No, it's not. See the Berkeley riots, and the riots at Middlebury against Charles Murray. This type of stuff is outrageous and not acceptable on an American college campus (or any modern college campus). This type of stuff is suppression of free speech and we shouldn't be having it anywhere, much less college campuses. When I use the term SJW, I'm specifically referring to people like those that would perpetrate acts of violence to suppress speeches of people at college campuses. The term can certainly be used more widely though to describe a larger, and still problematic, group of people.

If you don't find the above to be a problem, then I think you are apart of the problem.

This has nothing to do with a 'both sides' argument, as Morrigan tried to paint it as. Not it at all. The point is that U.S. politics has devolved so much over the last several years that a new center is needed. This is my point. If you had read the entire content of my post, I think this should have been obvious.

As much as I agree with you, Morrigan, it would do your/and our side a bit of good to have more tact in these conversations, especially with those who do actually agree with you (like me), but may have some points or ideas that haven't been brought up yet.

Berkeley riots. *centrifuge-paced eyeroll* If anyone was following the follow-up freedom of speech rallies in downtown Berkeley, you'll know how laughably retarded this conflict is. The best was when two guys who arrived prepared for the clash wearing full plate armour, sporting American flags on the helmets, were promptly peppersprayed through their visors and sent packing.

The "Berkeley riots" (eyeball strobelights) were a functionless tantrum. Whiny Riot is the name of their band. You're right that Antifa and the rest of these political LARPers are fucking up the situation. I have no problem at all with the cops breaking them off anymore than I have a problem with the cops pepper spraying good ol' boys from Fresno that came in en masse to fight liberal scum. I've never been more pro-cop than during those absurd showings of dismal intelligence. I also agree that a college campus is where freedom of speech should be allowed. I had friends whining that Milo shouldn't be given a venue, which is stupid. Do you want Bernie to have a venue in rural Georgia without people burning shit? Bring the tape recorder and hold the people accountable after they've said whatever maniacal garbage they regurgitated after feeding from the alt-right gutter.


You may be getting a little carried away. The right is not being suppressed any more than Christians are being persecuted. The idea is bantha foodoo. Also, if you agree with Morrigan, then stick to the argument. Are you a proponent of free speech? If yes, then don't go all wimpy when she expresses herself.

Tact doesn't do shit, by the way. These people are not open to "teaching moments" because learning requires flexible thinking. I'll give them a chance, but it's basically just a chance for me to learn what rules they're working with and how, if at all, it might be possible to talk to them. Unfortunately, it's predictably contorted, ignorant, and eventually enraging nonsense.

To paraphrase Ice-T, "I'll put down my [poo-thrower] when you put down yours."

There can't be a new center until everyone agrees on some things, like that transgender bathrooms aren't an issue, you can't allow businesses to discriminate against gay people, you can't ban Muslims or police mosques, etc - there can't be any compromise or 'well, the other side has a point' when it comes to that. Because if there is, then all Americans don't have equal rights and are not treated equally, and the whole thing goes to shit.

Milo and the Berkley riots shouldn't really be an issue anyway. I am not terribly concerned with that. Milo is a troll provocateur who wants people to get mad so he can cancel his own events out of "fear for his safety" and further scapegoat anyone who doesn't like his bullshit as an irrational leftist hypocrite who isn't "tolerant." It is not the battle we should fight over free speech.

If you DO want to talk about free speech, then you should focus on Donald Trump's attempts to silence and discredit the media whenever they say something bad about him, and stuff like this where a reporter was arrested for persistently asking questions: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/busi ... .html?_r=0

Or this woman arrested for, basically, laughing during Jeff Sessions' hearing earlier this year (disrupting the event, sure; not really an arrest worthy offense though): http://www.snopes.com/woman-prosecuted- ... -sessions/

The whole "Berkley free speech" argument is nothing but the right trying to play the martyr and act like their views are under attack. Maybe if you show up at a campus and people riot, it's not them that is the problem.

So, back to President Trump...

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/donald-trump-makes-the-wrong-impression-yad-vashem

Trump visits the Holocaust museum in Israel and writes:



The Holocaust Museum is "so amazing," you guys. It was like when a guy hit a home run that one time, and my friends were there. The fucking American President.

