2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:19 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:That said, the left has generally championed safe spaces more than the right
Sure, but then you proceed down the usual false equivalence path of bullshit.

Wanting a safe space where you can talk about sexual assault and be believed, or about your gender or sexuality without being ridiculed, or about your experiences as a minority without people blaming you for the violence done against you, is extremely different from wanting a safe space where you can hate and discriminate against people without consequence.

("Religious freedom" is another term traditionally from the left that the right has misappropriated, using it to justify discrimination against LGBT people and refusal to provide birth control, but not seeing the irony in simultaneously being okay with a Muslim registry or a hijab ban.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11340
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:22 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:That said, the left has generally championed safe spaces more than the right
Sure, but then you proceed down the usual false equivalence path of bullshit.

Wanting a safe space where you can talk about sexual assault and be believed, or about your gender or sexuality without being ridiculed, or about your experiences as a minority without people blaming you for the violence done against you, is extremely different from wanting a safe space where you can hate and discriminate against people without consequence.

("Religious freedom" is another term traditionally from the left that the right has misappropriated, using it to justify discrimination against LGBT people and refusal to provide birth control, but not seeing the irony in simultaneously being okay with a Muslim registry or a hijab ban.)


Right. Your issues are more important.

They also believe that.

Edit: Slightly less ironic/sarcastically, they don't see them that way. They genuinely don't see people using this to support others. They see people using it to control the dialogue, and to avoid anything unpleasant. Right now, they're seeing people upset that Trump won, and looking for a "safe space" as a result. It's not that they don't understand the disappointment at losing an election...everyone gets that. It's stuff like skipping classes to cope. That's mind boggling to them.

It's not the feeling of being upset that they have issue with, it's the expectations that follow that.

Edit #2: As a concrete example, "trigger warnings" are much mocked. The left describes them as a way to avoid PTSD, etc, but the right, who actually has a disproportionate amount of combat vets and the like, doesn't see them as that at all, but merely as a way to avoid topics they dislike. This view is emphatically shared by those of us who are vets, even if we don't happen to fall into the right wing camp.
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:35 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7097
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:34 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:I don't think most people consider Trump's business within the Wall Street metonym.
Fair, yeah, I don't know what other word to use to describe the economy Trump came from, though.
Dark567 wrote:Somewhat? Look, she is definitely not a good writer, but there is definitely a skill in finding untapped niches and exploiting them. Sure there was probably a good amount of luck involved but its not all luck here, she still had to sit down and decide to write about the topic. Trump is much the same way. He has knack for find shady behaviour that he can get away with and exploiting it.
I was being a little facetious with the Stephanie Meyer comment; I also don't have nearly as much vitriol toward her as I was pretending to have. I think her stories are kind of perverse and irresponsible, but I also think she's just a person who wanted to write something -- did -- and ended up filling a niche no one knew existed.

I don't think she's a particularly skilled writer, but I also don't think that's particularly important; she wrote something that people enjoyed and that's why she succeeded. In Trump's case, he came from a world that apparently convinced him he's much better at business than he actually is -- and it turns out that this sort of pathological narcissism actually works out pretty well for him.
Dark567 wrote:Having that Ego is in some ways an ability in itself.
Sure, but I think it's a stretch to call it competence? Part of competence is knowing what you don't know; knowing where your blind spots are. There's something of an idiot savant vibe to Trump (I apologize if that term is uncouth; I don't think it is, but I might be wrong?); his egotism is probably his biggest asset, but he doesn't even know it.
Tyndmyr wrote:Trump has skills. They may not be skills you like, respect, or desire for yourself, but he does have them all the same.
Do you at least understand what I mean when I say that being ignorant about your own failings can, under the right circumstances, help you succeed?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:38 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I strongly suspect history will describe this as the "post-Trump" era of American politics.
Man, I... I can't believe this is where we are.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11340
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:39 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Do you at least understand what I mean when I say that being ignorant about your own failings can, under the right circumstances, help you succeed?


I can easily think of individual instances such as this.

I do not believe that this makes ignorance a good general policy, or that ignorance makes you more likely to be successful overall.

When meeting someone who has accomplished much, I do not think it's reasonable to assume that it is probably because they are ignorant.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6234
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:40 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Edit #2: As a concrete example, "trigger warnings" are much mocked. The left describes them as a way to avoid PTSD, etc, but the right, who actually has a disproportionate amount of combat vets and the like, doesn't see them as that at all, but merely as a way to avoid topics they dislike. This view is emphatically shared by those of us who are vets, even if we don't happen to fall into the right wing camp.


