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 » Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:14 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:(Also, as mentioned before, *everyone* who voted for Trump chose a racist (perceived) solution to their problems, which is a racist choice. The lecture might be ineffective because people of all political persuasions prefer to ignore arguments about their own shortcomings, but that doesn't mean it's undeserved.)

GMal, do you have any experience successfully holding a conversation with real life to turn them away from Trump while lecturing them that they are a racist?

KnightExemplar, do you have any experience successfully responding in a relevant way to the claim that Trump (or his voters) are racist?

Honest question. Because so far your (and others') response to the claim, "X is true," has been to repeatedly state, "Saying X is true isn't a persuasive argument."

Which, y'know, speaking of things that are literally a fallacy of irrelevance...
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)

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:53 am UTC

gmalivuk, the question I asked you in the related Blame thread still remains unanswered:

It was a virtual certainty that a Hillary Clinton administration would lead to causing violent anarchy in distant countries in order to enrich certain corporations. By the standards you have of Donald Trump's voters, what does that say about you as a person, if you voted for her?


Though I'm sure that will forever remain unanswered by you and any others who think having voted for Trump makes that person 'a literal piece of shit' or whatever.

Some of Donald Trump's voters and supporters are racists. Nobody denies that. And he has said some questionable things that indicate he himself is prejudiced. But this does not necessarily make the answer to the question "does this make him a worse choice than his opponent" a solid yes, even if it is a heavy weight on the scale. I haven't talked to many outside my family, but I doubt most of his voters are racist. The ones who aren't probably also think the answer to that question cannot be reduced to that one simple quality.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:03 am UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:
It was a virtual certainty that a Hillary Clinton administration would lead to causing violent anarchy in distant countries in order to enrich certain corporations. By the standards you have of Donald Trump's voters, what does that say about you as a person, if you voted for her?



Image

This sort of thinking really annoys me. Yes, Clinton is a hawk, but compared to the republicans who were just given blank check over the country she's practically a dove. A Trump administration invasion of Iran or cold war with Cuba is so much better.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:15 am UTC

To the image: you have got to be kidding me. How many times did the US executive branch do, or advocate doing just that while she was Secretary of State? Do you really think her administration would behave differently?

This sort of thinking really annoys me. Yes, Clinton is a hawk, but compared to the republicans who were just given blank check over the country she's practically a dove. A Trump administration invasion of Iran or cold war with Cuba is so much better.

You are missing my point, which is that we know these things are going to happen and still vote into office the people who do them. If you are going to be as uncharitable as possible when making assumptions about a person's character based solely on their choice of vote, why should you as a Clinton supporter be held to any different standard? This was a candidate who has a history of helping create (e.g. Iraq, the war she voted for) or getting us involved in existing conflicts (e.g. Libya) and making them worse. How many people have died or been fucked up, whether physically or psychologically, as a result? In this light, what makes her voters better people?
Last edited by Sheikh al-Majaneen on Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:40 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:33 am UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:The ones who aren't probably also think the answer to that question cannot be reduced to that one simple quality.
The person who you are asking has never really shown that Trump is racist. He has shown you that a certain part of the population perceives him to be. Trump's ambiguous.

He has little or no record in this area. Policy will tell us, when we actually have some. He knows how to toss red meat to the base certainly. But he really hasn't really shown us anything yet. His picks for fellow travelers suggest that abortion and money are top and center. And of course Obama Care.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7107
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:45 am UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:You are missing my point, which is that we know these things are going to happen and still vote into office the people who do them.
If we reduced the election to a trolley problem, it seems plainly clear that while the Clinton rail may run over twenty people, the Trump rail will run over those same twenty people and then loop back around to take out two hundred more.

That's the justification for a Clinton vote: "Yes, she'll do X, but Trump will likely do X, Y, and Z."

So, from this view, both a Clinton vote and a Trump vote moves us toward American imperialism -- but a Trump vote also moves us toward a whole bag of other shit.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:49 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:The ones who aren't probably also think the answer to that question cannot be reduced to that one simple quality.
The person who you are asking has never really shown that Trump is racist. He has shown you that a certain part of the population perceives him to be. Trump's ambiguous.

He has little or no record in this area. Policy will tell us, when we actually have some. He knows how to toss red meat to the base certainly. But he really hasn't really shown us anything yet. His picks for fellow travelers suggest that abortion and money are top and center. And of course Obama Care.

Trump also cares about loyalty, that's probably top 2. Abortion has been mainly scotus, unless they're aiming at a cabinet official I didn't read up on.