President Obama wrote like a fucking paragraph about rising up against evil, never forgetting the past, and a monument to our ability to rebuild and thrive after great tragedy. One of my friends pointed out that Trump is "only used to speaking in Tweet form." And they're fucking right.

To which I would add "there can't be compromise on free speech." Sorry, but I'm not sure how this is controversial. Ten years ago an actual tyrant, the president of Iran, was permitted to make a laughingstock of himself on a college campus by bashing Jews and gays but today easily-ignored pundits with little actual power require National Guard escort? The only reason anyone knows who someone like Milo is stems from the attention he gets whenever someone tries to shut him up.

I know this whole free speech/PC thing seems like an off-topic minor issue in a thread about Trump's ongoing disaster but it really isn't. After party affiliation, concerns about PC and free speech was a top predictor for Trump support. Imagine if most or at least a lot of public appearances by some relatively minor liberal thinker---say, Jonathan Chait, for example---were greeted with threats of violence. Imagine if conservative student groups tried to get liberals banned from writing in student newspapers by claiming that "truth...is an attempt to silence oppressed peoples." Surely you recognize people would feel that their opinions were under assault, and that this would be reasonable?

We, people left of the American center, are having a collective "this is not normal" freakout over our current president. Trump voters have been feeling that for a few years now, starting around 2014, and a large part of that is how they perceive this free speech issue.

I immediately thought of this article from last week https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opin ... -data.html

As I said in the FFA before this thread was made, he isn't a wily or competent authoritarian, he's just a village idiot.

I'm not sure the free speech thing is completely off-topic. There have been issues in recent years that badly muddy every element of this, from "Constitution-free zones" to Trump shutting out the American press (who are supported by the Constitution) to the way bigotry and alt-right have co-opted this concept for their own horrifying bullshit.

There are people on the left who do not represent the whole, who are making catastrophic mistakes concerning freedom of speech. The recent effort to prevent the skeletonized remains of Ann Coulter from talking at a college recently, spring instantly to mind, along with several comedians like Jerry Seinfeld, coming out against performing at colleges because people are too goddamn uppity. Some on the left are acting like we shouldn't talk about certain things as if there is a fear that merely talking about them is the problem or creates more problems. Talking to the few LGBTQ people I know, the last thing they want is for people not to be talking about them at all. That marginalizes them, makes them feel unimportant.

In the same way, the alt-right has taken this and fucking run with it. "Look how oppressed we are for realsies you guys! No one will let our bitch skeletons talk at college campuses! They want to silence us, the loud majority! OPPRESSION! OPPRESSION!" Trump and the alt-right turned this into a horrifying unity. This became their "evidence" that they needed to band together, that they were the oppressed minority. That the "liberals" were trying to breed them out of existence, trying to silence them out of the collective voice, trying to drown them out in a sea of immigrants and mixes.

Every time there is a cry on the left to denounce someone from talking, it becomes a hassle of free speech, and indeed, disallowing someone from talking does exactly that. And those on the right, especially the scummy underbelly of the alt-right, know full fucking well how to turn that into an advantage. And they have done so to an alarming regularity. Right up to the point that we have a man in the White House that is noted to have kept Hitler speeches on his fucking nightstand. He curried the support of the alt-right and horror delivery systems like Alex Jones.

We live in a bizarre era where professionals and experts are automatically ignored in favor of untrained, uneducated, anonymous lunatics from the fringe corners of the internet. They live in conspiracy theories that they, as a mass, are oppressed.

We need to be allowing all free speech, no matter how awful, and then using our granted right of free speech to take them down a peg (or several). When we disallow or block the speech of others, it makes it more attractive. Forbidden knowledge, for lack of a better term. People seek that adventure, no matter how pathetic or how often Alex Jones is selling you doomsday supplies to survive the invading Reptoids. When we block monsters like Ann Coulter from talking, we paint them in a new light that the disenfranchised are drawn to.