That's just stupid. How exactly is putting in a warning avoiding the topic? It's explicitly not.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:42 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:That said, the left has generally championed safe spaces more than the right
Sure, but then you proceed down the usual false equivalence path of bullshit.

Wanting a safe space where you can talk about sexual assault and be believed, or about your gender or sexuality without being ridiculed, or about your experiences as a minority without people blaming you for the violence done against you, is extremely different from wanting a safe space where you can hate and discriminate against people without consequence.

("Religious freedom" is another term traditionally from the left that the right has misappropriated, using it to justify discrimination against LGBT people and refusal to provide birth control, but not seeing the irony in simultaneously being okay with a Muslim registry or a hijab ban.)


Right. Your issues are more important.

They also believe that.

Edit: Slightly less ironic/sarcastically, they don't see them that way. They genuinely don't see people using this to support others. They see people using it to control the dialogue, and to avoid anything unpleasant. Right now, they're seeing people upset that Trump won, and looking for a "safe space" as a result. It's not that they don't understand the disappointment at losing an election...everyone gets that. It's stuff like skipping classes to cope. That's mind boggling to them.

It's not the feeling of being upset that they have issue with, it's the expectations that follow that.

Edit #2: As a concrete example, "trigger warnings" are much mocked. The left describes them as a way to avoid PTSD, etc, but the right, who actually has a disproportionate amount of combat vets and the like, doesn't see them as that at all, but merely as a way to avoid topics they dislike. This view is emphatically shared by those of us who are vets, even if we don't happen to fall into the right wing camp.


I think a better example was the backlash against Peter Thiel. (EDIT: Used to say "censorship", but that was definitely the wrong word to use)

The executives at YCombinator took a lot of flack for saying "I disagree with Peter Thiel, but he's still my friend". Because simple association with a Donald Trump supporter was being met with significant amounts of vitriol from the left.

------

Honestly, yall should be happy that an openly gay billionare has managed to enter Donald Trump's inner circle.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:45 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:45 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:They also believe that.
The fact that two people believe the same thing about different claims doesn't mean both people are equally correct.

I know how much of the right sees safe spaces, just like I know how they considered marriage equality "special rights" for people with same-sex partners. They are wrong about many things, in fact, and there's really no point in trying to list them all here.

And sure, understanding why they believe those things may be important in trying to convince them to be decent human beings to those who aren't like them, but that doesn't mean I can't still take issue with the false-balance approach a lot of people seem to relish in these political discussions.

A sandwich that's 50% pastrami and 50% horse manure is still, for all intents and purposes, a shit sandwich, and you do no one any favors pretending otherwise.

Edit: Combat vets don't have anything like a monopoly on PTSD, as much as some military-worshippers would like to believe that's the only legitimate cause of the disorder.

Image

Edit2: Also, as poorly-addressed as combat-related PTSD still often is, at least people don't tend to doubt or deny that the combat itself happened.

(On a side note, with this election military members and supporters really have no ground to stand on when claiming Trump respects them more than Democrats do. The man belittled PTSD sufferers and mocked a gold star family, after managing to avoid any military (along with really any other type of) service himself.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7097
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:47 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I can easily think of individual instances such as this.

I do not believe that this makes ignorance a good general policy, or that ignorance makes you more likely to be successful overall.

When meeting someone who has accomplished much, I do not think it's reasonable to assume that it is probably because they are ignorant.
What if almost every sentence you hear them say demonstrates a gross level of ignorance, though?

And while I don't think ignorance is a good policy -- and I don't think it *necessarily* increases your chances of success -- I think there are definitely times when ignorance wins *because* it's ignorant. If you're ignorant about something, it's very easy to be certain about it -- and people respond to certainty.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6234
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:47 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I think a better example was the backlash against Peter Thiel. (EDIT: Used to say "censorship", but that was definitely the wrong word to use)

The executives at YCombinator took a lot of flack for saying "I disagree with Peter Thiel, but he's still my friend". Because simple association with a Donald Trump supporter was being met with significant amounts of vitriol from the left.



Yes, those who are willing to pay millions of dollars to get a massive bigot, and completely horrible person in general who has absolutely no concern for anyone but himself elected to the Presidency is a low life piece of shit, scumbag, and those who choose to associate with them don't deserve our respect. If you care more about money than the lives of millions of people, then I could give a fuck how badly you are treated by those who have empathy for others.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:49 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:They also believe that.
The fact that two people believe the same thing about different claims doesn't mean both people are equally correct.

I know how much of the right sees safe spaces, just like I know how they considered marriage equality "special rights" for people with same-sex partners. They are wrong about many things, in fact, and there's really no point in trying to list them all here.


