Print

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

[EnigmaticHat]

What's new is the lack of tourists coming into the country.

[wierd]

You mean people don't want to come to a country they don't feel welcome in!? /s

More seriously, (and sadly), the reduction in tourism is often seen by people like Trump as "A good thing."

Here me out on this, because you have to think in a rather specific way. (that will make you feel somewhat sick.)


Essentially, "ideological purity" makes it easier to manage the opinions and actions of a governed population; allowing free association (such as via tourism) with people who hold outside ideas and philosophies makes that difficult. Ideological purity goes hand in hand with nationalism, or at least has done so over much of recorded history. See for instance, how it is a cornerstone in modern North Korea. (and how "warmly" they treat "tourists.")

Trump is super paranoid, and literally sees boogeymen where there are none. (See this latest bit with alledged wiretapping, and the like.)

He is the kind that would view the implosion of the tourist industry as a beneficial thing, because it makes him feel safer, and more empowered when all those "dangerous people" have to "stay out."

[muldrake]

In 2016 there were two people almost everyone universally loathed.  An evil woman who's defense against controversy is being too incompetent to handle more than 1 email, let alone the presidency, and a bold faced liar that is possibly the most corrupt and incompetent buisnessman in the world that does not believe in facts, and has likely never set foot in a science classroom.

Thank you for stating the truth, and frankly, I am sick of people who look at this factual situation and can then, with a straight face, conclude that everyone who voted opposite of the way they did is a literal Nazi and that they must have been motivated by nothing but pure evil, rather than simply having made the best choice they thought they had.

Hillary was simply the worst Presidential candidate fronted by one of the two major parties in the U.S. in my lifetime, and that is not my opinion, it is an objective fact, since she actually lost to the second-worst Presidential candidate fronted by one of the two major parties in the U.S.

(And I voted for Hillary although I am a BernOut.)

[Dorsidwarf]

Thank you for stating that an amusing caricature is the absolute truth.

[Sheb]

In 2016 there were two people almost everyone universally loathed.  An evil woman who's defense against controversy is being too incompetent to handle more than 1 email, let alone the presidency, and a bold faced liar that is possibly the most corrupt and incompetent buisnessman in the world that does not believe in facts, and has likely never set foot in a science classroom.

Thank you for stating the truth, and frankly, I am sick of people who look at this factual situation and can then, with a straight face, conclude that everyone who voted opposite of the way they did is a literal Nazi and that they must have been motivated by nothing but pure evil, rather than simply having made the best choice they thought they had.

Hillary was simply the worst Presidential candidate fronted by one of the two major parties in the U.S. in my lifetime, and that is not my opinion, it is an objective fact, since she actually lost to the second-worst Presidential candidate fronted by one of the two major parties in the U.S.

Do you just define good canidate by ability to win?

[Frumple]

More persistently peddled lie than caricature, but I guess that works, too. FTFE, etc., etc.

[Antioch]

In 2016 there were two people almost everyone universally loathed.  An evil woman who's defense against controversy is being too incompetent to handle more than 1 email, let alone the presidency, and a bold faced liar that is possibly the most corrupt and incompetent buisnessman in the world that does not believe in facts, and has likely never set foot in a science classroom.

Thank you for stating the truth, and frankly, I am sick of people who look at this factual situation and can then, with a straight face, conclude that everyone who voted opposite of the way they did is a literal Nazi and that they must have been motivated by nothing but pure evil, rather than simply having made the best choice they thought they had.

Hillary was simply the worst Presidential candidate fronted by one of the two major parties in the U.S. in my lifetime, and that is not my opinion, it is an objective fact, since she actually lost to the second-worst Presidential candidate fronted by one of the two major parties in the U.S.

Do you just define good canidate by ability to win?

If we define candidates by their ability to win, then Adolf Hitler and Erdogan are examples of good candidates......

[muldrake]

Do you just define good canidate by ability to win?

Yes.  By definition, the candidate who wins is the best candidate.

That doesn't mean they're best at whatever job they're applying to via the process of an election.  From the fact that I voted for Hillary, I obviously thought she'd be a better President than the current idiot in the office.

However, it is an established fact that in a heads-up contest between the two candidates, Trump won.

[Helgoland]

If you're only out to win, that's true. But if everyone's only out to win, the Republic is doomed anyway.

[muldrake]

If we define candidates by their ability to win, then Adolf Hitler and Erdogan are examples of good candidates......

Am I alone in being sad whenever a comparison to Hitler just doesn't instantly disqualify you from being taken seriously just because Hitler?

Despite that, though, and limiting this to Hitler, Hitler did not get elected to be an absolute dictator.  Seriously, look at the history.  The Weimar Republic was weak and barely democratic at all.  The environment in which Hitler got elected to the limited position he held constitutionally forced him to fake a bunch of bullshit, like the Reichstag Fire, just to get his chancellor position.

