Such as?
> I also don't see why you would Trump will actually listen to you. Because he says so? You trust what he says?
I'm not talking about Trump listening. I'm talking about liberals listening to trump supporters trying to explain to them why they lost, and why they feel they are taking away freedom of speech.
> I understand and will not debate that you feel like you haven't been heard by the American political system (I immediately take your word for it), but that just doesn't mean the alternative to staying on the same path isn't significantly worse. Or do you think your life couldn't be any worse? Worse is _also_ an alternative you may have voted for.
The past 15 years have been a disaster. War, humanitarian crises, terrorism. I mean its always been a cruisy life for a white male software engineer though. But I just can't stand irrationality (as I perceive it), but more than anything the biggest risk is the attacks on freedom of speech through the liberal's bullying, public shaming, and ad-hominem attacks.
Well, I'm thinking mostly same sex marriage, maybe the freedom of religion (which seems to be OK for most, unless you're a muslim). Trump promises a conservative SCOTUS nomination, so everything that comes out of that as a side effect has a risk of people's rights being take away, mostly the progress made under the Obama administration
> I'm not talking about Trump listening. I'm talking about liberals listening to trump supporters trying to explain to them why they lost, and why they feel they are taking away freedom of speech.
OK screw people who want to take away your freedom of speech (but I admit that I don't know exactly what the problem you mention is, because I don't live in the US) but the point still stands as far as I'm concerned: I understand that you're pissed off, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to abuse the presidential elections, unless (of course you really agree with Trump's ideas, in which case I understand a vote for the man), obviously. I seriously doubt it'll lead to any improvement for this group of people, which would certainly make me wonder what the _next_ elections would look like.
>The past 15 years have been a disaster. War, humanitarian crises, terrorism.
I'm confused. There's a large group of white males that feel left behind, and that's because of war, humanitarian crises and terrorism? Not things like a very high unemployment rate (it's <5%, doesn't seem very high?) And if it's about war, humanitarian crises and terrorisme, you vote _Trump_, who has the tendency to throw oil on the fire, to fix that? How is this outcome REALLY going to make your life better? Do you honestly believe it will, and if so, how?
I mean, I hate irrationality as much as you do, but I'm still trying to understand the issue, and why exactly it's all Clinton's fault and how Trump is going to help? (I mean, a possibly rich businessman is not really part of the angry group so I don't see how it makes sense that Trump would represent a group he treats poorly)
Trump: The Supreme Court has issued an opinion on this. Same-sex marriage is an issue that should have been decided by the states.
There are many LGBT supporters of Trump. Milo Yiannopolous is a hero amongst all Trump supporters, and he is gay. The world has moved on - Democrats just want something to be angry about.
> Freedom of religion
It is about terrorism and not about religion.
> He would "suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies."
One of his closest friends [Thomas J. Barrack Jr.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Barrack_Jr.) spoke at the RNC on the last day. He is Lebanese.
Lets throw in all the misogyny stuff too?
His daughter runs his company. His sister is a US District Judge.
You have been sold such a story by the media and the campaign here.
> Trump promises a conservative SCOTUS nomination
So would any Republican, and by replacing Scalia, it will be the same situation as existed during the Obama years.
---
> I'm confused. There's a large group of white males that feel left behind, and that's because of war, humanitarian crises and terrorism?
You see what happened here. You just injected this narrative of "left behind" as the primary reason for the election loss. I never mentioned anything about being "left behind". Again, you are listening to the media rationalise what happened, and they are the ones who brainwashed you in the first place. This narrative means the liberals are not wrong, its just a bunch of people feeling left behind and angry - just an emotional response to the liberals righteous path. This is very frustrating - but the Trump victory is so sweet, because now we don't have to care if they still can't understand it - it will keep them out of power for even longer.
> you vote _Trump_, who has the tendency to throw oil on the fire, to fix that?
Trump is anti-war. Clinton is pro-war. She advocates intervention. Confrontation with Russia. Trump says: "wouldn't it be great if we got along with Russia?".
Ask Wikileaks, they are extremely anti-war and they will tell you that Clinton is the danger here.
> a possibly rich businessman
Your words are dripping in vitriol. A "possibly" rich businessman. You might not realise it but everything you say is straight from the narrative that the media and DNC sold. Next is bringing up that he had 4 bankruptcies. Or that he is out of touch because he received a 1MM loan - which anyone could have turned into a billion dollars. I don't mean to offend here or anything.