I think most people (even those on the right) are fine with safe-spaces being afforded for those who have been raped or otherwise abused.

But affording "safe spaces" to anti-Trump protesters who are sad that they didn't get the President they wanted is seen as a bit elitist, and at best is a major abuse of the "Safe Space" culture.

Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:I think a better example was the backlash against Peter Thiel. (EDIT: Used to say "censorship", but that was definitely the wrong word to use)

The executives at YCombinator took a lot of flack for saying "I disagree with Peter Thiel, but he's still my friend". Because simple association with a Donald Trump supporter was being met with significant amounts of vitriol from the left.



Yes, those who are willing to pay millions of dollars to get a massive bigot, and completely horrible person in general who has absolutely no concern for anyone but himself elected to the Presidency is a low life piece of shit, scumbag, and those who choose to associate with them don't deserve our respect.


And yet, who are you going to call on to lobby President Trump to support Transgender rights? Peter Thiel, the only openly gay billionare who is in the inner circle.

Peter Thiel played his cards, and now he's basically the LGBT's only hope to get through to Trump.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6234
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:50 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:And yet, who are you going to call on to lobby President Trump to support Transgender rights?

Peter Thiel, the only openly gay billionare who is in the inner circle.


The libertarian who thinks the government should stay out of it? Yeah, good luck with that.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:52 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:And yet, who are you going to call on to lobby President Trump to support Transgender rights?

Peter Thiel, the only openly gay billionare who is in the inner circle.


The libertarian who thinks the government should stay out of it? Yeah, good luck with that.


Better than relying on A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe, ala "Hamelton" style.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:54 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I think most people (even those on the right) are fine with safe-spaces being afforded for those who have been raped or otherwise abused.
I think most people would say that, but when it comes to actually being expected to respect those safe spaces, or to allow people to access them even if you don't personally believe they were raped, you tend to see a very different story.

who are sad that they didn't get the President they wanted
Except, more like who are terrified at the things they have already seen happen as a result of Trump's campaign and likely electoral college victory, and of things they have good reason to believe might happen after he is inaugurated.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6234
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:55 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:And yet, who are you going to call on to lobby President Trump to support Transgender rights?

Peter Thiel, the only openly gay billionare who is in the inner circle.


The libertarian who thinks the government should stay out of it? Yeah, good luck with that.


Better than relying on A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe, ala "Hamelton" style.


That Trump picked Pence, and has promised to appoint the most conservative justices in History, and because he has shown to be an incredibly horrible bigot in general, I think you can take that as a good sign that Trump cares fuckall about Transgender rights. Might as well yell at a wall.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7097
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:57 pm UTC

So -- let them eat cake, or put them into camps where they're forced to eat cake until they claim to love cake?

...Yeah okay, that joke sounds less funny when I remember that "cake" is society's gender norms and heterosexuality.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11340
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:59 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Edit #2: As a concrete example, "trigger warnings" are much mocked. The left describes them as a way to avoid PTSD, etc, but the right, who actually has a disproportionate amount of combat vets and the like, doesn't see them as that at all, but merely as a way to avoid topics they dislike. This view is emphatically shared by those of us who are vets, even if we don't happen to fall into the right wing camp.


That's just stupid. How exactly is putting in a warning avoiding the topic? It's explicitly not.


The view is that they wish for people at large to use the warnings, so that specific topics can be avoided. Not that the author is avoiding the topic.

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:They also believe that.
The fact that two people believe the same thing about different claims doesn't mean both people are equally correct.


Have fun trying to assign objective levels of importance to people's beliefs, I suppose.

Edit: Combat vets don't have anything like a monopoly on PTSD, as much as some military-worshippers would like to believe that's the only legitimate cause of the disorder.


Of course not. But it's a significant cause, and when many of the people you are supposedly protecting view you as hilariously misguided, that's...odd, right?

Sure, you can bash them as "military worshippers" if you like, instead of trying to understand them. But all you're *actually* doing is repeating yourself. Your issues are more important. They and their issues are unimportant. All of Them.

There's a lot of Them, out there. And They have a lot of power now. If your issues actually are important to you, continuing to deride and mock Them probably will not work out terribly well. It certainly hasn't so far. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Try expressing this attitude to the Republicans with actual power, report back on how many fall to their knees weeping and realizing that your desires ARE more important than theirs.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10133
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:02 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Edit2: Also, as poorly-addressed as combat-related PTSD still often is, at least people don't tend to doubt or deny that the combat itself happened.


*ahem*

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:07 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:That Trump picked Pence, and has promised to appoint the most conservative justices in History, and because he has shown to be an incredibly horrible bigot in general, I think you can take that as a good sign that Trump cares fuckall about Transgender rights. Might as well yell at a wall.


