.
Trump wants to warm relations with other nuclear superpowers while keeping MAD in place. (You know the MAD that prevented the Cold War from going hot in the first place? Yeah, so terrible he supports that.)

"no misconduct was found" Yeah, that sure didn't have anything to due with Her being insanely powerful, plus having a current and former president at her back. Did Petraeus get similar treatment?
Is jail warranted? Probably not. Does it show her incompetence/dishonesty? Yes.

Colin Powell, Trump, and other Republicans mishandled sensitive data in very similar ways...  Ignored by the mainstream media.
Such as?

And of course you close with: You must be irrational since you disagree with me.

[smjjames]

These things happen constantly; people just aren't allowed to talk about it. The collective forum is worth nothing if nobody is able or willing to discuss the issues.

So, report me, as I'm sure you will. Everyone already knows the whole thing is a farce, including you.

As long as you're civil, nobody's going to report you. If you want to have a discussion, sure, go ahead, just don't resort to name calling.

It's A LOT harder to have a meaningful discussion if you resort to namecalling.

What issues are you talking about? I'm sure you can discuss them while being civil, and no, I don't mean politically correct, I mean polite.

There's been discussion on conservative issues before without screaming at each other.

[Frumple]

Petraeus did something seriously different from clinton, MFP. People seem to have trouble noticing the distinction, but if clinton had done what he did, I'd be getting out the pitchforks and torches just as quick as our right wing did.

[Sergarr]

Told you so.

And I concede.  The presidential nominee should be based off charisma, grandiose promises, and some outright lies rather than any semblance of reality.
I am salty but I am also 100% genuine, I was wrong.  I have become a few years more jaded and pragmatic.

Hey, it's not just you. I genuinely thought that all these smart people that predicted 99% Clinton victory could not be all wrong, though there was some... doubts about that, given the increasingly shittier rhetoric that the Internet Democrats seemed to have been running on before the election and the uncanny similarity it had to what I've experienced in the week before Brexit happened.

It was because I thought that there were no way that a country-wide echo chamber would be so strong.

Now I have a confirmation that it really is possible, and it's exactly what happened - a country-wide, nay, Earth-wide echo chamber that skewed the information flow really fucking hard.

They expected record high turnout - what we actually got was a record low one;
They expected Hillary smashing through with Donald having no path to victory - we got Trump winning big league
They expected the Democrats to be civil and orderly in the unlikely case of Trump's victory - and what we get? Violent riots, literally day 1 after the result.

It's really fucking scary that so many supposedly smart, well-educated and knowledgeable people could be all so very wrong at the same time.

Yeah but really what could be done about the Trump presidency?

Like even if the protests worked and American decided "Hey, maybe Trump isn't the best president and Clinton should be in charge" what could they even do?

Which is why I consider these protests to be letting off steam.

I think it's important that this be met with protests.  If we all lay down and let it happen, that would send a bad message.
Yeah, Trump will be the president.  Everyone knows that.  If anything, that makes the protests more meaningful.

I wonder what you would've said if the situation was reversed and it were Republicans that protested the nomination of Hillary Clinton.

Something tells me it'd be the opposite of that. Because protests are only good when they support your side, amirite?

Nah, protests are a sign that the electorate cares and is engaged.
Nobody ought to riot, but that's different.  Burning in effigy isn't rioting.
Though someone who burns Hillary in effigy because she's going to take their guns... is just deluded.  Hardly alone, but still deluded.

I protested against Bush, kiddos.  We didn't get violent, we were just loud.  I stand by those years as arguably the best of my life.

Ah, okay. Sorry for outlashing against you, it's just that the disturbingly high number of Democrats after election seems to have turned into some kind of twisted Democrat-Republicans, with almost the same fucking exact behaviour as they had, and which they all denigrated literally just a fucking week ago.

It's really fucking getting to me just how little self-reflection these people have.

I'm fucking certain at this point that if the election situation was reversed, with Trump winning popular vote but losing EC, we'd be hearing the "Electoral College is a perfectly fine system guys, it defends democracy against populists!!1" all over the fucking goddamned shit place called "Internet social media".