> but I'm still trying to understand the issue
The issue is that you live in a liberal echo chamber. It is social suicide to openly support Trump. Even if you wanted to support some of his ideas, it would put you at risk of losing friends. I certainly didn't openly support Trump. The silent vote was real.
We are called racist, but no one is racist. We are called xenophobic, but all we are asking for is that the laws are upheld.
There is a progressive movement in this country that is taking shape on college campuses and will become mainstream some day, and they do not believe in the constitution or the laws of the land.
Where we see borders between countries that should be secured, they do not want the borders at all.
Where freedom of speech is the inalienable right, they are pushing a socialist agenda where everyone is equal no matter what the realistic implications of that are, and whether freedom of speech is trampled.
I believe they are wrong because they think with their hearts and don't for see the consequences of their actions.
Just to take one minor example: Milo Yiannopolous is a racist bully. That's literally the only thing most people who have heard about him know about him. "Milo Yiannopolous? Isn't he that racist bully who picked on the actress from the 'Ghostbusters' movie?"
You calling that "bro" a hero is a racist thing to do: congratulations you're being racist on the Internet.
PLONK
I said: Liberals just say everyone is a racist bully and then don't want to listen.
You say: Milo is a racist bully. I don't want to listen and debate you.
I hope you are influential and charistmatic, because your desseminated ignorance will help Trump win in 2020.
Thank you!
I can't comment for the States as I live in Europe... but 99% of the big vocal trump supporters at this side of the ocean are racist and xenophobic like there is no tomorrow. In this country the only political trump supporters are the ones that has historic ties with the nazi's. That the most vocal European Trump supporters at political sides are in most case from extreme right political parties is also very telling.
So yeah it could be that you aren't racist or xenophobic but his message also really speaks to racist all over the world and that is fact.
Are you sure about this. I mean I don't know. But anyone you ask it always goes: "These people are scary and are Nazis".
When I listen to Nigel Farage - I'm like - it seems reasonable - but then someone is like "let me educate you...blah blah blah".
If someone is saying someone is a Nazi, then you back the fuck away from what ever you were just thinking.
There will always be some of the crazies like this. But on both sides. I mean there will be full communists on the left. But the white-supremist kind of crazies are definitely the worst.
I think these topics are too taboo that no one goes near them. And again I would say that this election was decided in the no-mans-land of race and religious relations that no moderate dare touch for fear of being labelled a racist for going anywhere near it.
> In this country the only political trump supporters are the ones that has historic ties with the nazi's
That all racists support trump is not the same as all trump supporters are racists. Can you provide more evidence that "the only political trump supporters" are racist? It's not "telling" if it not true.
> that is fact
...
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-upda...
> 99% of the big vocal trump supporters at this side of the ocean are racist and xenophobic like there is no tomorrow. In this country the only political trump supporters are the ones that has historic ties with the nazi's
So, not all, just 99% of the vocal ones. Or, in some country, all the ones with historical ties to the Nazis...
And this will result in the right coming to power in France and Germany. And people will wonder why!
So the communist party would celebrate a Bernie win. Have you seen what communists have done last century?
The only political parties that seem to be happy are the extreme right wing parties, that's was what I'm trying to say although very poor :-/
Compelling argument :P
If this were about terrorism and not religion, he wouldn't want to close the border for muslims but for terrorists, I would presume?
Replacing Scalia with a less conservative judge would be a win for democrats but it's fair game to have a different opinion. For me, however, it is most certainly a reason not to like a Trump presidency (though it has absolutely zero influence on me personally, obviously).
Trump did support the Iraq-war, unless he was lying when he replied "Yeah I guess so" when he was asked the question. Furthermore, he proposed a war crime to solve terrorisme when he proposed to kill terrorist family members (again; in a phone interview) and engages in such anti-war speech as "We'll bomb the hell out of ISIS", which, I would say, is pretty much waging war (not that I think we should just let ISIS slide...). So I don't agree with the sentiment that he's anti-war. Hopefully he's only not pro-war, like Bush was.
I said "possibly rich businessman" -- which I cannot for the LIFE of me understand why you'd call those words "dripping in vitriol" -- because I personally find it very suspicious that on the one hand he boasts about how succesful and how rich he is, and on the other hand he keeps the evidence firmly hidden. You're free to not find that shady, obviously.