Trump was against the bathroom laws of North Carolina, and he took a lot of flack for taking that position within Republican circles.

Fact of the matter is: Peter Thiel is ON Trump's transition team. True, A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe is running it, but Peter Thiel is on it and is there to represent the LGBT community and Technology / Silicon Valley.

gmalivuk wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:I think most people (even those on the right) are fine with safe-spaces being afforded for those who have been raped or otherwise abused.
I think most people would say that, but when it comes to actually being expected to respect those safe spaces, or to allow people to access them even if you don't personally believe they were raped, you tend to see a very different story.

who are sad that they didn't get the President they wanted
Except, more like who are terrified at the things they have already seen happen as a result of Trump's campaign and likely electoral college victory, and of things they have good reason to believe might happen after he is inaugurated.


Did colleges suddenly lose their anti-racism laws or something? Is Hate Speech suddenly allowed on college campuses?

I recognize that a bunch of assholes are pulling up Confederate Flags and bullying Muslims now... but at the same time, a bunch of assholes destroyed a bunch of cars for no reason over in Oregon to protest Trump.

Furthermore, there's been a bunch of Swastikas being drawn on Trump supporter's property. Yes, there are liberal assholes who are literally drawing hate-symbols to "protest" Donald Trump.

------

And that's why the Right is making fun of the left. Yeah, being disappointed in the President is one thing. But literally skipping classes and providing "safe spaces" for anti-Trumpers is kinda pushing the boundaries of sanity.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:13 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11340
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:11 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I can easily think of individual instances such as this.

I do not believe that this makes ignorance a good general policy, or that ignorance makes you more likely to be successful overall.

When meeting someone who has accomplished much, I do not think it's reasonable to assume that it is probably because they are ignorant.
What if almost every sentence you hear them say demonstrates a gross level of ignorance, though?

And while I don't think ignorance is a good policy -- and I don't think it *necessarily* increases your chances of success -- I think there are definitely times when ignorance wins *because* it's ignorant. If you're ignorant about something, it's very easy to be certain about it -- and people respond to certainty.


In that case, they are obviously deceiving you. Look at the results. Figure out who benefits. If your perception does not match reality, your perception is wrong. When your model of the world keeps coming up wrong, you have an error somewhere in your assumptions.

Trump isn't an idiot. He's many, many things, but he's not that. Just like Dubya wasn't. Seriously, the guy went to Yale, and the left was all too willing to write him off as a moron.

Thesh wrote:Yes, those who are willing to pay millions of dollars to get a massive bigot, and completely horrible person in general who has absolutely no concern for anyone but himself elected to the Presidency is a low life piece of shit, scumbag, and those who choose to associate with them don't deserve our respect. If you care more about money than the lives of millions of people, then I could give a fuck how badly you are treated by those who have empathy for others.


It's funny that "empathy" is being used to describe this.

I might disagree with someone, even quite strongly, and still empathize with them. Let's use a less divisive example than Trump for this. Ben Carson...dude has some whacked out beliefs. Some of which could likely cause a great deal of harm, in the long term, particularly if used to drive policy decisions. But, I don't hate the guy. He's trying to do what's right, and he's got a good deal of personal integrity, and I'd totally love to sit down, and have a chat with him. Sure, he's wrong, but I don't even hate him, let alone people who are several degrees removed from him.

Why? And how would doing so make me more empathetic?

KnightExemplar wrote:
Thesh wrote:That Trump picked Pence, and has promised to appoint the most conservative justices in History, and because he has shown to be an incredibly horrible bigot in general, I think you can take that as a good sign that Trump cares fuckall about Transgender rights. Might as well yell at a wall.


Trump was against the bathroom laws of North Carolina, and he took a lot of flack for taking that position within Republican circles.


Basically every "Trump hates transgender rights" argument boils down to association.

Pence is basically a traditional Republican on this, sure. Not great. But...normally, that's what you'd have in the President slot. Pence got slapped into the veep slot to reassure traditional Republicans, and maybe that's still upsetting to folks that it's necessary to do that...but it's still representing an improvement. People are acting as if we're somehow going to Hitler level death camps, but the actual evidence is that Trump isn't against Transgender rights at all, he simply happens to be in a party that is.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6234
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:18 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:It's funny that "empathy" is being used to describe this.

I might disagree with someone, even quite strongly, and still empathize with them. Let's use a less divisive example than Trump for this. Ben Carson...dude has some whacked out beliefs. Some of which could likely cause a great deal of harm, in the long term, particularly if used to drive policy decisions. But, I don't hate the guy. He's trying to do what's right, and he's got a good deal of personal integrity, and I'd totally love to sit down, and have a chat with him. Sure, he's wrong, but I don't even hate him, let alone people who are several degrees removed from him.