[Rolepgeek]

You want this thread locked, Lagslayer?

You think it's a farce for not being allowed to be an asshole?

Really?

Dozebom didn't even imply half of what you say he did (I double-checked between his post and yours to make sure), none of it directed at you, and that's the biggest reason we avoid direct insults. Because if it's indirect, we can all go about our lives, not assuming that anything anyone else has said that could possibly be an insult to anything we support is intended to be an insult to us. And then we can have a productive conversation, because the only way for flame wars to be productive is when Donald Trump does them. And you are not the Donald.

NullForceOmega, do you really think that Dozebom saying 'I think people are doing wrong and bad things, and that they've supported a bigot' is on the same level? Is saying someone's willing to support a bigot the equivalent of saying they're an asshole, now? Because he didn't put that meaning there. You did.

We don't attack fellow forumites. You can disagree, you can and likely will do so vehemently, in fact. You do not get to be an asshole for that belief. Not even when you're calling someone out on being an asshole. Doing the right thing even if other people don't is what makes one a good person. Being respectful when other people aren't is important, because nothing gets accomplished by attacking each other. Except maybe getting the thread shut down because Toady doesn't want his forums becoming toxic. You wanna be a rebel and show how much the establishment is all a lie and a farce, do it somewhere else.

Hell, let's suppose you're right for a second, and this is a farce. But if this is a farce, this is my goddamned farce, and my friend's goddamned farce, and you don't get to tear it down without our permission. This ain't the government. 'Corruption' doesn't influence legal procedure and legislature here. So you don't get to attack people for the purpose of exposing it, when all it's gonna do is reduce the quality of discussion, increase the hostility posters show each other, and cause us all to be less capable of changing our beliefs. It's called cooperation, and it is one of the only ways to get people to change.

[MasterFancyPants]

The unfortunate thing is we aren't "just saying", seeing as he has said a lot of pretty racist and sexist things over the past year, including saying that Mexico is sending all its rapists and drug dealers and murderers to America, that Megyn Kelly can't perform her duties as a moderator because she was on her period, and saying he can get away with sexually abusing women because he's famous.

We could provide links if you want?

"including saying that Mexico is sending all its rapists and drug dealers and murderers to America"
Not all and it isn't some Mexican conspiracy, illegal immigrants do have significantly higher violent crime rates than US citizens. Saying that make me racist too?

"Megyn Kelly can't perform her duties as a moderator because she was on her period"
He was making fun of her. Makes him an ass, not a sexist. I didn't care the Bill got a BJ, I don't care that Trump makes fun of people. I care about policy.

"When you are a star you can do it, they'll let you do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. They'll let you do anything."
Crude and bragging sure, but correct social commentary. Funny enough, in the same tape, right after a woman comes up and encourages him to man handle her.

Maybe we have different views of right and wrong. If girl is totally ok you what you are doing, even if it's just because you are rich, that is fine.

[miauw62]

Yeah, except there's plenty of cases where the girls weren't okay with it.

[Lagslayer]

These things happen constantly; people just aren't allowed to talk about it. The collective forum is worth nothing if nobody is able or willing to discuss the issues.

So, report me, as I'm sure you will. Everyone already knows the whole thing is a farce, including you.

As long as you're civil, nobody's going to report you. If you want to have a discussion, sure, go ahead, just don't resort to name calling.

It's A LOT harder to have a meaningful discussion if you resort to namecalling.

What issues are you talking about? I'm sure you can discuss them while being civil, and no, I don't mean politically correct, I mean polite.

There's been discussion on conservative issues before without screaming at each other.

Even without the namecalling, the discussion is meaningless. Nobody ever makes a serious attempt to reach across the aisle. I'm not trying to get people to change their position, but to let them know that they may not be alone in their thoughts. That there are those willing to stand up against the liars that would abuse the system to their undeserved favor.

Yes, that is directed at a great number of you. I challenge you to martyr me.

[MasterFancyPants]

Yeah, except there's plenty of cases where the girls weren't okay with it.

Yeah, except those are starting to be dropped now that the election is over. Weird.