Tyndmyr,
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/us/po ... .html?_r=0
How much of this did Trump plan? I'm sticking with...0-10%. I only bring it up because you say he's smarter than he lets on. But I can only say he's not as smart as you think he is. It's really hard to quantify though. Was Trump superinsightful, or did he just stick with his plan, and it worked out? Is that his one trick pony, or can Trump adapt? This isn't some 3rd world country that nobody gives a shit about if you make a mistake. Chinese leadership is just as thinskinned and vindictive as Trump.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:06 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:You are missing my point, which is that we know these things are going to happen and still vote into office the people who do them.
If we reduced the election to a trolley problem, it seems plainly clear that while the Clinton rail may run over twenty people, the Trump rail will run over those same twenty people and then loop back around to take out two hundred more.

That's the justification for a Clinton vote: "Yes, she'll do X, but Trump will likely do X, Y, and Z."

So, from this view, both a Clinton vote and a Trump vote moves us toward American imperialism -- but a Trump vote also moves us toward a whole bag of other shit.

That's not exactly right, though. We know from Clinton's promises that she intended to escalate tensions with Russia over what was happening in Ukraine and Syria, which was starting to look like the Spanish Civil War 2017 Edition. We know from Trump's promises that he intends to cooperate with Russia in Syria, which makes it look a lot less worrying from an existential perspective (I understand most don't see it from my perspective here; so be it), and is also less unilaterally imperialistic--though we should look to his pick for Secretary of State, whenever that's decided, to have some idea of what his foreign policy will actually look like.

There's still a lot of uncertainty here with regard to X. With regard to Y and Z, if they are issues that can be solved with appeals to multiple people--for example, local government choices and policy--then Trump does not necessarily have to set the tone. Police violence can still be reduced with him in office. War policy is exclusively in his hands.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:36 am UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:This was a candidate who has a history of helping create (e.g. Iraq, the war she voted for)


Oh, that's rich, blaming the democrats for Iraq. Yes, Clinton voted for the Iraq War, as did the vast majority of the establishment and 47-60% of the American population, including a certain small-handed human. The war was a horrible, stupid, and bloody mistake, but to act like Hillary Clinton led the country into the war against the wishes of the american population is madness.

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:or getting us involved in existing conflicts (e.g. Libya) and making them worse.


Arguable. Qaddafi was a brutal dictator; maybe letting him massacre the rebels would have been better, maybe not. It's easy to criticize in hindsight but we can't know how how things will turn out when making these kinds of decisions. I do love the irony of you supporting the Russian bombing of Syrian civilians, though.

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:How many people have died or been fucked up, whether physically or psychologically, as a result?


You tell me. Give me a number, I dare you.

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:That's not exactly right, though. We know from Clinton's promises that she intended to escalate tensions with Russia over what was happening in Ukraine and Syria, which was starting to look like the Spanish Civil War 2017 Edition.


I.e. wasn't bending over backwards to accommodate the country that militarily annexed parts of neighboring countries and is bombing civilians left and right in Syria? Okay. Sure.

Here's a question to you: Is Hillary Clinton a selfish monster only concerned with her own enrichment, or is she a maniacal hothead determined to kickstart WW3? Because those are mutually exclusive beliefs.

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:Police violence can still be reduced with him in office. War policy is exclusively in his hands.


Not comforting.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:49 am UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:though we should look to his pick for Secretary of State, whenever that's decided, to have some idea of what his foreign policy will actually look like.
Or we could look at who is getting a White House invite. Or who he is calling. I suspect that a lot of people at State are ready to open their wrists. Unscripted doesn't work well in diplomacy. Or maybe I'm wrong.
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:We know from Clinton's promises that she intended to escalate tensions with Russia
Yeah, Trump seems to want to ratchet it up with China though. No man crush with Xi Jinping I suppose.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7107
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:06 am UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:That's not exactly right, though. We know from Clinton's promises that she intended to escalate tensions with Russia over what was happening in Ukraine and Syria, which was starting to look like the Spanish Civil War 2017 Edition. We know from Trump's promises that he intends to cooperate with Russia in Syria, which makes it look a lot less worrying from an existential perspective (I understand most don't see it from my perspective here; so be it), and is also less unilaterally imperialistic--though we should look to his pick for Secretary of State, whenever that's decided, to have some idea of what his foreign policy will actually look like.
Hm. Okay -- it's not entirely clear whether or not the Trump rail will run over the same twenty people as the Hillary rail. But it will definitely run over at least twenty people, and -- in all likelihood -- many more.

Either way, I don't think the extremely volatile, vindictive, unpredictably hawkish candidate who's openly advocated war-crimes against Muslims is going to be less of a destructive force abroad than Clinton.You can talk about how we don't know what he'll do, but that actually makes Clinton voters appear even more reasonable: It's better to deal with a devil we know than one we don't. Especially when the one we don't is playing a high-stakes game of international politics with little to no idea of how this game even works.