Why? And how would doing so make me more empathetic?


The difference is that Trump has ran entirely on hate, and is the most extreme authoritarian candidate in recent history. So why would a Libertarian support an extreme authoritarian? The only conclusion I can make is because he doesn't actually give a shit about human rights, and doesn't give a shit about freedom, and that he only gives a shit about himself - given the evidence, the only conclusion I can see is that he really does not care about anyone other than himself. What reason is there to support Trump other than bigotry or unabated self-interest? I don't see any.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:20 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Did colleges suddenly lose their anti-racism laws or something? Is Hate Speech suddenly allowed on college campuses?
How silly of me to forget that all college students live out their entire lives on college campuses, and that none of them know or care about people who don't live on college campuses.

I recognize that a bunch of assholes are pulling up Confederate Flags and bullying Muslims now... but at the same time, a bunch of assholes destroyed a bunch of cars for no reason over in Oregon to protest Trump.

Furthermore, there's been a bunch of Swastikas being drawn on Trump supporter's property. Yes, there are liberal assholes who are literally drawing hate-symbols to "protest" Donald Trump.
How many hundreds of hate crimes have happened against Trump supporters since the election?

You don't like it when people say cops are just as bad as gangs (even though they actually have numerically pretty similar homicide rates), but you have no problem reaching back to the same few isolated incidents in an attempt to paint both sides as somehow equally bad in this situation.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7097
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:23 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:In that case, they are obviously deceiving you.
That is an extremely simple, extremely binary way to look at people. I think it's probably much more complex than "successful people who constantly say ignorant things are deceiving you".

In actuality, it's probably much more like "Successful people who constantly say ignorant things may be successful for complicated reasons".
Tyndmyr wrote:Basically every "Trump hates transgender rights" argument boils down to association.

Pence is basically a traditional Republican on this, sure. Not great. But...normally, that's what you'd have in the President slot. Pence got slapped into the veep slot to reassure traditional Republicans, and maybe that's still upsetting to folks that it's necessary to do that...but it's still representing an improvement. People are acting as if we're somehow going to Hitler level death camps, but the actual evidence is that Trump isn't against Transgender rights at all, he simply happens to be in a party that is.
To be fair, Pence has supported gay conversion camps, which are, like... Not exactly Nazi death camps, but considering the violence, emotional harm, and suicide rates, seem like something Nazis would be pretty down with.

I mean, I'm not saying Pence is a Nazi, but supporting policies that literally kill gay children is... Uh okay, I actually don't even have a punchline here.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10133
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:23 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:It's funny that "empathy" is being used to describe this.

I might disagree with someone, even quite strongly, and still empathize with them. Let's use a less divisive example than Trump for this. Ben Carson...dude has some whacked out beliefs. Some of which could likely cause a great deal of harm, in the long term, particularly if used to drive policy decisions. But, I don't hate the guy. He's trying to do what's right, and he's got a good deal of personal integrity, and I'd totally love to sit down, and have a chat with him. Sure, he's wrong, but I don't even hate him, let alone people who are several degrees removed from him.

Why? And how would doing so make me more empathetic?


The difference is that Trump has ran entirely on hate, and is the most extreme authoritarian candidate in recent history. So why would a Libertarian support an extreme authoritarian? The only conclusion I can make is because he doesn't actually give a shit about human rights, and doesn't give a shit about freedom, and that he only gives a shit about himself - given the evidence, the only conclusion I can see is that he really does not care about anyone other than himself. What reason is there to support Trump other than bigotry or unabated self-interest? I don't see any.


What reasons YOU see are not the same as the reasons THEY see. They might see a candidate that, as repugnant as he is, is not "owned" by the wall street elite, that the ruling members of society despise, that doesn't like about who he is; he might be a complete asshole, but there is no such thing as "pretending" to be an asshole. Why these things are more important than having someone that can actually communicate with a foreign leader without causing a war is beyond me, but the people see those things.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:26 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
I recognize that a bunch of assholes are pulling up Confederate Flags and bullying Muslims now... but at the same time, a bunch of assholes destroyed a bunch of cars for no reason over in Oregon to protest Trump.

Furthermore, there's been a bunch of Swastikas being drawn on Trump supporter's property. Yes, there are liberal assholes who are literally drawing hate-symbols to "protest" Donald Trump.
How many hundreds of hate crimes have happened against Trump supporters since the election?


Like this one?

