Print

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

[Neonivek]

Are we already getting to see outcome #12?

We have actually already started seeing #!2, practically right from the start. Not in a Constitutional crisis yet though, they're going through the legal route to challenge it. However, the conflicting courts makes things even more confusing.

Nobodys been acting extralegally though as far as I can tell. Just sort of general resistance, since the beureauacracy has ways of resisting without going extralegal.

I have to point out that I hope and wish that #13 or even #14 (Perhaps with the specific concession that his administration relents on social issues) come true. At this point, however, these are so implausible that no reasonable person could expect them.

Rather than address any specific points, I will note that the crowd that claims to be frustrated at liberals for "making a big deal" of identity politics seems to be making an awful big deal about how much they don't care about identity politics.

Ehh it is non-ironic.

It would be like if your house had four sets of cookies and you could eat anyone you wanted freely. You could case less about which cookies you eat.

Then all of a sudden a Liberal Cookie Monster says "No! You now have to eat the appropriate cookie!"

"But, I don't care what cookie is appropriate. I just want cookies"

"No! I as a liberal state that you can only eat the cookies I personally deem appropriate. You must eat them the way I want, how I want, and when I want because I deem it appropriate to do so and inappropriate not to. I will gobble you up!"

"No that is insane!"

You: "Wow, for someone who doesn't care about cookies... that kid sure is complaining a lot about cookies"

-----
-----

The law is basically an attempt to end the debate by creating a boogeyman!

Why do I say boogeyman? Because it would have a poor time proving it. Afterall intentionally misusing someone's chosen identity isn't nessisarily "malicious" but the person doing so would be doing it with the thought "What if they burn me as a witch?" even though that isn't going to happen.

It only works in very edge cases where, say, someone spray paints "YOUR A MAN!" on their house in blood.

----

Goodness I am using a lot of exaggerated language... For what is essentially
"Hey, don't care doesn't mean you don't care about having different standards imposed upon you"
and
"The gender law isn't strongly enforceable, it likely only exists as a way to both scare people into submission and to make a statement through the government about tolerance".

[PTTG??]

I'm saying that people who are complaining about liberals are being hypocritical.

[smjjames]

It only works in very edge cases where, say, someone spray paints "YOUR A MAN!" on their house in blood.

>implying that the spraycan is full of blood

edit: Fixed the screwed up formatting.

[Descan]

Ehh it is non-ironic.

It would be like if your house had four sets of cookies and you could eat anyone you wanted freely. You could case less about which cookies you eat.

Then all of a sudden a Liberal Cookie Monster says "No! You now have to eat the appropriate cookie!"

"But, I don't care what cookie is appropriate. I just want cookies"

"No! I as a liberal state that you can only eat the cookies I personally deem appropriate. You must eat them the way I want, how I want, and when I want because I deem it appropriate to do so and inappropriate not to. I will gobble you up!"

"No that is insane!"

You: "Wow, for someone who doesn't care about cookies... that kid sure is complaining a lot about cookies"

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I'm gonna take a wild stab and maybe... You think liberals are trying to make cis/straight people queer...? Is that what you mean by "the appropriate cookie"? Cuz in that case, it's usually the reverse of that... Cis/Straight people getting all huffy that people want to explore their gender and sexual identity and trying to impose their own view of what is appropriate. :U Like I know you seem to hate sources but if you're going to make sweeping generalizations about the actions of a sizable chunk of people, you're gonna need to actually point towards at LEAST one example of it actually happening. Even then, outliers and/or poes are rampant, so more would be nice. :v

[misko27]

It should be taken to the gender and sexuality thread though as it's offtopic.

Yeah what do you think this is! a political thread where a law was passed about precisely this?

This is the "We hate Trump" thread!

I mean jokes aside if the thread creator said he thinks it's offtopic and should go elsewhere, it should go elsewhere. It's one thing to go off-topic (I mean everyone does that), but if he comes in and says so, then it is. It's pretty straightforward.

[smjjames]

It only works in very edge cases where, say, someone spray paints "YOUR A MAN!" on their house in blood.

>implying that the spraycan is full of blood

what

why

what

why did you edit what i said

why did you respond to yourself with that

is this a joke i'm not getting...?

edit: oh, you fucked up the formatting, i didn't fully read neos post yet

Oops, no idea how that happened, and yeah, something screwed up.

edit: Fixed, sorry about that.

edit: Actually, I did have a reply to you, and then screwed up the formatting there.

[Amperzand]

Hey look, glorious tangerine-flavored tomfoolery with an american flag on top. I must join this discussion. ONWARD, TO POLITICAL SHENANIGANS!


Re: Arnold Schwarzenegger for president.