I'm sorry if you lost friends over your political preference; I would certainly not have been one of them, that I promise you. But I do think you're misreading me: I'm doing my very best to stay rational (indirectly at your own request) and polite, so it's really unnecessary to feel attacked or anything. You're very much _free_ to support Trump, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Something like 98% of suicide bombings were by muslims this year. And he said that it should be closed until we can vet them properly.
Its a bad idea. And he refined it to muslims from countries with lots of terrorism.
I mean...if you were part of stoning a women to death in Saudi Arabia...should we welcome you with open arms? If you come from a country where homosexuality is punishable by death...I really don't get why liberals want to let these people in, and then go and protest for them.
If we are tougher at the border, then the ones who are here will live happier lives because people will stop suspecting them of being terrorists. Try talking to a liberal about an idea like that...no chance.
> Trump did support the Iraq-war, unless he was lying when he replied "Yeah I guess so" when he was asked the question.
Yes on Howard Stern. Far from a glowing endorsement. And he is on record against it just after it started.
> I said "possibly rich businessman" -- which I cannot for the LIFE of me understand why you'd call those words "dripping in vitriol" -- because I personally find it very suspicious that on the one hand he boasts about how succesful and how rich he is, and on the other hand he keeps the evidence firmly hidden. You're free to not find that shady, obviously.
Ok maybe I read it differently in my head. Its one of those things that is quite irrelevant, but the media deciding to push this narrative to discredit him. And if you only read an article in the news about it, its what you would think. When the story of Trumps fortune is incredibly long and complex and he has without question done incredibly well for himself.
> I'm sorry if you lost friends over your political preference;
It would not be worth losing friends over it - so I just nod my head and try to nudge them to a rationale position. Political preference is not what any of my friendships are based on. But I think for a lot of people, its becoming an integral part. Bonds forming at protests, etc.
There have been 0 suicide bombings in the US this year. The last suicide bombing in the US was in 2005 (11 years ago), the perpetrator was not a muslim and he was the only person killed. He also had no terroristic background.
> If we are tougher at the border, then the ones who are here will live happier lives because people will stop suspecting them of being terrorists.
You should have never started suspecting them of being terrorists. Or do you suspect all young white men of being school shooters? That would be equally wrong.
I didn't say in the US. You added this refinement. On relevance, US foreign policy affects the world.
> You should have never started suspecting them of being terrorists.
I don't. But people will. You think a Clinton presidency suddenly makes everyone stop thinking things. Not everyone is like you and me.
"lock that bitch up" - Her gender is irrelevant to her corruption so it does not make sense for it to be here.
People are not chanting "lock that bitch up". They are chanting "lock her up".
"crooked Hillary" - She has been under active investigation for almost the entire campaign, and the Clintons have been their entire careers.
I don't see any problem with this. As long the same standard applies to both candidates.
Noting that it has all been Republican-driven and hasn't yet found a single thing in decades. But it is definitely an excellent "poison the well" tactic.
No illegal email servers then?
Do you agree that (1) investigation is not the same as conviction, and (2) that repeating the phrase "crooked Hillary" ceaselessly is a marketing tactic designed to encourage a belief that Clinton is a criminal in order to undermine her legitimacy as a candidate?
No.
> (2) that repeating the phrase "crooked Hillary" ceaselessly is a marketing tactic
Yes.
> designed to encourage a belief that Clinton is a criminal
No, it brings to light the fact that she was under investigation and has many shady dealings in the past. It is to raise doubt. To be a criminal she must be convicted.
> in order to undermine her legitimacy as a candidate?
Partly. I think more so to raise doubts about what she would be like in power.
The latter strikes me as something that is an essential part of free speech. How would you address 'bullying, public shaming, and ad-hominem attacks' without also attacking free speech in the process?
That's an honest question, by the way.
We say: "Stop calling everything racist and sexist that is not racist or sexist because you are missing the real underlying issues. We want everyone to be happy just like you do, but we think your method is flawed."
Then we win the election because you missed the point.
This is why you will find such exuberant Trump supporters. There are many tears of joy being shed on the Trump side because of this.
Can you recognize the parallel between your statement and the one I've paraphrased above?
"Then we win the election because you missed the point."