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ed ... story.html
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... ote-trump/

He claimed someone at a nearby bus stop yelled, “Yeah, it’s one of them white boy Trump guys,” during the attack.


EDIT: Initial articles are a piece of shit. I'm going to look for Washington Post articles...

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

So I tend to place more emphasis on the events where people were literally sent to the hospital. And yes, it does seem to be a racist hate-crime.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:35 pm UTC, edited 5 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7097
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:26 pm UTC

(Okay, to be fair to Pence, I just looked up the gay conversion camp thing, and -- it's a little more complex than him supporting gay conversion camps. It still sounds bad, but not specifically *that* brand of bad.)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6234
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:27 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:What reasons YOU see are not the same as the reasons THEY see. They might see a candidate that, as repugnant as he is, is not "owned" by the wall street elite, that the ruling members of society despise, that doesn't like about who he is; he might be a complete asshole, but there is no such thing as "pretending" to be an asshole. Why these things are more important than having someone that can actually communicate with a foreign leader without causing a war is beyond me, but the people see those things.


So you are saying that they are all complete idiots? I don't buy that either. They know what Trump is all about, and they don't care.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10133
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:31 pm UTC

I know a foreign born, brownish guy (i.e., someone likely to be targeted by racists) that voted Trump, because he was convinced that Hillary was too much in bed with the ruling elite, and that we'd benefit more from the system being destroyed than from the system continuing to oppress us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11340
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:36 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:The difference is that Trump has ran entirely on hate, and is the most extreme authoritarian candidate in recent history. So why would a Libertarian support an extreme authoritarian? The only conclusion I can make is because he doesn't actually give a shit about human rights, and doesn't give a shit about freedom, and that he only gives a shit about himself - given the evidence, the only conclusion I can see is that he really does not care about anyone other than himself. What reason is there to support Trump other than bigotry or unabated self-interest? I don't see any.


*shrug* Lots of my friends are not Libertarians. It's pretty normal for us. Harder to isolate yourself into a social pool of like minded individuals when your team is maaaybe a few percent of the population.

So yeah, you make friends with people who have different values. That doesn't make you a monster.

And if you're going to look purely at issues, Libertarians have disagreements with both parties. So, he's not any more hypocritical or whatever you're fishing for than if he'd opted to endorse Clinton. Which, yknow, plenty of people did, and generally speaking, the right didn't flip their shit over that.

People didn't vote for Trump "for bigotry" any more than people voting for Clinton were voting for "email treason" or whatever shit the right says.

The Great Hippo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:In that case, they are obviously deceiving you.
That is an extremely simple, extremely binary way to look at people. I think it's probably much more complex than "successful people who constantly say ignorant things are deceiving you".

In actuality, it's probably much more like "Successful people who constantly say ignorant things may be successful for complicated reasons".


Manipulating may be more accurate than deceiving.

I mean, sure, I get domain expertise, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about deception and/or manipulation with regards to Trump. He's a deal guy. He talks a lot, and he gets people to agree with him. 'swhat he does. Turns out, he's fairly good at it. He's not nearly so ignorant as he portrays himself. If someone is achieving amazing success, look for corresponding skills. There is a cause, even if it is not one you expect.

The Great Hippo wrote:quote="Tyndmyr"]Basically every "Trump hates transgender rights" argument boils down to association.

Pence is basically a traditional Republican on this, sure. Not great. But...normally, that's what you'd have in the President slot. Pence got slapped into the veep slot to reassure traditional Republicans, and maybe that's still upsetting to folks that it's necessary to do that...but it's still representing an improvement. People are acting as if we're somehow going to Hitler level death camps, but the actual evidence is that Trump isn't against Transgender rights at all, he simply happens to be in a party that is.
To be fair, Pence has supported gay conversion camps, which are, like... Not exactly Nazi death camps, but considering the violence, emotional harm, and suicide rates, seem like something Nazis would be pretty down with.

I mean, I'm not saying Pence is a Nazi, but supporting policies that literally kill gay children is... Uh okay, I actually don't even have a punchline here.[/quote]

Conversion camps are awful, yes. I've previously condemned them. I have bad news for you regarding Republican candidates, though. Most of them are lacking on gay rights. Trump is probably the best possible candidate for this issue in the party primaries. Yeah, he took on a veep that would appeal to the traditional people. That's what happens. But, the veep is a lot less important to the ticket than the president is.

Pence is basically your stock Republican suit, representing all the normal expected things for a Republican candidate. But the fact that that's relegated to the veep rather than the main guy is progress.