I'm also thrown off a little by your argument that his soft position on Russia is overall to the benefit of the world: Russia practices its own caustic brand of imperialism, which Trump seems to support. I'm not saying Clinton's response is ideal, or even good -- but I don't think it's going to matter much to victims of imperialism whether the guns firing at them were made in America or Russia.
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:There's still a lot of uncertainty here with regard to X. With regard to Y and Z, if they are issues that can be solved with appeals to multiple people--for example, local government choices and policy--then Trump does not necessarily have to set the tone. Police violence can still be reduced with him in office. War policy is exclusively in his hands.
Saying "If he's hands off, this won't be a problem" doesn't console the people for whom this is a matter of life-and-death, though. We kind of know what Hillary would do about police violence; the best case scenario involves a push for real, useful change. The worst case scenario is that she talks a lot of talk but doesn't do much of anything.

With Trump? Best case: He doesn't get involved. Worst case: He sends the police more tanks.

I get that there's a lot of uncertainty here about how much damage Trump will do; that's kind of the point, though? Maybe a better way to describe this trolley problem, then: Hillary's rail would have killed 20 people. Trump's will kill between 15 and 200.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:13 am UTC

Vahir wrote:Oh, that's rich, blaming the democrats for Iraq. Yes, Clinton voted for the Iraq War, as did the vast majority of the establishment and 47-60% of the American population, including a certain small-handed human. The war was a horrible, stupid, and bloody mistake, but to act like Hillary Clinton led the country into the war against the wishes of the american population is madness.

I didn't say she led us into the war. Just that she voted for it. And she's as responsible for that choice as anyone else with a choice who voted for it.

Arguable. Qaddafi was a brutal dictator; maybe letting him massacre the rebels would have been better, maybe not. It's easy to criticize in hindsight but we can't know how how things will turn out when making these kinds of decisions.

They are hard decisions to make, but I think that it's safe to say by this point that destroying regimes, replacing them with nothing at all, and walking away is not an ethical path to take.

I do love the irony of you supporting the Russian bombing of Syrian civilians, though.

I don't support it. But what happens to Syria when Assad is gone? Would it look like Iraq, or like Libya? Is it overrun by Da'esh because we lack the political resolve to finish what we started? Because we completely lack the resolve to finish what we started. We probably couldn't even agree on what 'finished' would look like.

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:How many people have died or been fucked up, whether physically or psychologically, as a result?


You tell me. Give me a number, I dare you.

The number probably has seven or eight digits.

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:That's not exactly right, though. We know from Clinton's promises that she intended to escalate tensions with Russia over what was happening in Ukraine and Syria, which was starting to look like the Spanish Civil War 2017 Edition.


I.e. wasn't bending over backwards to accommodate the country that militarily annexed parts of neighboring countries and is bombing civilians left and right in Syria? Okay. Sure.

Here's a question to you: Is Hillary Clinton a selfish monster only concerned with her own enrichment, or is she a maniacal hothead determined to kickstart WW3? Because those are mutually exclusive beliefs.

The situation in Ukraine is not as simple as you are making it out to be and I definitely don't know enough to get into it.

I don't think she's a maniacal hothead bent on starting WW3. I think she's more along the lines of a follower of Henry Kissinger, with a vision in her mind of how the modern balance of power can and should be maintained. But she gave the impression that she was aiming to maintain a 21st century balance of power with 1990s tools and I'm afraid that this would not end well. Questions and criticisms about it were not adequately addressed during the debates, instead waved off as irrelevant.

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:Police violence can still be reduced with him in office. War policy is exclusively in his hands.


Not comforting.

No, it isn't. But these would be true if Clinton took office too.

morriswalters wrote:Or we could look at who is getting a White House invite. Or who he is calling. I suspect that a lot of people at State are ready to open their wrists. Unscripted doesn't work well in diplomacy. Or maybe I'm wrong.

...

Yeah, Trump seems to want to ratchet it up with China though. No man crush with Xi Jinping I suppose.

All true, and very worrying. What the fuck could he be thinking?
Last edited by Sheikh al-Majaneen on Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:20 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:19 am UTC

Can you sum all the ways Clinton has killed people? Like, did she authorize guns to death squads, which resulted in x thousands of people dying? 100,000 to 9,000,000 people is quite a lot. I want events that lead to numbers, even if it's a rough estimate.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7107
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:21 am UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:I don't think she's a maniacal hothead bent on starting WW3. I think she's more along the lines of a follower of Henry Kissinger, with a vision in her mind of how the modern balance of power can and should be maintained. But she gave the impression that she was aiming to maintain a 21st century balance of power with 1990s tools and I'm afraid that this would not end well. Questions and criticisms about it were not adequately addressed during the debates, instead waved off as irrelevant.
Right; I get that you think of Clinton as a practitioner of realpolitik, but -- presuming that's the case -- who would you expect to do more harm on the international stage? Someone who follows Henry Kissinger's playbook, or someone who follows Vince McMahon's?