As in, ignore the message at your own peril, we don't have to care because we are content now.
But in the Muslim's case, the implications for us ignoring their message are more profiling, xenophobia, etc. Which is why I would argue they need to look internally to resolve the issues inside their communities.
That makes Trump's administration racist and makes the people who voted for Trump seem to appear racist. Though, as we've agreed, most of them aren't.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/22/muslims-and-...
But the guilt by association is my point.
In this election, people who voted for Trump considered his Muslim ban policy acceptable enough that they didn't make him change it before they elected him. And guilt by association can cause that support to be interpreted as racist.
Edit: Islam isn't a race, so there's probably a better word than racist in this case. But the point remains.
Thats a tough pill to swallow.
Gays for Trump is the most rationale position to take. Re: Milo Yiannopolous.
He changed it: http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-back-pedals-on-bann...
But its not as simple as "Banning all Muslims because they might be Terrorists". This is the headline the media liked to repeat again and again.
http://www.advocate.com/election/2016/8/15/donald-trump-want...
If you are gay, it is rationale to support a full ban on Muslims. Muslim countries have some terrible laws. I personally don't want anyone involved in an honour killing to set foot in the country. This is a real danger.
It is the height of irony that the liberals who protect Muslims so much, do not care what their views are on gays, or women. I don't get it and I would love someone to explain it to me.
Is Trumps Muslim ban policy racist?
Any time I've seen a Muslim actually talk about the issue, and explain how Islam doesn't encourage terrorism, they are evasive, or outright deceptive. Show me a legitimate attempt to explain the "real underlying issues" that is neither of these things (and not just representative of a fringe group e.g heavily westernized Muslims).
> Muslims often say: "Stop calling all of us terrorists and stop saying Islam encourages terrorism because you are missing the real underlying issues. We want everyone to be happy just like you do, but we think your understanding of terrorism is flawed."
So this is the context I am responding to, the hypothetical situation of a Muslim claiming the above.
> because, when you accuse someone of being a terrorist
No, I'm responding specifically to the "stop saying Islam encourages terrorism" part. When I say "Any time I've seen a Muslim actually talk about the issue, and explain how Islam doesn't encourage terrorism", I don't mean in the context of responding to an accusation of being a terrorist.
> You've decided that a religion is guilty and want individuals to show proof of innocence?
What have I decided about the religion? I implied that if it's true that Muslims are saying "you are missing the real underlying issues", then I've yet to see one attempt to explain.
Also, If I had decided that a religion is guilty, who else but individuals could demonstrate otherwise? Religion has no life of it's own, it exists only in the medium of the individuals who decide to carry it.
Someone trying to explain how Islam doesn't encourage terrorism is on the defensive. The accusation has already been made. But the accusation doesn't make sense if the religion has no life of its own and exists only in the medium of individuals.
It's tough to defend against an accusation that doesn't make sense. If we can't point out what is bad, what is there to defend? The whole thing has a guilty-until-proven-innocent feeling to it. If the prosecutor can't make a sound case, there should be no need for a defense in the first place.
Anecdotally, the people I know who claim that Islam encourages terrorism don't know much about it. What they do know is shallow and cherry-picked, and any decent explanation immediately goes into the "it's different, so it's bad" bucket. It must be very difficult to demonstrate anything to these people.
I disagree. Having no "life" doesn't mean this.
First, inanimate objects can still be influential. Comics books, for instance, where one claimed to encourage violence, anti-social behaviour.
Second, The religion lives in those other individuals, much like any thought, meme, or ideology. Even the inanimate influences are often created by such individuals.
In the case of Islam, there are some fairly authoritative objects and people.
Are you suggesting there is no such thing as religion? Islam seems to be pretty serious about standardisation.
> The whole thing has a guilty-until-proven-innocent feeling to it
Not to me.
> Anecdotally..
In context, I can't really see these anecdotes as in good faith...
Let's hope _other_ people's freedoms aren't being taken away thanks to your vote, though.
I also don't see why you would Trump will actually listen to you. Because he says so? You trust what he says?
I understand and will not debate that you feel like you haven't been heard by the American political system (I immediately take your word for it), but that just doesn't mean the alternative to staying on the same path isn't significantly worse. Or do you think your life couldn't be any worse? Worse is _also_ an alternative you may have voted for.