I don't think it's entirely off-topic. I think Trump and his campaign team knew how to use free speech as a kind of tool, not of oppression, but to evidence that people were oppressed. You can't be a bigot against gays anymore! They took away your free speech and freedom of religion! They want to silence the alt-right and our Christian American values! They don't want to let us talk!

It brought people together in the worst way possible with an embarrassing and disheartening outcome. Trump campaigned on "making America great again" convincing his masses that these "PC liberals" had taken away their freedoms. And while liberals are vastly more right than the conservatives these days, there is still room for improvement--and that comes from no longer doing things that allow the worst of humanity to get a foothold in public discourse.

We should be inviting Ann Coulter and Milo Yannipenis (I don't know how to spell his fucking name), when he mattered, to public debates and conversations where they were to have their rhetoric picked apart and shredded by free speech. When they fucking decline those invitations knowing they'd be ripped to pieces, then there would be progress. Preventing anyone from talking, no matter how horrible, gives the impression that that person had "dangerous, altering" things to say. Rationally, we can defeat anyone on the right on most issues. But not if we don't even let them talk.

Look at the conservatives right now. Milo, Alex Jones, Tomi Lauren. There was somebody else, I don't remember. Wingnuts of the right, and how were they brought down? They got to talk enough that they fucking buried themselves. Oh, Bill O'Reilly was the other one. Let them go long enough and they will stumble, they will fuck up, they will be torn apart. We should be handing them these opportunities to hang themselves.

Sorry for the rant. My political views have taken a hard turn in recent years from center-right, to far more left of center with a smattering of libertarian when they aren't fucking championing conspiracy theories or full-blown anarchy. I went from being a shitty person who "feared the feminazis" to being eager to consider myself feminist. I went from calling stuff "gay" to one of my best friends being trans. I went from "nObama" to "actually, one of the best presidents we had over the last 50 years, all things considered." This is no "there's problems on the left and right so shrug golly" comment. I think "SJW" is a term generally used by cowards as a slur for progressive people, but at the same time, have seen some of the worst examples of people who think they're fighting for some social justice bullshit, while recognizing they are an extreme minority. At the same time, this concept, and a total lack of understanding of it, continue to contribute to a nasty partisan split in the US. Fox News and the religious right want it this way, because understanding kills their momentum.

The right is mostly in the wrong these days. But the left is not without their errors, and some of them fed right into the hands of the right. One of them is free speech and the way some of this shit is handled, for instance, on college campuses.

Again, sorry for the rant.

Now, can we please do something about Trump?

They can have their shitty, awful, toxic, bullshit "free speech" (read: bigotry) if they want, but not being allowed to speak on college campuses doesn't mean freedom is being violated. I don't really care one way or the other if they speak or not on those campuses - I wouldn't touch that shit with a barge pole myself anyway if I was there, so who cares. But I am just saying that it really says something if the presence of someone like Milo causes riots as soon as he arrives. It sounds like it is a problem with him and not anyone else.

I dunno. I don't think "conservative provocateur who says shocking things just for the sake of it being banned from speaking somewhere" is on the same level as minorities of various stripes having their actual rights violated and being treated like they are lesser. This is not an equal sum game. They're not the same thing.

While Trump continues his march towards his seemingly inevitable resignation (far more likely to me that he walks away of his own volition than allows himself to get booted,) what reforms have the Democratic Party made since the election? What's the platform? Who is the leadership? All they've been banking on is impeachment which is obviously no walk in the park even if the writing is on the wall, so to speak. I'm not seeing much effort towards fixing their mistakes and reengaging their constituency and the longer they wait, the easier it'll be for the never-Trumpers and Republicans whom have distanced themselves from him by then, whether out of sincerity or simply posturing for opportunity, come the midterm elections.

This Onward Together "resistance" led by Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean... really? They're relics of the failed establishment. Whether or not any of US still individually support them, their brand now tarnishes whatever they touch in the eyes of the population at large. They're out of touch and no longer relevant but as long as they're still visible, more legitimate options like Tulsi Gabbard and Nina Turner, and please feel free to name any others, won't have a snowball's chance at moving anything forward.

In severity of degree? Not one bit. In overall concept, that being one side deliberately taking action to silence proponents of another? They're in the same house.