Realpolitik is, in many ways, pretty goddamn horrifying -- but at least it tries to maintain international stability. Someone who treats international diplomacy like they're a heel cutting a wrestling promo is going to get a lot of people killed.
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:All true, and very worrying. What the fuck could he be thinking?
'Thinking'?

EDIT: Really, how is the Taiwan thing even remotely surprising? "Wow; Donald Trump's thoughtless, spontaneous, aggressive behavior isn't just isolated to the campaign trail? And that sort of behavior is going to have diplomatic consequences? What a twist!"

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 » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:35 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:The person who you are asking has never really shown that Trump is racist.
The guy who called Mexicans rapists and drug dealers, who wanted a Muslim registry, and who appointed a white nationalist to his staff, is racist. Deny it all you want if that's what helps you sleep at night, but I'm going to go ahead and call a spade a spade.
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)

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:45 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm also thrown off a little by your argument that his soft position on Russia is overall to the benefit of the world: Russia practices its own caustic brand of imperialism, which Trump seems to support. I'm not saying Clinton's response is ideal, or even good -- but I don't think it's going to matter much to victims of imperialism whether the guns firing at them were made in America or Russia.

It's more about avoiding nuclear war than anything else. Putin's gains with Crimea are more about maintaining the status quo with regard to the naval base at Sevastopol. And with Syria, supposedly it's more about maintaining stability within the country rather than allowing it to become and remain an anarchic shell.

Additionally, a few times in the past Clinton had advocated Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO. What is Putin supposed to think of that?

Saying "If he's hands off, this won't be a problem" doesn't console the people for whom this is a matter of life-and-death, though. We kind of know what Hillary would do about police violence; the best case scenario involves a push for real, useful change. The worst case scenario is that she talks a lot of talk but doesn't do much of anything.

With Trump? Best case: He doesn't get involved. Worst case: He sends the police more tanks.

I get that there's a lot of uncertainty here about how much damage Trump will do; that's kind of the point, though? Maybe a better way to describe this trolley problem, then: Hillary's rail would have killed 20 people. Trump's will kill between 15 and 200.

It's not that this won't be a problem. It will still definitely be a problem. But it will be a problem that we as citizens have control over. City and county governments have a harder time ignoring protests than national governments. It's easier to engage with local policy makers than with national policy makers.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7107
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:49 am UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:It's more about avoiding nuclear war than anything else. Putin's gains with Crimea are more about maintaining the status quo with regard to the naval base at Sevastopol. And with Syria, supposedly it's more about maintaining stability within the country rather than allowing it to become and remain an anarchic shell.
You seriously believe that the guy who takes his political cues from reality TV is the safe bet, here?
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:It's not that this won't be a problem. It will still definitely be a problem. But it will be a problem that we as citizens have control over. City and county governments have a harder time ignoring protests than national governments. It's easier to engage with local policy makers than with national policy makers.
Right, but what I'm saying is that with Clinton, our worst case scenario was nothing changing; with Trump, our worst case scenario is that the police end up with goddamn tanks.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:57 am UTC

You seriously believe that the guy who takes his political cues from reality TV is the safe bet, here?

Well, it did win him the election. I really hope he's not so clueless with int'l politics as to try this way, but...it's not looking good.

But...with what you quoted, I was talking about Putin and his reasons for Russian actions in Ukraine and Syria.

Right, but what I'm saying is that with Clinton, our worst case scenario was nothing changing; with Trump, our worst case scenario is that the police end up with goddamn tanks.

I don't know if the police ending up with tanks is an example of things changing. Selling these kinds of things to police departments has been going on since the Bush administration and continued under the Obama administration as the Iraq War wound down and there was an opportunity for money to be made by their manufacturers, convincing these police departments in the middle of nowhere that their small towns were important enough to need war machines.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7107
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:13 am UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:Well, it did win him the election. I really hope he's not so clueless with int'l politics as to try this way, but...it's not looking good.
Of course he's this clueless with international politics. How could anyone in their right mind listen to Donald Trump for more than five minutes and not realize that he's this clueless with international politics? This is not an M. Night Shyamalan movie; the election does not end with Donald Trump ripping off his mask to reveal himself as Kofi Annan. He's Donald fucking Trump. It's going to be a goddamn disaster -- and if you didn't see that coming, you haven't been paying attention.