[Descan]

It only works in very edge cases where, say, someone spray paints "YOUR A MAN!" on their house in blood.

>implying that the spraycan is full of blood

what

why

what

why did you edit what i said

why did you respond to yourself with that

is this a joke i'm not getting...?

edit: oh, you fucked up the formatting, i didn't fully read neos post yet

Oops, no idea how that happened, and yeah, something screwed up.

edit: Fixed, sorry about that.

edit: Actually, I did have a reply to you, and then screwed up the formatting there.

Yeah, I saw. So I editted it entirely into a response to Neo. Not sure why I bother'd though, they just seem to really like making general statements with vague premises that are hard enough to pin down what they're even trying to say, let alone formulate a proper response to it. Constantly have to hedge what I'm saying in case I wildly misread them. :V

[smjjames]

Oh look! China yells at Mattis. Okay, not really, it's just the standard blustering that they do whenever we talk to any of their neighbors.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Here, have some hypothetical scenarios to distract from what is either a massive outburst or a joke that I'm not getting.

1. Trumpest Quo - This outcome might lead to civil war with more reliability than the actual collapse scenarios. I'm not sure if there's any data on how bitterly mainstream society can be divided before murdering the other side becomes mainstream itself, but the trend for America has gone really far already. Four years of drawing the final line in the sand might be too much on top of that, frankly.
 
2. Trump Tumbling Down - No telling on this one, really. People who like Trump often do so irrespective of material analysis, but most of that was also with him not being President. It'd be a severe buck of history for low competence to be normalized, though.

3. Trumpin' Up - This is probably my worst fear, much in the way that in X-Men the worst thing is not the dramatic end of the world in Days of Future Past but the cheerful passe acceptance by the general bulk of humanity that of course mutant babies should be exterminated.

4. Mellow Yellow Trump - I don't know man, Trump never stopped being aggressive in business literally ever, and that was over many decades. I can't see him making an experience gain of that nature.

5. Trump Autonomy - This one is off, as Trump is the kind of guy who's the most nosy fuckin know-it-all boss ever. He could be cordoned into this position Cheney-style, but there would be constant resistance, and knowing Trump that could take the form of him getting on TV and going all Novo Terra Ordem on his own staff. A dangerous game, to be sure. Without knowing what's going through Pence's sick little mind I am left to only wonder.

6. Every Man A Trump - I think this one is thankfully a bit hyperbolic. You have to get in the door to manage this kind of thing against people, and Trump has already aggravated the hell out of left and center. Not to mention it requires Trump having political capital over the Congressional Republicans, which would take Trump beguiling actual politicians instead of the general public.

7. Fiscally Liberal, Socially Trump - Yet it also seems a bit hyperbolic that a failed pivot would be accompanied by impeachment attempts. I'm not convinced impeachment causes are very predictable, they seem to historically be related to altogether unforseen consequences, be that cigar sucking or hotel windows. This one I'd rate higher if Trump shits the bed attempting the pivot hard enough that the House goes supermajority Dem in 2018 or something.

8. Trump Is Fake News - I have to wonder here if, should Trump's fundamental attractions collapse, all of the existing scandals will suddenly whip back around and crush him since people will be more willing to listen. I give this scenario "Most Likely To End With Trump Imprisoned" since his Presidential protections will eventually end with or without impeachment.

9. Trumphanding For Mangas - If Dubya is any indication people will freak the fuck out if this happens. I mean, the left will already freak out, but with the right also freaking out it'll amplify. In fact, it would be in the form of the freakout wave that Trump rode in to the White House, but loosed of any human control or order. Hello burning summer...but then, maybe it'll be an avenue for automation politics to go mainstream.

10. World War Trump - Here's where I have a massive disagreement with Nate Nitrogen. A lot of comparisons have been drawn between 2000 and 2016, but I think they couldn't have been more different. 2000 was a very popular election, lots of people were in the "I'd be happy with Bush but I'd also be happy with Gore" bracket (and god, that seems like an almost unimaginable position today). Conversely, as we all remember, 2016 is the most unpopular election with the possible exception of the one right before the Civil War. Because of this, I don't see people's love of Trump shooting up just because of a terrorist attack, it'd have to exceed 9/11 at the least for that. Most people who are primarily swayed by terrorism are already Trump supporters, in fact it is not impossible that a major attack could make people hate Trump more, if from his failure to defend the US or just because of the hate in the air.

11. But He Made The Trump Run On Time - Chilling, but unlike the Frum scenario I see no mechanism here. Trump doesn't have Reichstag Act potential, from where I'm standing.
 