If these supposed leftist protesters assault one of these people, then they'll be jailed and due process will happen from that. If Milo or whoever cancels their speech of their own volition, then I don't see how that is a violation of any freedoms. They choose to do it out of a "fear" - but really more just because they love being able to play the martyr.

If no one is being jailed by the government, then no violation of freedom of speech has actually happened.

The man who co-wrote Art of the Deal with Trump agrees with the resignation point. Indeed, he thinks Trump will do what he always has, he'll figure out how to walk away while still proclaiming victory.

And I tend to agree. It's been pointed out a few times over that Trump seems to loathe being President. It's too much work. It's too complicated. He clearly doesn't understand it. He's out of his element. He was happier with his previous life. In the same way he's settled pretty much every lawsuit ever, he's cowered when challenged, and he's found a way to act like a big winner despite repeated failures, I pretty much expect him to do the same here.

He's not a politician, he's not Presidential. He has no reason to fuck around with this stressful shit during the years he wants to relax and enjoy retirement. Politicians like to stick out their disastrous presidencies. I don't see a reason why Trump would continue.

True, it doesn't mean freedom is being violated, but the right and especially, the alt-right see it as such and they turn it to their strength. I know it's long, but that's essentially what my rant above was about. They should be allowed to talk, and the freedom of speech of rational people should be allowed to fuck them up. When their supporters see what failures they are, then change can happen.

Funny how those whining about my tone, or lack of tact, are always those ardent defenders of free speech and political incorrectness and all that. What, you want to dish it but can't take it? Poor snowflakes.


Fucking thank you.

Obligatory:

Soooo back on topic... here's Donald "doing a great job" Trump's great budget plan:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... error.html








----------

Oh yeah, remember those jobs Trump is supposed to save? Those Carrier jobs? Those Ohio coal jobs? Yeah, about that... #somuchwinning

A speaker invited to a college campus isn't invited because the university wants to give "all sides" an equal opportunity to present their arguments, it's a direct endorsement of the speaker's beliefs by a professor or an administrator on behalf of the university. I think that, perhaps, the argument could be made for debate between two well-recognized sides in a given debate, such as Creationism vs. Reality or Feminism vs. Anti-Reality, though even for that I struggle to see the value in placing Richard Spencer opposite literally any PhD. holder in the fucking world.* But students clamoring to stop Christina Sommers from speaking is simply announcing that this is not what that university stands for. No one questions why Richard Dawkins hasn't been invited to speak at Bob Jones University, yanno?

And I fail to see how any halfway decent human could be opposed to shutting down Milo before he doxxes yet another trans student. It's like stickying troll threads to the top of a forum, if you'll forgive the incredibly nerdy analogy.


*okay, not Richard Lynn.

Yeah I think people imagine some sort of Roman forum in the center of a university where anyone is free to get up and speak to the crowd, with masked SJW brigades beating up anyone they don't want to hear.

No, it involves a real-ass stage, time & money & effort on the part of the university staff and volunteers, and important time slots booked up that might be used by other speakers. Not to mention the prestige gained by speaking at a sizable university. If a sufficient amount of the student body have made known that they are completely against their tuition helping to support a certain speaker, and their alma mater being associated with that speaker, it makes perfect sense for the university to cancel the engagement.

Yeah, things get much hairier when you're talking actual Roman forum type things. My university had this area right along "academic row" that saw the highest amount of foot traffic on campus, and twice a week this guy would show up with big easels with signboards and diagrams about how the gays are doomed and should just all be exterminated because of their sin and superaids or whatever crazy Christian horseshit. He was a middle-aged guy and according to a couple professors who brought the guy up, not a student or affiliated with the university at all, but he wasn't prevented from spewing his hate speech at all. He always had big crowds of people around him trying to debate and heckle him but he was clearly a nut. I think, had it been a private university rather than a state school, he probably would've been asked to leave, but administrators were probably unsure about doing the same on gubmint-owned land.

Something like 23 of the 30 Senate seats up for reelection in 2018 belong to democrats, and a good number of those (something like 8) reside in states that Trump carried.

So the best case scenario is sadness.