Like, dude -- this Taiwan stuff isn't even a blip on the radar. I'm going to be pleasantly surprised if he gets through the Presidency without directly threatening to nuke anyone. That's the bar we're working at, here.
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:But...with what you quoted, I was talking about Putin and his reasons for Russian actions in Ukraine and Syria.
So, I don't know a tremendous amount about the Ukraine situation, but I know enough to be extremely skeptical of any narrative that portrays Russia's actions as justified or sympathetic.
Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:I don't know if the police ending up with tanks is an example of things changing. Selling these kinds of things to police departments has been going on since the Bush administration and continued under the Obama administration.
I'm not talking about a case where the military has a surplus of tanks, and cuts a deal to shove 'em over to the police (which yes, has happened, and yes, is horrible). I'm talking about a case where Trump decides that the problem here is that there isn't enough 'law' and 'order', and solves this problem by actively sending them more tanks.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:46 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:(Also, as mentioned before, *everyone* who voted for Trump chose a racist (perceived) solution to their problems, which is a racist choice. The lecture might be ineffective because people of all political persuasions prefer to ignore arguments about their own shortcomings, but that doesn't mean it's undeserved.)

GMal, do you have any experience successfully holding a conversation with real life to turn them away from Trump while lecturing them that they are a racist?

KnightExemplar, do you have any experience successfully responding in a relevant way to the claim that Trump (or his voters) are racist?


Yes. Trump is racist. Too bad the argument doesn't work.

So I answered your question, can you answer mine? Have you ever been able to hold a conversation with a Trump supporter and successfully convince them of anything while holding the racism thing over them?

As I stated earlier: the really racist Trump supporters don't give a fuck, and the non-racist ones are confident in their self to brush off the racism accusation. Those are literally the only two things that have happened when I discuss things with Trump supporters.

What the hell is the point of a line of argument if it isn't persuasive?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7107
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:09 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:So I answered your question, can you answer mine? Have you ever been able to hold a conversation with a Trump supporter and successfully convince them of anything while holding the racism thing over them?

As I stated earlier: the really racist Trump supporters don't give a fuck, and the non-racist ones are confident in their self to brush off the racism accusation. Those are literally the only two things that have happened when I discuss things with Trump supporters.
KnightExemplar, if all you're saying is "Calling Trump a racist isn't the most effective way to convince Trump supporters to stop supporting him", I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you.

But if you're trying to tell gmaviluk that he should stop insisting that Trump is a racist because it hurts the persuasiveness of his point -- I think you're missing the point. There's certainly something to be said for presenting your principles in the most persuasive way possible -- but there's also something to be said for merely clarifying what your principles are, and expecting others to either accept them or reject them.
KnightExemplar wrote:What the hell is the point of a line of argument if it isn't persuasive?
Just because you don't see the point doesn't mean there isn't a point. People say things for lots of reasons; not all of them amount to persuasion.

It sounds like you're coming at this from the perspective of an economic theorist? But not everyone is trying to increase the 'marketability' of their beliefs.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:35 am UTC

Spoiler:
KnightExemplar wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:(Also, as mentioned before, *everyone* who voted for Trump chose a racist (perceived) solution to their problems, which is a racist choice. The lecture might be ineffective because people of all political persuasions prefer to ignore arguments about their own shortcomings, but that doesn't mean it's undeserved.)

GMal, do you have any experience successfully holding a conversation with real life to turn them away from Trump while lecturing them that they are a racist?

KnightExemplar, do you have any experience successfully responding in a relevant way to the claim that Trump (or his voters) are racist?


Yes. Trump is racist. Too bad the argument doesn't work.

So I answered your question, can you answer mine? Have you ever been able to hold a conversation with a Trump supporter and successfully convince them of anything while holding the racism thing over them?

As I stated earlier: the really racist Trump supporters don't give a fuck, and the non-racist ones are confident in their self to brush off the racism accusation. Those are literally the only two things that have happened when I discuss things with Trump supporters.

What the hell is the point of a line of argument if it isn't persuasive?

You point out that Trump's gonna rape your daughter. Two, Trump will then deport said daughter. Both things hurt because it's what Trump is known for. Works like, 40% of the time. It connects sexism with racism, and makes it personal.

I think the China is the biggest country Trump has pissed off. I wonder if the Chinese will wait for confirmation, and then I wonder if Trump backs down. It really gets at some of the dangerous tendencies of Trump. He doubles down, and becomes incredibly petty when Trump doesn't get what he wants. It's still a month before he even takes office, Jesus fucking christ.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Dec 03, 2016 7:15 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:So I answered your question, can you answer mine? Have you ever been able to hold a conversation with a Trump supporter and successfully convince them of anything while holding the racism thing over them?

As I stated earlier: the really racist Trump supporters don't give a fuck, and the non-racist ones are confident in their self to brush off the racism accusation. Those are literally the only two things that have happened when I discuss things with Trump supporters.
KnightExemplar, if all you're saying is "Calling Trump a racist isn't the most effective way to convince Trump supporters to stop supporting him", I don't think anyone is going to disagree with you.