12. We Don't Need No Trump Let This Motherfucker Burn - This is the most plausible "oh fuck" scenario by far. I want to say it would end with the next President looking up the list of Obama and Pre-Obama functionaries and bribing them to come back to their jobs, but it is a never before seen thing. Like it says in the article, I'm torn between the danger here and the absolute need to undermine Trump - though I suspect in due time he'll have reduced everything under him to loyalists and empty chairs anyway.

13. Trump To The Left, Trump To The Right - The difference here being Ahnold is at worst a mild scumbag, while Trump is...uh...much worse. I think Trump's machismo is very genuine and gripped tightly, a guy like Schwarzenegger obviously has no need of such things beyond an image. It helped him get elected and then he got rid of it when his movie glamor wasn't helping anymore, I'm not convinced especially with recent events that Trump even has a public face. He's as much the Trump we see when he's signing orders as he is when peeping on naked 15-year olds.

14. Much Ado About Trump - More likely than I'd like to think, at least in the sense that Trump will be looked back on as the quintuple-hot wings that cleared out the entire American political system and put the future back on track from decades of laurel-resting neoliberalism.

I did most of this for the Trump puns don't tell anybody especially not Neon or LW

[Reelya]

Mansplaining is typically used by more aggressive feminist sects as a method of keeping men from the conversation. It shouldn't be taken seriously at all! Nor should it be considered part of mainstream feminism or really be allowed to enter feminism period.

Old but: ... Mansplaining isn't that? It's the assumption that happens that a woman doesn't know about something simply because it's not a "girl thing." Like physics, linguistics, comic book geekery, etc. :v Sometimes devolving into explaining the plot/premise of a show to one of the writers on that show. :v

Usually if someone wants to shut a man out of a feminist area, they say "You can't understand because you've not experienced it." Which can be a fair point but fails to take into account the ability for modern humans to communicate ideas to each other despite the impossibility of ever experiencing it. See also: Any fantasy or sci-fi book, the whole "You can experience the universe through a book!" idea.

But that's not really the case. It's not "girl things", it's anything. Given examples of mansplaining aren't all centered around "guy stuff". So that connection isn't really valid. But the fact is, you do get smug people of both sexes, but ther term "mansplain" is gendered. So while basically talking out your ass to someone who knows better is a thing, i don't think it's a gendered trait. I've had completely misinformed girlfriends who tell me all this info which I know is completely wrong, but I just let them go because it's easier than arguing. e.g. girlfriends without any computer knowledge tell me about how computers work (but all wrong), and I can't get a word in, despite now having two degrees in comp. sci. I don't go around calling that "womansplaining", but I think you'll find this pattern is a lot more common than the "mainsplaining" meme suggests.

Basically what mansplaining is actually about is the Dunning-Kreuger Effect. But there's no empirical evidence that the Dunning-Kreuger Effect is gendered. I've had both delusional guys and girls tell me they know better about things that I know perfectly well. And I'm a guy. If I've been mansplained to by both men and women, and I'm not a woman, then how valid is the mainsplaining concept?

[misko27]

It's at this time that I ask whether smjjames was so crazy as to suggest that this discussion of "mansplaining" is not necessarily on-topic to Ameripol. We have Trumpsplaining now, it's much better than your mansplaining thankyouvermuch. It's got the best 'splaining. You won't believe the 'splaining it does, it's unbelievable. Tremendous. High Energy.

[wierd]

Amusing addon for that--^

Trump is the freaking poster child for Dunning-Krueger.  Seriously. Look at him, and his twitter use, and then look at his executive orders, and then look at his cabinet. Man is *THE* poster child.

Now, remember those "$FOO_Nation Second!" videos, done "In his own language"?  That is, straight up, the exact thing Reelya is talking about.

[martinuzz]

So a Republican judge, James L. Robart, installed by Dubya, has declared the immigration ban unlawful.
The White House has announced it will appeal the verdict.

But that does mean they will need to lift the ban until the appeal case sees court, right? What they're doing now, ignoring the verdict, is illegal.

IMPEACH

[PTTG??]

I suspect we're looking at a #1 that's constantly threatening to shift into the others for a time, but stays upright for two months, three months, maybe even six months. At that point, I'm thinking that 2, 4, 6, and 8 (who do we appreciate?) seem likely crash landings.

If he does hold on in a #1 type scenario past expectations, I think a #9 is what he gets for running out the clock.

I have to agree with MSH that a terrorist attack could very reasonably trigger a breakdown in his support. I wouldn't call it certain by any stretch of the imagination, though. I could easily see that, even if his personal approval dropped to 30% or something, general Republican approval could go up, and they in turn would either count on a rubber-stamp from him or fall in line behind him.

EDIT: I have to agree, it might be reasonable to impeach Trump, even at the cost of a Pence White House, if only to get Bannon out.