This is a bit like the Creationism vs Evolution "debates" and why biologist didn't want to get involved, because it gave an air of legitimacy to Creationism--that there is anything there to debate at all. There really isn't. But Creationists had been gaining ground for way too long, and they used this "science is mean to us" rhetoric to curry support. Ben Stein made a fucking movie and that was the entire fucking point.

At the same time, recognizing that this telling someone "no, fuck off, you can't speak here" is free speech (and yes, this is correct), it ignores the way the right uses this shit as tactics to garner more support. They get to play the victim card, the oppressed card. So the majority can feel like a mistreated minority.

The comic Morrigan posted is accurate--but it misses the point. And it's something I've witnessed in numerous atheist-vs-religion debates. The right/religious side doesn't have facts or reality on their side, so they resort to tactics, and those tactics have been fucking working. Accurately pointing out it's free speech to tell someone you don't want them speaking comes off with some level of arrogance. "See? It's free speech. They're just fucking wrong and need to get over it."

What they don't do is admit they're wrong or get over it. The Milos and Coulters and alt-right and Creationists turn right around, proclaim that their free speech is being oppressed, that they're victims, and that shit is working. I know it sounds counter-intuitive to smart people--"they're wrong, ha ha, let's move on." You can't fucking move on. Because they are using tactics, not facts. That is a different mess, and if you want to downplay the use of tactics, I will remind you that Trump still got the Presidency, and even though he had notably fewer votes, it's not like he didn't have zero.

Those tactics still work.

Yes, saying "no" to these people is free speech.
Yes, they are monumental special snowflakes.
But recognizing this isn't addressing the issue, isn't countering their tactics, and isn't fixing any fucking thing.

There's a great sketch ContraPoints just released on this very subject; highly recommended, especially if you also like (and this is probably the smallest overlap in existence) French avant-garde theater: Link

So someone from the US Government leaked and announced the Identity of our recent Manchester Bomber before we did, directly against the UK wishes. Our Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has now accused Trump of putting UK Intelligence and Safety at risk.

Yeah but isn't the Senate 52-48? Not exactly impossible to swing a Democratic majority from that. It's the House that's more lopsided.

True, and a couple of those Republicans have been increasingly moving against Trump. McCain who, for better or worse, seems to be turning against the Trump administration on a lot of things. Not enough, but it's a start.

I don't see the democratic party picking up the Senate next year, for the reasons I outlined on page 1. They are all but guaranteed to lose 5 Senate seats by default.


#winning: Trump reveals top-secret location of two nuclear submarines to president of Philippines, who promptly leaks it to embarrass Trump.

^ He also praised Duterte for how he handled his drug wars in the Philippines, saying he was "doing a great job".

...Duterte supports the vigilante murdering of anyone involved in drugs, and has openly bragged about murdering people himself.



Yeah.... great job... at being a total fucking psychopath I guess. Remember, Trump admires this guy.

-----------


More #winning: Trump now worried about the impact Brexit might have on US jobs!
Let us remember the corresponding tweet:

Wait, you're telling me the president of the Philippines fucking goes around killing people? Like, the actual country's leader does that?

I didn't even vote, and have never voted, but seriously this is why Hillary lost. All the liberals got together and cast out any dissenting opinions, chastising them and calling them racist, stupid, homophobic etc thinking that these people went away. Couple that with liberal media bias, education, Hollywood, and social media it's no wonder you're upset. Let me guess, if someone posted Pro-Trump on facebook you unfriended them? My thing is we survived a combined 16 years of extreme neo-cons and socialists in Bush and Obama, and now 4 months of Trump and nothing bad has happened. No nukes, no new wars, but you bought into the media hysteria, plus most of your points are blatant personal attacks and devoid of fact





Nothing to do with policy, or anything at all really



This has actually been an accusation for many years where dead people have voted. Trump didn't make this up.



Can't beat 'em? Call them racist.



Surely I can't quote your whole post but again this is nothing. The problem is getting your information from the TV and not from the source. I personally know dozens of Mexican and black families who voted Trump, wore his merchandise, had stickers on their cars. These are middle-class families with both parents working struggling to pay bills and working ridiculous hours of overtime, and you wonder why people voted for him? I shit you not, a black family member of mine was called a white supremacist for voting Trump. This hysteria needs to stop, the world is still turning, as it continued to under Obama and Bush.