And that's all I am saying.

I'm not saying "stop calling Trump Racist". I'm saying "we need to come up with a better argument than 'RACIST' "... especially if you hope to get anything done in 2018 or 2020.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7107
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Dec 03, 2016 7:51 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:And that's all I am saying.

I'm not saying "stop calling Trump Racist". I'm saying "we need to come up with a better argument than 'RACIST' "... especially if you hope to get anything done in 2018 or 2020.
Right, but I think the problem is that it sounds like you're also saying: "Everyone needs to put their anger aside and be more diplomatic; otherwise, you're part of the problem". And while I do not in any way underestimate the importance of diplomacy and compromise, I think there's also a place in the world for one's values and convictions.

Living with yourself -- living with dignity -- can be very hard in a capitalistic society; we're perpetually pressured to concede our values for something more marketable. But the thing is, you can only rebrand your values for mass consumption so many times before they cease to be your values.

I guess what I'm saying is that when you insist that someone be more 'political' for the sake of -- well, political expediency -- you're insisting they play a game that they may, in fact, want no goddamn part of.

elasto
Posts: 3555
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:04 am UTC

A better argument than "Trust is racist" is "Trump is a self-serving egotist that cannot be trusted. Again and again he has shown he doesn't actually believe what he's saying. He is a multiple bankrupt who promises to make America great again yet screws ordinary Americans to the limit in his businesses. He promises to drain the Washington swamp yet appoints establishment elites and lobbyists to his inner circle."

I don't think all the other arguments are being ignored by those calling Trump a racist and misogynist. It's more that every rational reason not to trust Trump with power has been thrown out the window and his supporters are running on disillusionment, anger and blind faith.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5782
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:48 am UTC

I haven't seen any mention of Trump's phone call to Pakistan yet (if I have, it bears repeating as it happened with Taiwan as well).

Let's hope India doesn't see that as the US supporting Pakistan.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

elasto
Posts: 3555
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:59 am UTC

Yes.

Trump's incompetence with diplomacy, which was obviously going to be the case given his style, is dangerous - and another strong argument for not trusting him with power.

Donald Trump looked to have sparked a potentially damaging diplomatic row with China on Friday after speaking to Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen on the telephone in a move experts said would anger Beijing.

The call, first reported by the Taipei Times and confirmed by the Financial Times, is thought to be the first between the leader of the island and a US president or president-elect since ties between America and Taiwan were severed in 1979, at Beijing’s behest.

Experts said the unanticipated call would infuriate China’s leaders.

“This is going to make real waves in Beijing,” said Bill Bishop, a veteran China watcher who runs the Sinocism newsletter from Washington DC. “I think we will see quite the reaction from Beijing … this will put relations from day one into a very difficult place.”

Evan Medeiros, the Asia director at the White House national security council, told the Financial Times: “The Chinese leadership will see this as a highly provocative action, of historic proportions.

“Regardless if it was deliberate or accidental, this phone call will fundamentally change China’s perceptions of Trump’s strategic intentions for the negative. With this kind of move, Trump is setting a foundation of enduring mistrust and strategic competition for US-China relations.”


link

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5782
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Sat Dec 03, 2016 12:09 pm UTC

Beijing, as predicted is not happy.

A Trump spokesperson said that he was well aware of the US policy, which seems to be the case as he tweeted that the US gives Taiwan weapons but he's not allowed to accept a phone call. So, he's aware of the policy, he just doesn't care.

China is a nuclear power too, for all of those paying attention at home. Hilary may or may not have planned to poke the bear, but she isn't MAD enough to go all the way. Trump might, as he's incompetent.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1877
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Sat Dec 03, 2016 12:27 pm UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:We kind of know what Hillary would do about police violence; the best case scenario involves a push for real, useful change. The worst case scenario is that she talks a lot of talk but doesn't do much of anything.

With Trump? Best case: He doesn't get involved. Worst case: He sends the police more tanks.
It's not that this won't be a problem. It will still definitely be a problem. But it will be a problem that we as citizens have control over. City and county governments have a harder time ignoring protests than national governments. It's easier to engage with local policy makers than with national policy makers.
Local government only has a hard time ignoring protests that national government doesn't put down. Look at what happens when the police know they'll get away with murder. Trump can do no wrong. If he does something that means it is not illegal, and he can get away with anything because he's smart. What happens when Trump takes your protest as a personal insult?