Ya'll remember that Biden was against gay marriage, yes? Literally the last Democratic veep. It came up in the vice presidential debates, even. Now sure, he changed as things went on, and he probably already had some sympathies, but the Democrats are not terribly far ahead of Republicans on LGBT issues. And people were not voting for Obama because they hated gay rights, were they?

Shit, there's probably more evidence for Clinton being anti-LGBT rights, historically, than there is for Trump.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6234
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:38 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I know a foreign born, brownish guy (i.e., someone likely to be targeted by racists) that voted Trump, because he was convinced that Hillary was too much in bed with the ruling elite, and that we'd benefit more from the system being destroyed than from the system continuing to oppress us.


Yes, some people are stupid, but not everyone; Trump's entire platform revolves around bigotry, authoritarianism, protectionism and tax cuts for the rich. So you are saying that Thiel, who actually campaigned for Trump, did not do his research? He voted for Trump for tax cuts, and he ignored the bigotry and the fact that Trump's authoritarian and protectionism should be directly contradictory to Thiel's entire political philosophy, so I don't see any other possible conclusion. Most of the people that voted for him voted for him because they support his platform.

Tyndmyr wrote:[And if you're going to look purely at issues, Libertarians have disagreements with both parties. So, he's not any more hypocritical or whatever you're fishing for than if he'd opted to endorse Clinton. Which, yknow, plenty of people did, and generally speaking, the right didn't flip their shit over that.

Stop it with the stupid fucking false equivalences already - we get it: yes, Hillary's using a private email sever is equivalent to racism.

This idiocy is why Trump was allowed to win.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:46 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:How many hundreds of hate crimes have happened against Trump supporters since the election?

Like this one?

* http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/ ... s-n2247353
* http://patch.com/illinois/chicago/trump ... rded-video
So... two? One of which likely didn't start because of any political motivation?

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
That's actually straight-up bullshit.

So I tend to place more emphasis on the events where people were literally sent to the hospital.
And you think that hasn't happened on the other side?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7097
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:52 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Manipulating may be more accurate than deceiving.
Does it count as manipulation when you don't even realize you're necessarily doing it?

I mean, maybe it does; either way, that's more or less what I'm getting at, here. Trump doesn't strike me as someone who is pulling strings; he strikes me as a self-aggrandizing braggart who's egotism attracts people who think they can control him (only to discover he's way too impulsive to control) and people who find that level of supreme self-confidence reassuring. I don't think people are being duped; I think Trump is one of those Pick-up artist instructors who thinks he's got mad skillz but actually just has so much bravado that he can (unwittingly) fake it.

And maybe that bravado is indistinguishable from skill? Maybe being ridiculously confident in your own abilities *is* a sort of skill; I dunno.
Tyndmyr wrote:Conversion camps are awful, yes. I've previously condemned them.
You say this like you expect me to accuse you of supporting them? I do not think you are pro-conversion camp! I would certainly presume you would condemn them.
Tyndmyr wrote:I have bad news for you regarding Republican candidates, though. Most of them are lacking on gay rights. Trump is probably the best possible candidate for this issue in the party primaries.
It seems very likely Trump doesn't care enough about gay rights to do anything; he'll likely just support his party on this issue (similar to gun rights and abortion).

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:54 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:How many hundreds of hate crimes have happened against Trump supporters since the election?

Like this one?

* http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/ ... s-n2247353
* http://patch.com/illinois/chicago/trump ... rded-video
So... two? One of which likely didn't start because of any political motivation?


Bullshit. The filmers of the beatdown are clearly taunting the man because he voted for Trump. Did you watch the video?

Who gives a fuck whether or not it started as a traffic accident? You can clearly hear "He voted for Trump" as they steal the dude's car. (And the alligations include that they also taunt him with "White Boy voted for Trump", or similar language).

The most I'll give you is that it started as a traffic incident. But it clearly became a political hate-crime by the time the video was filmed.

--------

And I'm well aware that this happens on the Trump side too. But believe it or not, I've heard of more Trump supporters getting hurt at this point than non-Trump supporters. And I'm talking about actually hurt, like beaten up and sent to a hospital.


Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
That's actually straight-up bullshit.


The psychological damage from an actual beatdown far outweigh one that was done by words. Come on man, don't be dense. I'm well aware of what mental damage you can cause someone through I dunno, a gay conversion camp or whatever.

But dude, I'm talking from experience here. I've been bullied through my grade school because of my skin color... well... my slanty eyes at least (and probably because I was also an awkward male with few friends). So yeah, I understand that the words "Chink" and "Chinese boy caused 9/11" do hurt. I've experienced that level of bullying. But I would never compare that damage to you know... guys I know who were actually abused and physically hurt from a hate crime.