Being anything other than an old, rich white guy and voting for Trump is the political equivalent of someone pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger for them.

This isn't about casting out dissenting opinions. It's about calling out shit people with shit beliefs for what they are. Pray tell, if a candidate came out on live TV saying that messily devouring live babies is good for health and people started calling him a maniac for that, would you tell them to "respect his opinion"? Because that'd be idiotic. Racism, homophobia, xenophobia and the like aren't "opinions" that are subsequently worthy of respect and acknowledgment. They're fucking toxic intellectual garbage and must be recognized and mocked as such, until they crawl back into the darkness where they belong.

And until you can actually convince them otherwise you actually aren't contributing to the solution. All mocking and hating does is make their own mocking and hatred stronger to themselves.

What about calling a person racist because you don't like them? Modern liberals have become old-school evangelicals that dictate what is right and wrong and will persecute people to death for it

Please do provide relevant examples of liberals calling people racist out of personal dislike rather than being, ya know, fuckin' racist. I'll wait.

As for persecuting people to death out of some sense of "moral high ground"? You must be confusing us with the alt-right.

You seem to be under the impression that it's actually possible to reason with this people. It's not. They're lost causes. The best we can do is try to educate the masses who are on the fence about these issues, and unmask the bigots so the aforementioned masses can see them for what they truly are.

It's a little stupid to assume liberals will call people racist only if they're actually racist, when plenty of them like to implicitly call class-focused leftists racists, for instance: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/23/reacti ... -politics/


I don't he's saying one should reason with them. From what I got, I think he's saying calling leaders of right wing populist movements nothing but racists, hicks, white trash, Nazis etc. is not a constructive and helpful enough term for them, because it fails to explain the reasons behind such worldviews most of which are to do with economic rather than cultural background.

That is indeed incredibly ridiculous. Far from the norm though, which is the opposite of what Church13's previous post seemed to imply.

And that is where the "educating the masses" part I mentioned comes in. Explain to people why these individuals are wrong and their beliefs harmful, but don't bother refuting the bigots themselves. That acknowledgment of their views merely provides them with credibility they do not deserve.

Bad things haven't happened - banning of Muslims, defunding Sanctuary cities, etc - because the courts stopped them. There have been more bombs and wars still though - we're strengthening our presence in Afghanistan again and Trump has bombed the Syrian government on an emotional whim while eating cake. There's a health care bill going around that could potentially leave hundreds of thousands uninsured compared to right now and could leave women and LGBT individuals with less defenses against discrimination. There's a budget that would slash Medicaid by $800,000 going around. It HAS only been four months, but when exactly are we supposed to start worrying in your opinion, when a literal World War 3 breaks out?

And gotta love your strawmanning there with the "let me guess, if someone voted Trump you unfriended them on Facebook" - I know I never did that.

Hillary lost because she ran an ineffective campaign that failed to unite liberals whereas Trump ran an energized one that brought out a lot of people who felt disenfranchised. But many of his supporters are regretting it now with the incoming medicaid, health care, etc news.

But nope, according to you it is all PC liberals and media that are the problem, sure... nothing else is wrong...

Clinton lost because people were upset at being called idiots for supporting a man who is patently, 100%, objectively unfit for the office in every possible way, and proves it virtually every day? I mean, if you not only voted for Trump but continue to support him to this day after all the appallingly stupid things he says on a daily basis, his insufferably puerile behaviour, his potentially treasonous actions, I don't know what else you should be called but an idiot.

Also, Obama, a socialist? Come on.


Pointing out the administration's willingness to point-blank reject reality and substitute its own on a basis of sheer ego is hardly irrelevant.


Sure, Steve Bannon isn't racist, he's just a guy who happens to venerate one of the most ridiculously racist books written in the last fifty years, whose media outlet attracted an undeniable and significant white supremacist and anti-Semite following, and who has aligned himself in no uncertain terms with a movement which is known for being a cesspool of those very same, very racist elements. Presumably he's just a victim of circumstances here.