[quote="Angua"]Hilary may or may not have planned to poke the bear, but she isn't MAD enough to go all the way.[/url]I wonder whether Tronald could be talked into proving he's a man by going all the way with a non-consenting 750lb brown bear.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Dec 03, 2016 12:36 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
morriswalters wrote:The person who you are asking has never really shown that Trump is racist.
The guy who called Mexicans rapists and drug dealers, who wanted a Muslim registry, and who appointed a white nationalist to his staff, is racist. Deny it all you want if that's what helps you sleep at night, but I'm going to go ahead and call a spade a spade.
I suspect you are probably right. With the emphasis on probably. But it isn't proof and it doesn't imply that everyone who voted for him is racist. The accusation denies that there could be another reason to vote for Trump.

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 » Sat Dec 03, 2016 12:49 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
morriswalters wrote:The person who you are asking has never really shown that Trump is racist.
The guy who called Mexicans rapists and drug dealers, who wanted a Muslim registry, and who appointed a white nationalist to his staff, is racist. Deny it all you want if that's what helps you sleep at night, but I'm going to go ahead and call a spade a spade.
I suspect you are probably right. With the emphasis on probably. But it isn't proof and it doesn't imply that everyone who voted for him is racist. The accusation denies that there could be another reason to vote for Trump.
Sure, it's not proof, just like I have no proof that you're a human being rather than an AI or a figment of my imagination. We might all be in the Matrix, after all. But as the one complaining earlier about people discussing things that weren't likely to have a real impact on the future, why are you bringing up such a silly point now?

Everyone starts out as "probably a bit racist", and Trump's own words out of his own face-pit move him into the "almost certainly racist" category.

And if you've been paying attention, I have not contended that racism itself is the reason those people voted Trump, but that they still chose an explicitly racist solution to their problems (and believed him when he framed most of their problems in a racist way by blaming Mexicans, Muslims, and (implicitly) black people for them).

- - -

As for the persuasiveness point, read my signature, where I've helpfully added a line for the likes of KnightExemplar and other people who keep wanting to treat this like a political strategizing thread for 2018 and 2020. Call me crazy, but a webcomic forum is not where I come to do my political organizing and activism. I come here to discuss things like logic puzzles and video games and political news, not to hash out the most effective arguments to convince a person on the street not to vote GOP. (I would go so far as to argue that such discussion is in fact largely off-topic for this thread, but if you want to start another one about retaking the legislature in 2018 or whatever, be my guest.)

Edit: to restate something else I've already pointed out, it's like discussing global warming in the science forum. Acknowledging that anthropogenic global warming exists isn't a persuasive way to convince governments to take necessary action to fight it. But it is still a true statement and it is still worth saying.
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
sardia
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:43 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Beijing, as predicted is not happy.

A Trump spokesperson said that he was well aware of the US policy, which seems to be the case as he tweeted that the US gives Taiwan weapons but he's not allowed to accept a phone call. So, he's aware of the policy, he just doesn't care.

China is a nuclear power too, for all of those paying attention at home. Hilary may or may not have planned to poke the bear, but she isn't MAD enough to go all the way. Trump might, as he's incompetent.

Beijing may not be happy, but they have been pretty chill given their recent successes(mostly due to Trump winning, and their phillipines diplomatic victory). Trump's advisors might get the hint, or Trump may not care to speak more about it if nobody brings it up again.

As for all the racist talk filling up the thread, Figuring out how to shine a turd is an interesting thought exercise that combines psychology, and charisma into political science. How do you manipulate 50%+1 of voters to vote for you in states that equal a ruling majority? Come 2018, maybe the racist line should be dropped. Or the economy improves so much that we can bring it up again because the people are more accepting of that concern now that they aren't worried about their jobs. Or maybe it was that Hillary was so awful to the voters that it was worse than the racism from Trump. If we reran 2016 with a Generic Democrat but Hillary's campaign, could they win? Finding out if any of these ideas are true is definitely something we could have a spirited high stakes argument about.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:48 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:And if you've been paying attention, I have not contended that racism itself is the reason those people voted Trump, but that they still chose an explicitly racist solution to their problems (and believed him when he framed most of their problems in a racist way by blaming Mexicans, Muslims, and (implicitly) black people for them).
That's a dog whistle for calling someone racist.
gmalivuk wrote:Acknowledging that anthropogenic global warming exists isn't a persuasive way to convince governments to take necessary action to fight it. But it is still a true statement and it is still worth saying.
It's like standing in front of a mirror and talking to yourself. There isn't anything wrong with that, but it won't change any minds. And it will never elicit any new information for you.

No one voice can convince governments. You're trying to change the group mind that elects government, which you do with a million conversations in a million places.

As for all the racist talk filling the thread. Consider that it has little or no meaning, it an exercise in "My moral position is better than yours." But according to some it is worth doing.