Those bullies from grade school? I don't give a fuck about them anymore, aside from being some obstacle that I learned to deal with while I was growing up. But the psychological damage from a real beatdown does stick with you for longer periods of time. Being sent to the hospital because you were wearing a Donald Trump hat at a rally?

Yeah, that's wrong.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:02 pm UTC, edited 5 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:55 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Man, I... I can't believe this is where we are.
Don't panic. I'll remind you we are in the early stages of the Trump Era. In the first two years we will find out who is who and what is what.
The Great Hippo wrote:(Okay, to be fair to Pence, I just looked up the gay conversion camp thing, and -- it's a little more complex than him supporting gay conversion camps. It still sounds bad, but not specifically *that* brand of bad.)
You don't have to be fair to the prick. Just make sure of who he is, versus what your inbuilt bias wants to make him.

This would be a good thread to discuss the nature of political facts. Such as.
Thesh wrote:Most of the people that voted for him voted for him because they support his platform.
I question your ability to know this. Even if it was true.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:02 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:But believe it or not, I've heard of more Trump supporters getting hurt at this point than non-Trump supporters.
Yes, I do believe that, because I believe I know something of what your social media environment looks like.

We all heard more about Clinton's emails than Trumps myriad conflicts of interest and private phone conversations with foreign leaders, but that doesn't mean they were more significant.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:07 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:But believe it or not, I've heard of more Trump supporters getting hurt at this point than non-Trump supporters.
Yes, I do believe that, because I believe I know something of what your social media environment looks like.

We all heard more about Clinton's emails than Trumps myriad conflicts of interest and private phone conversations with foreign leaders, but that doesn't mean they were more significant.


My stance on Trump has been documented in this thread for well over thousands of posts of discussion.

I bring forward my anecdotes because I know I have a different viewpoint on issues. I continue to respect your different viewpoint, because I know that integrating your anecdotes into my knowledge banks will improve myself personally.

But this particular viewpoint, where you simply lash out and isolate those who disagree with you is the exact fucking reason the left lost this past election. And its something you need to seriously come to a reckoning with. Isolating others only works if you hold the majority. As such, I know I must be open to the viewpoints of Trump supporters from here on out, as they are the ones who will be in power within the next few months.

If anything, this election should have taught us that we need to learn how to talk politics with those who voted for Trump.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4549
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:11 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Conversion camps are awful, yes. I've previously condemned them. I have bad news for you regarding Republican candidates, though. Most of them are lacking on gay rights. Trump is probably the best possible candidate for this issue in the party primaries. Yeah, he took on a veep that would appeal to the traditional people. That's what happens. But, the veep is a lot less important to the ticket than the president is.


Yeah, honestly, if you're looking for a silver lining in the Trump presidency, the fact that he isn't a religious nutjob is certainly one of the things you could be taking away from it. He's happy to pander to them for votes, but it seems fairly clear he's not personally invested in religious causes. You can tell just from the way he speaks that he isn't steeped in that culture (he doesn't even say "God Bless America").

It's at least possible he could well be America's first atheist president.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:16 pm UTC

I'm far less concerned with Trump's private personal beliefs (about anything) than with what he's willing to say and do to gain and maintain power.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6234
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:18 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Yeah, honestly, if you're looking for a silver lining in the Trump presidency, the fact that he isn't a religious nutjob is certainly one of the things you could be taking away from it. He's happy to pander to them for votes, but it seems fairly clear he's not personally invested in religious causes. You can tell just from the way he speaks that he isn't steeped in that culture (he doesn't even say "God Bless America").

It's at least possible he could well be America's first atheist president.


Except that I expect this pretty much means that he's going to let the GOP in Congress do mostly whatever they want as long as it doesn't conflict with one of his issues. Especially if he thinks wants to be reelected in 2020. Trump really hasn't shown much concern one way or another for anything that doesn't directly affect him.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4549
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:25 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:Yeah, honestly, if you're looking for a silver lining in the Trump presidency, the fact that he isn't a religious nutjob is certainly one of the things you could be taking away from it. He's happy to pander to them for votes, but it seems fairly clear he's not personally invested in religious causes. You can tell just from the way he speaks that he isn't steeped in that culture (he doesn't even say "God Bless America").

It's at least possible he could well be America's first atheist president.


Except that I expect this pretty much means that he's going to let the GOP in Congress do mostly whatever they want as long as it doesn't conflict with one of his issues. Especially if he thinks wants to be reelected in 2020. Trump really hasn't shown much concern one way or another for anything that doesn't directly affect him.


Sure, but that's still an improvement (in this particular area) over a Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or even John Kasich presidency.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AlgaeSea and 22 guests