Obama and Bush didn't make a habit out of vilifying the free press and painting them as the enemy, and they certainly didn't find themselves under investigation for collusion with the leadership of an adversarial country. To claim that either of these things is irrelevant is no less a rejection of reality than Trump's insistence that he won the popular vote 'if you discount the millions and millions of people who voted illegally, in defiance of every single expert, researcher, and person with common sense who says no such thing occurred'.

In today's edition of "The President is a stupid, petty asshole with the mind of a 7 year old", he shoved the Prime Minister of Montenegro out of his way pretty stiffly so he could be at the front for a photo op.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 102144808/

A couple things here.

First of all, I automatically tune anyone out that banders the word "Socialist" around when talking about, well, anyone whose politics are not purely conservative. American Liberalism (or, especially, moderate liberalism) is not socialism- please educate yourselves, or at least, lets discuss things intelligently instead of throwing out knee-jerk slogans like "Socialism" simply because you voted for the other party.

I supported Trump in the republican primary because in some ways, his positions on certain issues were actually far more reasonable than those of Ted Cruz, the presumed front runner. Ted Cruz, to me, would have been just as bad, even worse, than Trump- he was truly scary. (I liked Rand Paul the best out of the field, but he didn't stand much of a chance to knock off Ted Cruz.)

However, I could not, and did not, support Trump in the general election against Clinton, for a number of reasons. I did not believe Trump understands the system of checks and balances and the proper role of the executive branch in the US government- he seemed to be seeking office only to enrich his own fame and wealth and to stoke his massive unchecked ego. And, he did not tolerate any dissent, plus his cosying up to Russia- all those reasons caused me to vote against him in the general election and to be honest, since being elected he has only confirmed my worst suspicions. Pretty much everything Morrigan has outlined here I agree with- his presidency has been a disasterous failure and has been damaging to our country.

Glad to see others rebutted most of this nonsense, as it's certainly time-consuming and frustrating to constantly address the same fallacious garbage. But to add to that:



Yeah, I heard that before, but it's bullshit, and completely illogical. Hillary lost because of thin (sometimes ridiculously so, like in MI) margins in swing states, as we all know. She didn't fail to obtain these votes because someone like me called a Trump supporting redneck a racist. Those people were going to vote for Trump anyway. The premise is literally fallacious.


I don't use Facebook, but if I did, I wouldn't ever be friends with anyone who supported Trump, because I don't befriend blatantly stupid people.


Fucking lol

This is how everyone knows not to take you seriously, you know


Pretty fucking low bar you got there, huh?


Correction: everything I posted is fact, in addition to personal attacks. The two are not mutually exclusive.


Grouping these for easier reading:
1) Where did I say all the items on the list were about policy? Some of them are just there because of how pathetic and embarrassing they are. The WH press secretary unprofessionally whining like a baby about crowd size and the big meanie media is certainly noteworthy. And it really shows how conservatives are the biggest snowflakes of them all. It's really quite mindblowing how the current press secretary makes Mike McLintock from VEEP seem smart and professional. And the best part? The media weren't even wrong about the crowd sizes, Spicer and Trump were literally whining about the media reporting reality.
2) "There has been an accusation". Yeah nice weasel words. This is like when Trump says "people tell me <unsubstantiated horseshit/blatant lie>, everyone's saying <other lie no one is really saying>". Anyway, it's horseshit and that you'd even attempt defending such a bogus claim says a lot about you.
3) lol. Are you seriously suggesting that Breitbart and Bannon aren't racist. No, really. Go on. I'm dying to hear your valiant defense.
4) What you wrote has literally nothing to do with what you quoted, I don't know what you're even replying to. Anyway, I am not interested in moronic Mexicans/blacks/etc. that voted for Trump. They're possibly even stupider than whites doing so, since they are blatantly voting against their own self-interest (well, so are poor whites, really, but at least they won't suffer as much from the likes of Jess Sessions).

Portraying the real concerns and real problems caused by the Trump administration isn't "hysteria". Just because you live in a privileged little bubble and aren't personally affected by events, doesn't mean it's the same for everyone.