The United States, with a centuries-long history of checks and balances and limitations on executive power, cannot be compared seriously to the situation Hitler inherited.  It's an absolute fucking joke.  I am embarrassed by supposedly "fellow" liberals who try to compare an entirely legitimate election to Hitler seizing power.  Please, quit doing this.  It's embarrassing.  It's dumb.

Does anyone here even remember Godwin's Law?  (I know it is about the frequency of Hitler comparisons and not about you losing the argument once you bring up Hitler.  But seriously.  The moment you drag in Hitler, you really should lose.)

Also, I'm not saying the person I'm responding to is particularly awful, and sorry Antioch, I apologize in advance because you aren't the jerk I'm talking about.

[birdy51]

A candidate only needs to win once.

[Sergarr]

If we define candidates by their ability to win, then Adolf Hitler and Erdogan are examples of good candidates......

Am I alone in being sad whenever a comparison to Hitler just doesn't instantly disqualify you from being taken seriously just because Hitler?

Despite that, though, and limiting this to Hitler, Hitler did not get elected to be an absolute dictator.  Seriously, look at the history.  The Weimar Republic was weak and barely democratic at all.  The environment in which Hitler got elected to the limited position he held constitutionally forced him to fake a bunch of bullshit, like the Reichstag Fire, just to get his chancellor position.

The United States, with a centuries-long history of checks and balances and limitations on executive power, cannot be compared seriously to the situation Hitler inherited.  It's an absolute fucking joke.  I am embarrassed by supposedly "fellow" liberals who try to compare an entirely legitimate election to Hitler seizing power.  Please, quit doing this.  It's embarrassing.  It's dumb.

Does anyone here even remember Godwin's Law?  (I know it is about the frequency of Hitler comparisons and not about you losing the argument once you bring up Hitler.  But seriously.  The moment you drag in Hitler, you really should lose.)

Also, I'm not saying the person I'm responding to is particularly awful, and sorry Antioch, I apologize in advance because you aren't the jerk I'm talking about.

Trump has invented numerous fake terrorist attacks, fake "wiretapping", fake "massive wave of immigrant violence" that made him implement the Muslim ban, fake "Obama's massive unemployment" that magically turned into "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!" once Trump got to power... the list could go on, really.

Like, what kind of comparison could you use to portray the absolute unacceptability of this behavior?

[muldrake]

Like, what kind of comparison could you use to portray the absolute unacceptability of this behavior?

I'd compare him to Berlusconi, another corrupt near-fascist politician who literally ran for office just for profit.

I'm just not getting the obsession with comparing him to Hitler.  I don't like Trump at all.  But I do think the absolute obsession with viewing him as some kind of ultimate evil is not at all productive and is, perversely, virtually ensuring we have to deal with this dick for 8 years instead of 4.

[Frumple]

However, it is an established fact that in a heads-up contest between the two candidates, Trump won.

Which has very little to do with trump, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Being a lucky incompetent conman who happened to lie and bluster in a way the US electorate had been priming itself to fall for for decades, while huge chunks of that electorate (on both sides of the political divide) did its damndest to hoist itself by its own petard and the fourth estate fucked everything for the clickbait, isn't exactly the most meaningful of characteristics.

[Antioch]

If we define candidates by their ability to win, then Adolf Hitler and Erdogan are examples of good candidates......

Am I alone in being sad whenever a comparison to Hitler just doesn't instantly disqualify you from being taken seriously just because Hitler?

Despite that, though, and limiting this to Hitler, Hitler did not get elected to be an absolute dictator.  Seriously, look at the history.  The Weimar Republic was weak and barely democratic at all.  The environment in which Hitler got elected to the limited position he held constitutionally forced him to fake a bunch of bullshit, like the Reichstag Fire, just to get his chancellor position.

The United States, with a centuries-long history of checks and balances and limitations on executive power, cannot be compared seriously to the situation Hitler inherited.  It's an absolute fucking joke.  I am embarrassed by supposedly "fellow" liberals who try to compare an entirely legitimate election to Hitler seizing power.  Please, quit doing this.  It's embarrassing.  It's dumb.

Does anyone here even remember Godwin's Law?  (I know it is about the frequency of Hitler comparisons and not about you losing the argument once you bring up Hitler.  But seriously.  The moment you drag in Hitler, you really should lose.)

Also, I'm not saying the person I'm responding to is particularly awful, and sorry Antioch, I apologize in advance because you aren't the jerk I'm talking about.

How does that change anything about it being quite dubious to rank candidates on their ability to win the election?

In this case trying to disqualify the argument because "lol Hitler" is stupid when it is just a good example of a rather shitty person winning an election.

The state of the Weimar republic doesn't really change anything about that.