Trumps phone calls are much more disturbing to me personally. It makes me question his understanding of the purpose of discretion in diplomacy. The situation in Taiwan exists for a reason. It gives everybody cover from elements in the separate populations that might want to take a more violent approach to the problem. And if China chose to embargo or invade Taiwan, Trump couldn't do a damn thing about it.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:14 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Or maybe it was that Hillary was so awful to the voters that it was worse than the racism from Drumpf. If we reran 2016 with a Generic Democrat but Hillary's campaign, could they win? Finding out if any of these ideas are true is definitely something we could have a spirited high stakes argument about.

It's definitely the case that in the weeks since the election, my attitude towards her has drifted back more to what it was during the primary. At the time, I was confident she could do the job and would be a fine president, but she wasn't what I wanted. Largely, I think, because it really seemed like she wanted it. It's almost more difficult in a way for someone from the same party to follow a successful and popular president. A campaign message of, "things are going pretty okay, let's keep doing this" isn't enough to inspire in the way a concentrated message can, like what Obama, Sanders, and, yes, Drumpf had. One of the most damaging things Sanders might have done is to make Clinton appear waffling on trade issues, which dogged her into the general election. Trade is a complicated, mixed bag and she definitely understands that, but it's really hard to make that into an easily understood message. Using trade agreements as a way to get other countries to improve environmental regulations and labor rights is a huge plus, for instance. Economists have also acknowledged that the jobs lost to trade are more long-lasting than they first thought. Automation is still a bigger issue there, though. The unfortunate thing about Sanders, for me, was that one of his two core messages (trade) was so unappealing - I don't think I ever heard him go into more detail about the TPP than "disastrous". His inability, or unwillingness, to go into "wonk-mode" when talking to groups of voters that needed to hear that he could is, I think, what doomed him in states like NY and CA.

If Clinton won the primary, it was always going to feel like she was anointed, but with Sanders there it felt stolen, to boot. I first thought she might lose the general during the early days of the Democratic Convention. Each person booing every mention of her name represented a few hundred thousand Democrats who weren't going to turn out for her. The speeches that the Obamas, Bill, and Joe gave were reassuring, but they weren't running for office. The other scary thing was her eagerly snatching up the endorsement of every Republican that came her way - how did no one in her campaign realize how that was going to look to the hard-core Sanders voters? You can't say, "I'm a progressive who gets things done" with a straight face while sidling up to the Republican establishment who wanted to save their careers. In the end, Drumpf, of course, maintained the GOP base, while Clinton abandoned millions of hers scrounging for a false middle ground.

There. That's my unedited post-mortem.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

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 » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:20 pm UTC

@morriswalters: Is it still just a dogwhistle if I'm explicitly saying that they are, in fact, racist?

That part you quoted wasn't me pussyfooting around the claim that they're racist, it was me acknowledging that you're right about there being other reasons to vote for him than racism, but that doesn't absolve them of their willingness to accept racism as part of the deal.
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
sardia
Posts: 6464
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:08 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:@morriswalters: Is it still just a dogwhistle if I'm explicitly saying that they are, in fact, racist?

That part you quoted wasn't me pussyfooting around the claim that they're racist, it was me acknowledging that you're right about there being other reasons to vote for him than racism, but that doesn't absolve them of their willingness to accept racism as part of the deal.

Don't a lot of the supporters sorta understand that racism is part of the deal? And they didn't think it was a deal breaker. This applies more to establishment Republicans then swing voters.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:01 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Is it still just a dogwhistle if I'm explicitly saying that they are, in fact, racist?
Is that what you're saying? I took it to be that he was a racist, and if you voted for him then you were supporting a racist, while stopping short of saying that made them racists. Leaving the reader to draw the correct conclusion.

His speech suggests racism but there may be other valid ways of looking at it, assuming that you see world the the way Trump does. When fear is involved, at what point does a Muslim Registry move from racist to prudent? Certainly the French seem to look at a different bar for that then we do. That is at least one potential counterargument.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5782
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:43 pm UTC

There were plenty of people, in France and otherwise, who denounced the French polices as racist/Islamophobic.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

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 » Sat Dec 03, 2016 7:04 pm UTC

Also, the French aren't too far from electing a white nationalist of their own, so that electorate's average intuition about what is unacceptably racist is probably not what you want to be invoking.

A Muslim registry would move from racist to prodent if there were evidence that it would actually have an effect on the risk of terrorism that balanced out the negative consequences of such a registry. Racist fear is still racist.
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)

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Dec 03, 2016 8:21 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:A Muslim registry would move from racist to prodent if there were evidence that it would actually have an effect on the risk of terrorism that balanced out the negative consequences of such a registry. Racist fear is still racist.
That statement has zero meaning. If it worked how would you measure it since your trying to measure something that didn't happen?
Angua wrote:There were plenty of people, in France and otherwise, who denounced the French polices as racist/Islamophobic.
Me among them. And? Just to keep the argument in focus, are we discussing racism or are we discussing religious intolerance?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests