by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .767768769770771772773. . .814815»

United states of natan

Slarvainian wrote:Last time America was divided was 1865. Let's stop with the hyperbolic metaphors painting a message of fear. The majority of people have come to accept Trump's presidency. Hillary somehow managed to lose more electors than Trump did, and at the end of the day the buses kept running, bridges stood and people got up in the morning to go to work just as they did before November 8th.
Natan buys a book of his idol after they lose a political battle and then advocates for the burning of books of his political rivals. Sounds like a supporter of the National Socialist German Worker's Party to me.

I agree that America's not as divided as it was in 1865. But that doesn't change the fact that he has divided america, even if we are not at the point of civil war. Donald Trump's rhetoric is a primary cause of this division, which he has actively advocated, and now expects us to come together "for the greater good" and support him. I have accepted the results of the election, and the fact that he'll be the next president, as undemocratic as the result may be. That does not mean, however, that I have to like it, or that I have to respect, trust, or support him in the least, all of which I cannot in good conscience do after the hateful, divisive, anti-american rhetoric he displayed during the election, and I shall remain opposed to him at least until he can earn my respect, trust, and support, all of which seems unlikely as of yet, particularly based on his cabinet picks. I will not stand by him, I will not defend him. He can expect nothing from me but my unbridled opposition. Sure, the buses are still running, bridges are still standing, and people get up to go to work. But what happens when he implements his dangerous policies, which experts have concluded will be a disaster for the nation? Will you say the same thing when his policies throw us into another Great Recession, or worse? What about when he provokes war with another nation because of what he said about them, or because of what they say about him? We cannot just sit back and "wait to see what he does" nor can we think "maybe he won't be that bad". We must expect and prepare for the worst, particularly because this is a dangerous, unpredictable man who's been elected. We've seen what he's said and done in the past, and we should continue to expect that he'll keep to the course, as he's done with his cabinet, rather than attempt to normalize him, nor can we give him the benefit of the doubt, or we may be too late to stop any danger he may cause. We must stay vigilant, protect Obama's policies as best we can, and be ready at a moment's notice to act in any legal way we can against him.

As for Hillary's book, I've been planning to get it for months, long before the election, but Hanukkah was the only time I could get it. Only difference is, I expected to be reading it as the plan for the next 4 years, not as the progressives' crushed hopes and dreams. As for the book burning, that was mostly a joke (though I did burn a minecraft effigy of trump), however, Nazis aren't the only ones who burned books, and I resent such a comparison, being a Jew myself. It's a very inaccurate comparison.

United states of natan

Foatenn wrote:Hi, I'm looking for the bathroom xD

Welcome! Down the hall and to the right xD

Foatenn wrote:xD won't you be legally required to give money to trump once he's President? Otherwise you'll go to prison.

Damn, forgot about taxes. I'll pay only because I'd reluctantly rather my money be used for trump's evil schemes rather than go to jail. I'll admit, it was a tough decision though.

United states of natan

Pretty interesting article: http://time.com/4590994/popular-vote-tax-pledge/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter

I'm not saying I'd do it, but I love the idea of putting the GOP on notice.

United states of natan wrote:I agree that America's not as divided as it was in 1865. But that doesn't change the fact that he has divided america, even if we are not at the point of civil war. Donald Trump's rhetoric is a primary cause of this division, which he has actively advocated, and now expects us to come together "for the greater good" and support him. I have accepted the results of the election, and the fact that he'll be the next president, as undemocratic as the result may be. That does not mean, however, that I have to like it, or that I have to respect, trust, or support him in the least, all of which I cannot in good conscience do after the hateful, divisive, anti-american rhetoric he displayed during the election, and I shall remain opposed to him at least until he can earn my respect, trust, and support, all of which seems unlikely as of yet, particularly based on his cabinet picks. I will not stand by him, I will not defend him. He can expect nothing from me but my unbridled opposition. Sure, the buses are still running, bridges are still standing, and people get up to go to work. But what happens when he implements his dangerous policies, which experts have concluded will be a disaster for the nation? Will you say the same thing when his policies throw us into another Great Recession, or worse? What about when he provokes war with another nation because of what he said about them, or because of what they say about him? We cannot just sit back and "wait to see what he does" nor can we think "maybe he won't be that bad". We must expect and prepare for the worst, particularly because this is a dangerous, unpredictable man who's been elected. We've seen what he's said and done in the past, and we should continue to expect that he'll keep to the course, as he's done with his cabinet, rather than attempt to normalize him, nor can we give him the benefit of the doubt, or we may be too late to stop any danger he may cause. We must stay vigilant, protect Obama's policies as best we can, and be ready at a moment's notice to act in any legal way we can against him.
As for Hillary's book, I've been planning to get it for months, long before the election, but Hanukkah was the only time I could get it. Only difference is, I expected to be reading it as the plan for the next 4 years, not as the progressives' crushed hopes and dreams. As for the book burning, that was mostly a joke (though I did burn a minecraft effigy of trump), however, Nazis aren't the only ones who burned books, and I resent such a comparison, being a Jew myself. It's a very inaccurate comparison.

So you don't tell me how he's divided America and instead you go into flowery prose about how you'll oppose Donald Trump anyway you can because a whole bunch of unfounded, un-sourced and slipper slope fallacy ridden conclusions (Has anyone seen Virtue? Virrrrrtue? Where are you Virtue. Everyone, look at me searching for Virtue). Honestly the more logical conclusion would be an extreme skepticism towards Trump, his policies and cabinet positions forgoing that none of his policies have been enacted before with direct disastrous effect. It is always better to assume a stroll through the neighborhood is just a stroll and not an attempt to burn the houses down until someone takes out a match.

And you BURN effigies of Trump in a video game. Natan you are actively helping my case.

Sure the Nazi's weren't the only ones, but regardless burning books in a attempt to wipe out a political opinion is wrong. If you would like me to expand on this point I can.

Also just because you are Jewish does not save you from that comparison.

United states of natan wrote:Pretty interesting article: http://time.com/4590994/popular-vote-tax-pledge/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter
I'm not saying I'd do it, but I love the idea of putting the GOP on notice.

Won't ever happen and arguably dangerous to do so. Imagine when Emergency services begin to shut down because the government and half of the citizenry are engaged in a gigantic game of chicken. Society would break down negating the point of revolution.

United states of natan

Slarvainian wrote:So you don't tell me how he's divided America and instead you go into flowery prose about how you'll oppose Donald Trump anyway you can because a whole bunch of unfounded, un-sourced and slipper slope fallacy ridden conclusions (Has anyone seen Virtue? Virrrrrtue? Where are you Virtue. Everyone, look at me searching for Virtue). Honestly the more logical conclusion would be an extreme skepticism towards Trump, his policies and cabinet positions forgoing that none of his policies have been enacted before with direct disastrous effect. It is always better to assume a stroll through the neighborhood is just a stroll and not an attempt to burn the houses down until someone takes out a match.
And you BURN effigies of Trump in a video game. Natan you are actively helping my case.
Sure the Nazi's weren't the only ones, but regardless burning books in a attempt to wipe out a political opinion is wrong. If you would like me to expand on this point I can.
Also just because you are Jewish does not save you from that comparison.
Won't ever happen and arguably dangerous to do so. Imagine when Emergency services begin to shut down because the government and half of the citizenry are engaged in a gigantic game of chicken. Society would break down negating the point of revolution.

Donald trump has divided america by repeatedly antagonizing minorities, even if unintentionally, causing unrest within the community of americans who dislike minorities, who want to get rid of immigrants, or who are just plain racist, and has advocated policies that are reminiscent of those used in Nazi Germany, such as the registering of a religion, requiring them to wear special identification, and barring immigration of them. No, he did not divide the country himself. But he did exacerbate it, and make it much, much worse. And I don't think that expecting a politician to make good on his campaign promises and judging him based on who he's picked for his cabinet is over the top. These are the people he's chosen to surround himself with for the next four years, to advise him, and to help him run the government. Of course we should judge him based on his cabinet, because it reflects him and his administration. If you see something, say something. Once he does something actually worthy of the benefit of the doubt, then I'll reconsider. But until then, I retain my right to oppose him, and will not unify until he can show that our concerns are unfounded. After all, one should not make a deal with the devil expecting him to be honest. And I will assume a stroll is just a stroll if it looks like a stroll. But if it looks suspicious from the start, and the suspect is clearly not just strolling, but then says "it's ok, I'm just strolling", I'm not just gonna give him the benefit of the doubt, I'm gonna watch him and be ready to call the cops at a moment's notice.

The burning of his effigy is mostly just a form of venting, to get my anger out. Has nothing to do with ideology, just venting. And once again, burning his books wouldn't be "to wipe out his ideology". His supporters can be as stupid as they want, it's perfectly legal. I don't like what they say, but I'm not gonna kill them for saying it. Burning his book would simply be a form of venting, not attacking his ideology, as wrong as he may be.

It probably won't, but it's nice to dream.

United states of natan wrote:Donald trump has divided america by repeatedly antagonizing minorities, even if unintentionally, causing unrest within the community of americans who dislike minorities, who want to get rid of immigrants, or who are just plain racist, and has advocated policies that are reminiscent of those used in Nazi Germany, such as the registering of a religion, requiring them to wear special identification, and barring immigration of them. No, he did not divide the country himself. But he did exacerbate it, and make it much, much worse. And I don't think that expecting a politician to make good on his campaign promises and judging him based on who he's picked for his cabinet is over the top. These are the people he's chosen to surround himself with for the next four years, to advise him, and to help him run the government. Of course we should judge him based on his cabinet, because it reflects him and his administration. If you see something, say something. Once he does something actually worthy of the benefit of the doubt, then I'll reconsider. But until then, I retain my right to oppose him, and will not unify until he can show that our concerns are unfounded. After all, one should not make a deal with the devil expecting him to be honest. And I will assume a stroll is just a stroll if it looks like a stroll. But if it looks suspicious from the start, and the suspect is clearly not just strolling, but then says "it's ok, I'm just strolling", I'm not just gonna give him the benefit of the doubt, I'm gonna watch him and be ready to call the cops at a moment's notice.
The burning of his effigy is mostly just a form of venting, to get my anger out. Has nothing to do with ideology, just venting. And once again, burning his books wouldn't be "to wipe out his ideology". His supporters can be as stupid as they want, it's perfectly legal. I don't like what they say, but I'm not gonna kill them for saying it. Burning his book would simply be a form of venting, not attacking his ideology, as wrong as he may be.
It probably won't, but it's nice to dream.

Natan we've been over this point about whose responsible for the short and small outbreak of hate crimes after the election. Unless Donald Trump actively called for these actions and did not condemn them, then he is not responsible. This is merely a attempt of censorship on your part, to try and shutdown a opposing argument without actually attacking the argument on it's merits.

I also like how you admit he did not actually divide the country but say he did anyways/

And of course I am also against some of his policies as well but I will oppose those policies. It doesn't make sense to oppose someone in their entirety based upon some policies. I will admit that a Trump presidency is going to do some good and some bad just as every presidency before has.

Oh so you're ideological differences with Trump aren't the reason you're angry and want to burn a virtual effigy of him and his book? Sure. That makes sense.

United states of natan

Slarvainian wrote:Natan we've been over this point about whose responsible for the short and small outbreak of hate crimes after the election. Unless Donald Trump actively called for these actions and did not condemn them, then he is not responsible. This is merely a attempt of censorship on your part, to try and shutdown a opposing argument without actually attacking the argument on it's merits.
I also like how you admit he did not actually divide the country but say he did anyways/
And of course I am also against some of his policies as well but I will oppose those policies. It doesn't make sense to oppose someone in their entirety based upon some policies. I will admit that a Trump presidency is going to do some good and some bad just as every presidency before has.
Oh so you're ideological differences with Trump aren't the reason you're angry and want to burn a virtual effigy of him and his book? Sure. That makes sense.

What do the hate crimes have to do with it? My argument was that he contributed to the division of this country, and hate crimes aren't the entirety of this division, simply one part of it. It also includes the wide split between the parties, the online "trolling" and hate speech, and many other aspects that I'd delve into if I had more time (I'll elaborate further if you'd like later). And even if he has condemned the hate crimes and divisionism, that doesn't change the fact that he contributed to it, and at the very least inspired more of it, far more than any candidate has. He can condemn it all he wants, and I'll commend him for doing such, but it doesn't change the fact that he's the source of much of it, even if unintentional on his part. He must do more than condemn, he must actively try to heal it. And the only way it's going to be healed is if he renounces his many positions that contributed to the division in the first place.

As for attacking the argument on it's merits, I did indeed do that.

I admit that he's not solely responsible for the division, and much of it was already there when he entered the race. But he did indeed contribute, and at the very least, inspired more of it.

As for the trump presidency itself, I'm not gonna wait around for him to do anything good, he's already shown that as of right now, he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. That could change in the next few years, but after all that he's said and done, I cannot in good conscience condone any action he takes, nor can I respect, trust, or support him as of right now, and I cannot simply say "maybe he won't be so bad". We should not hold him to a standard higher than before just because he won. We shouldn't just expect him to back out of his campaign promises, we should expect that he will follow through with them until he can prove otherwise. And one of the prerequisites for me respecting, trusting, and certainly supporting him, is for him to back out of the campaign promises first, renounce all the horrible, racist, bigoted things he said during the election, and abandon a conservative agenda. Then I'd consider it. But do understand, that I can't simply give him the benefit of the doubt just because he won. I will continue to hold him to the same standards I held him to in the election.

The reason I burned the virtual effigy was to vent my anger towards him. It wasn't ideological. Although I certainly disagree with his entire Ideology, I'm not about to burn a book just because I disagree with him, certainly not for the effect of wiping out that ideology. I'll burn a virtual effigy of him simply to take my anger out on. Like punching a punching bag. Except, instead, this is a virtual effigy who's head explodes.

this argument is funny lol

United states of natan wrote:What do the hate crimes have to do with it? My argument was that he contributed to the division of this country, and hate crimes aren't the entirety of this division, simply one part of it. It also includes the wide split between the parties, the online "trolling" and hate speech, and many other aspects that I'd delve into if I had more time (I'll elaborate further if you'd like later). And even if he has condemned the hate crimes and divisionism, that doesn't change the fact that he contributed to it, and at the very least inspired more of it, far more than any candidate has. He can condemn it all he wants, and I'll commend him for doing such, but it doesn't change the fact that he's the source of much of it, even if unintentional on his part. He must do more than condemn, he must actively try to heal it. And the only way it's going to be healed is if he renounces his many positions that contributed to the division in the first place.
As for attacking the argument on it's merits, I did indeed do that.
I admit that he's not solely responsible for the division, and much of it was already there when he entered the race. But he did indeed contribute, and at the very least, inspired more of it.
As for the trump presidency itself, I'm not gonna wait around for him to do anything good, he's already shown that as of right now, he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. That could change in the next few years, but after all that he's said and done, I cannot in good conscience condone any action he takes, nor can I respect, trust, or support him as of right now, and I cannot simply say "maybe he won't be so bad". We should not hold him to a standard higher than before just because he won. We shouldn't just expect him to back out of his campaign promises, we should expect that he will follow through with them until he can prove otherwise. And one of the prerequisites for me respecting, trusting, and certainly supporting him, is for him to back out of the campaign promises first, renounce all the horrible, racist, bigoted things he said during the election, and abandon a conservative agenda. Then I'd consider it. But do understand, that I can't simply give him the benefit of the doubt just because he won. I will continue to hold him to the same standards I held him to in the election.
The reason I burned the virtual effigy was to vent my anger towards him. It wasn't ideological. Although I certainly disagree with his entire Ideology, I'm not about to burn a book just because I disagree with him, certainly not for the effect of wiping out that ideology. I'll burn a virtual effigy of him simply to take my anger out on. Like punching a punching bag. Except, instead, this is a virtual effigy who's head explodes.

What do hate crimes have to do with it? Natan look at what you wrote in your flowery prose "causing unrest within the community of americans who dislike minorities". I'm sorry if you weren't in fact talking about the hate crimes you talked about at length after the election and blames part of the responsibility onto Trump. I will also point out that this does not mean that the country is divided (nor do any of the other points that you made) only that things happened. Where is the connection to the divisiveness of America?

Natan individual A cannot be responsible individuals B actions if idnividual B was indirectly inspired by individual A. Why might that be the case Natan? Because we are sovering beings Natan that have independent minds from one another. So Natan, what would you have someone do besides condemn it? Stop stating their position? Should preachers be shut up for calling abortion murder if one can claim that they inspire bombings of planned parenthood? Should The Young Turks be shut up for inspiring someone to go out and shoot cops? Should Nietzsche's works be banned because they inspired the Nazi's although Nietzsche wrote that he would rather have all anti-Semites shot? What is the course of action Natan since you seem to think this is a problem? Oh but you say what he should do and that's repeal his position. You'd rather have someone censor themselves then have the intellectual bravery to state what they think. You'd rather impair society by having people self-censor their ideas. This is nonsense. This is tyranny.

You didn't actually attack them on their merit. You stated two of his policies were like something the Nazis would implement but the Nazi's also implemented public works projects, kind of like Hillary wrote about in "Stronger Together". On a side note I actually now find that title somewhat ironic considering the tenets of National Socialism.

I've addressed the inspiring point above.

Alright this point is going to take some unpacking. So i said I would support the good things and condemn the bad of his presidency but withhold any kind of general judgment on him. You said that based on some of his actions you can't condone anything that he's done, unless of course you mean you think everything he's done so far has been bad, does that mean you think his ethics policy for lobbyist is bad or his trade policies? Both are points many liberals would agree with him on so that's why I ask. Also Natan, please, point to one thing that he said during the election you think is racist. Please, because I don't think you'll honestly be able to.

Ya but your mad at him for his ideology and that's because you have a differing ideology. If you had the same ideology you wouldn't be mad because you would agree with him... so therefore yes your anger is ideological.

St james wrote:this argument is funny lol

For anyone else who is reading this RMB for the enjoyment, feel free to TG me (or at least the ones that haven't already). I'm interested in seeing how many flies on the wall we have.

United states of natan

Slarvainian wrote:What do hate crimes have to do with it? Natan look at what you wrote in your flowery prose "causing unrest within the community of americans who dislike minorities". I'm sorry if you weren't in fact talking about the hate crimes you talked about at length after the election and blames part of the responsibility onto Trump. I will also point out that this does not mean that the country is divided (nor do any of the other points that you made) only that things happened. Where is the connection to the divisiveness of America?
Natan individual A cannot be responsible individuals B actions if idnividual B was indirectly inspired by individual A. Why might that be the case Natan? Because we are sovering beings Natan that have independent minds from one another. So Natan, what would you have someone do besides condemn it? Stop stating their position? Should preachers be shut up for calling abortion murder if one can claim that they inspire bombings of planned parenthood? Should The Young Turks be shut up for inspiring someone to go out and shoot cops? Should Nietzsche's works be banned because they inspired the Nazi's although Nietzsche wrote that he would rather have all anti-Semites shot? What is the course of action Natan since you seem to think this is a problem? Oh but you say what he should do and that's repeal his position. You'd rather have someone censor themselves then have the intellectual bravery to state what they think. You'd rather impair society by having people self-censor their ideas. This is nonsense. This is tyranny.
You didn't actually attack them on their merit. You stated two of his policies were like something the Nazis would implement but the Nazi's also implemented public works projects, kind of like Hillary wrote about in "Stronger Together". On a side note I actually now find that title somewhat ironic considering the tenets of National Socialism.
I've addressed the inspiring point above.
Alright this point is going to take some unpacking. So i said I would support the good things and condemn the bad of his presidency but withhold any kind of general judgment on him. You said that based on some of his actions you can't condone anything that he's done, unless of course you mean you think everything he's done so far has been bad, does that mean you think his ethics policy for lobbyist is bad or his trade policies? Both are points many liberals would agree with him on so that's why I ask. Also Natan, please, point to one thing that he said during the election you think is racist. Please, because I don't think you'll honestly be able to.
Ya but your mad at him for his ideology and that's because you have a differing ideology. If you had the same ideology you wouldn't be mad because you would agree with him... so therefore yes your anger is ideological.
For anyone else who is reading this RMB for the enjoyment, feel free to TG me (or at least the ones that haven't already). I'm interested in seeing how many flies on the wall we have.

I'm not just talking about after the election. And perhaps I'm not being too clear (I do occasionally have trouble expressing myself in words). What I mean to say is that for the last 4 years, America has been growing more and more divided. No, not to the point of civil war, perhaps. But there is indeed division, brought on by numerous factors, not just one. For example, the clear gap between liberal and conservative ideologies, which is growing larger, and is partially due to the lack of cooperation between the parties (particularly by the republicans, as much of it started when they began refusing to compromise, and have done little more than obstruct government, simply in a vain attempt to get their agenda forced down our throats, for example the government shutdown, which was the result of republican refusal to take out riders from the budget and simply pass a clean, clear budget for government, and also their refusal to even hold hearings Obama's moderate SC justice nominee, when Obama had nearly a year left on his term.) I agree the liberals aren't entirely clear of fault either, but the clear majority of blame belongs to the republicans, who have also become slaves to the tea party. Some other factors include the rise of modern progressives, who, although I ideologically agree with very much, refuse to accept that democracy means compromise, and that more moderate candidates can help put us on the path towards the ultimate goals of modern progressivism, and that due to the current state of this country and how damaged it is, due primarily to GOP policies, progressive policies will only end up hurting america more if implemented in full right away. We've got to get back up to 0 before we can move up. I'd discuss other factors of this division further if you'd like later on. This division has been growing rapidly since 2012, and was only accelerated by trump and his candidacy. He got his supporters riled up and encouraged them, told them that their hatred of other americans was justified, and that they should embrace it. Perhaps not in those exact words, but the undertones of his speeches told them that. trump then told them that he was the only one who could fix america, that they should ignore everyone else, and only listen to him and those he tells them to listen to. He encouraged them to be suspicious of minorities, made them think that liberals were "out to take their rights" and encouraged them to get angry at people they don't like, rather than talk it out. He is, if you ask me, a product of this division, and also an accelerant for it; he has encouraged and inspired people to divide america further. Sure, after the election, he may have called for unity, but America's too far gone, and the side that opposed him isn't just willingly going to unite behind him just because he asked them to do so, especially after he helped divide america.

And other products of this division include much more than trump. It also includes hate speech and hate crimes against minorities, which is a product of the division, not a source. Other products of the division include the animosity between the left and right, and all the protests that have happened throughout the country against GOP policies. I can elaborate more on these later if you'd like.

Trump may have condemned the hate crimes and hate speech, but that doesn't change the fact that he encouraged it in the first place. Unfortunately, there isn't much he can do but condemn it, but it won't absolve him, because they're too far gone. Sure, people think independently of one another, but that doesn't mean that the words and ideas of their leader won't encourage them to do it.

As for your "censorship" idea, I don't think one should be forcibly censored. But one does need to consider the damage done by what they've said, and that when in the spotlight, they've got tremendous power to influence others, and what they say can have huge effects. Basically think before you speak. Trump hasn't considered that what he's said could have consequences, to the point that his twitter access was taken from him. And when one inspires the actions of another, of course they shouldn't be censored, but they should condemn those acts and do what they can to prevent more damage, and see to it that their words haven't caused anymore damage. And if it's found that their words have done more harm then good, then they need to consider that. If somebody's specific words inspired the PP bomber, then of course they should apologize and later on consider the consequences of their words next time they speak, and perhaps emphasize non-violence. But they cannot just act like they did nothing wrong, because if somebody takes one's words to mean that they should hurt other people, then that's a problem. And I think people should state their ideas. But when they do so, they should make sure it's done in a way that doesn't clearly inspire others to harm or hate other people. For example, I'm watching a show right now called Graves, about a former Republican President who's only now realizing that his words have done more harm than good, because he encouraged hatefulness and spite. Now, he's learning to be careful about what he says, and say it in a way that doesn't make others hate other people for no reason, and in some cases, realizes his policies were flat-out wrong. My point is, one shouldn't censor themselves, but should state their views in a way that won't encourage others to hurt others.

And the "Stronger Together" title, also the motto for the Clinton Campaign and the DNC theme, expresses how all Americans are stronger together, and America is only weaker when it rejects people for how they look, speak, pray, etc, that we can achieve great things when we don't stick to the belief that certain people don't belong in america.

I'll praise the good things of Trump's Presidency, and I'll certainly condemn the bad. However, I cannot in good conscience withhold judgement of him when I've already seen what he's like, heard his plans, and who he's appointed, and I have to assume from those things that he won't be very good. My conscience will not allow me to simply ignore those things and pretend that we don't know what he's like. I must assume that he won't be good, and frankly, I think if we don't, then that will be dangerous, because by the time some people realize that he won't be good, it'll be too late to stop him. We have to assume he'll follow through on what he's promised, until we can be sure he won't.

And sure, there are a few good things that he's said, but those are very, very, very few and far between, and the good is clearly outweighed by the bad qualities and positions he possesses. Perhaps my view of him will change. I don't know. But for now, I must refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt. And as for me saying I won't respect, trust, or support him unless he abandons his agenda and all his policies, and renounces the horrible things he's said, I indeed won't be able to do those things unless he meets my prerequisites. Sure, he might end up being a half-way decent, or even good President, but I cannot in good conscience respect, trust, or support him unless he abandons his ideology. That's not censoring him, or forcing him to censor himself. That's simply refusal to condone him, and my prerequisites are simply that his views must change for me to do that.

Here's a list: http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-racist-15-controversial-quotes-president-elect-said-about-blacks-2447531

levels of racism may vary, but it's undoubtedly there.

United states of natan

A moment of silence for Carrie Fisher, everyone.

United states of natan wrote:I'm not just talking about after the election. And perhaps I'm not being too clear (I do occasionally have trouble expressing myself in words). What I mean to say is that for the last 4 years, America has been growing more and more divided. No, not to the point of civil war, perhaps. But there is indeed division, brought on by numerous factors, not just one. For example, the clear gap between liberal and conservative ideologies, which is growing larger, and is partially due to the lack of cooperation between the parties (particularly by the republicans, as much of it started when they began refusing to compromise, and have done little more than obstruct government, simply in a vain attempt to get their agenda forced down our throats, for example the government shutdown, which was the result of republican refusal to take out riders from the budget and simply pass a clean, clear budget for government, and also their refusal to even hold hearings Obama's moderate SC justice nominee, when Obama had nearly a year left on his term.) I agree the liberals aren't entirely clear of fault either, but the clear majority of blame belongs to the republicans, who have also become slaves to the tea party. Some other factors include the rise of modern progressives, who, although I ideologically agree with very much, refuse to accept that democracy means compromise, and that more moderate candidates can help put us on the path towards the ultimate goals of modern progressivism, and that due to the current state of this country and how damaged it is, due primarily to GOP policies, progressive policies will only end up hurting america more if implemented in full right away. We've got to get back up to 0 before we can move up. I'd discuss other factors of this division further if you'd like later on. This division has been growing rapidly since 2012, and was only accelerated by trump and his candidacy. He got his supporters riled up and encouraged them, told them that their hatred of other americans was justified, and that they should embrace it. Perhaps not in those exact words, but the undertones of his speeches told them that. trump then told them that he was the only one who could fix america, that they should ignore everyone else, and only listen to him and those he tells them to listen to. He encouraged them to be suspicious of minorities, made them think that liberals were "out to take their rights" and encouraged them to get angry at people they don't like, rather than talk it out. He is, if you ask me, a product of this division, and also an accelerant for it; he has encouraged and inspired people to divide america further. Sure, after the election, he may have called for unity, but America's too far gone, and the side that opposed him isn't just willingly going to unite behind him just because he asked them to do so, especially after he helped divide america.
And other products of this division include much more than trump. It also includes hate speech and hate crimes against minorities, which is a product of the division, not a source. Other products of the division include the animosity between the left and right, and all the protests that have happened throughout the country against GOP policies. I can elaborate more on these later if you'd like.
Trump may have condemned the hate crimes and hate speech, but that doesn't change the fact that he encouraged it in the first place. Unfortunately, there isn't much he can do but condemn it, but it won't absolve him, because they're too far gone. Sure, people think independently of one another, but that doesn't mean that the words and ideas of their leader won't encourage them to do it.
As for your "censorship" idea, I don't think one should be forcibly censored. But one does need to consider the damage done by what they've said, and that when in the spotlight, they've got tremendous power to influence others, and what they say can have huge effects. Basically think before you speak. Trump hasn't considered that what he's said could have consequences, to the point that his twitter access was taken from him. And when one inspires the actions of another, of course they shouldn't be censored, but they should condemn those acts and do what they can to prevent more damage, and see to it that their words haven't caused anymore damage. And if it's found that their words have done more harm then good, then they need to consider that. If somebody's specific words inspired the PP bomber, then of course they should apologize and later on consider the consequences of their words next time they speak, and perhaps emphasize non-violence. But they cannot just act like they did nothing wrong, because if somebody takes one's words to mean that they should hurt other people, then that's a problem. And I think people should state their ideas. But when they do so, they should make sure it's done in a way that doesn't clearly inspire others to harm or hate other people. For example, I'm watching a show right now called Graves, about a former Republican President who's only now realizing that his words have done more harm than good, because he encouraged hatefulness and spite. Now, he's learning to be careful about what he says, and say it in a way that doesn't make others hate other people for no reason, and in some cases, realizes his policies were flat-out wrong. My point is, one shouldn't censor themselves, but should state their views in a way that won't encourage others to hurt others.
And the "Stronger Together" title, also the motto for the Clinton Campaign and the DNC theme, expresses how all Americans are stronger together, and America is only weaker when it rejects people for how they look, speak, pray, etc, that we can achieve great things when we don't stick to the belief that certain people don't belong in america.
I'll praise the good things of Trump's Presidency, and I'll certainly condemn the bad. However, I cannot in good conscience withhold judgement of him when I've already seen what he's like, heard his plans, and who he's appointed, and I have to assume from those things that he won't be very good. My conscience will not allow me to simply ignore those things and pretend that we don't know what he's like. I must assume that he won't be good, and frankly, I think if we don't, then that will be dangerous, because by the time some people realize that he won't be good, it'll be too late to stop him. We have to assume he'll follow through on what he's promised, until we can be sure he won't.
And sure, there are a few good things that he's said, but those are very, very, very few and far between, and the good is clearly outweighed by the bad qualities and positions he possesses. Perhaps my view of him will change. I don't know. But for now, I must refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt. And as for me saying I won't respect, trust, or support him unless he abandons his agenda and all his policies, and renounces the horrible things he's said, I indeed won't be able to do those things unless he meets my prerequisites. Sure, he might end up being a half-way decent, or even good President, but I cannot in good conscience respect, trust, or support him unless he abandons his ideology. That's not censoring him, or forcing him to censor himself. That's simply refusal to condone him, and my prerequisites are simply that his views must change for me to do that.
Here's a list: http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-racist-15-controversial-quotes-president-elect-said-about-blacks-2447531
levels of racism may vary, but it's undoubtedly there.

I think this is a larger issue we're going to have to discuss at length at another point but I disagree with you. The political spectrum, I would argue, has actually moved more to the left than both sides becoming polarized. The Republicans have chosen a president who does not care about social issues. He's not going to dispute gay marriage, he doesn't care what bathroom a transgender person uses, he'll consider anyone regardless of their identity for cabinet. Meanwhile the Democrats have become obsessed with identity. Hillary's campaign speeches continues to signal out minorities as special people that needed attention, not because of their current economic standing but because of the color of their skin.

That's your take on the government shut-down. The Republicans take would be they were trying to prevent a government program that infringed on people's liberty. There's two sides to this argument and considering that I don't like the ACA (I think it doesn't go far enough), I honestly don't have much of a opinion on which side was right in that case. I will say this though, the opposition is supposed to oppose the government as a check and balance. If you would rather they bend over and let the dems go in dry, well, you don't have much of a political sense Natan. I also find it funny that you basically say the republicans should have just done what the dems wanted with the budget but then act like Obama was doing them a nice favor by appointing a moderate SCJ. That's been my biggest problem with Obama's presidency. He was a lame duck. He had no spine. His legacy will not stand and within a year nothing will be left of it. That's because he build it on sand with lame policies that had no substantive change. Do you realize how much power the President actually has Natan? How they can threaten to endorse current sitting representative's primary rivals and that's basically a death sentence? How he can pressure companies with government grants. Trump know's how to do this. He realizes he has this power. That a tweet can send a military aircraft company's stocks falling.

Also Democracy doesn't mean compromise. It means rule of the people Natan. Yes President's do compromise but that shouldn't be the default position. This strategy is the reason why the Dems honestly suck. At least the Republicans had enough back bone to even take the issue to a government shutdown. Also your argument that progressives like Bernie Sanders wont' compromise is nothing more than a strawman fallacy. The reason why Bernie won't compromise is because he knows he can get stuff accomplished unlike lame duck Obama. Going back this neo-liberal position of little gradual change is going to do more harm for the Dems in the next four years. Adopting hard economic progressive policies is the only way you're ever going to appeal to the populace who want nothing more than the means to survive. It's like you've forgotten your founding tenets that the founding father's emulated in the constitution. Those tenets that they borrowed so heavily from classical liberal thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. You telling people they divided America because they voted for the person they thought was going to give them the means to live again, is nothing but condescending and counter productive to making the Dems competitive again.

Why are things like the government shutdown an example of a cause of the division while Trump and hate crimes are products?

How did he encourage it? Sure he made questionable comments at his rally that people should get physical with protesters inside the venue but you cannot find a statement from Donald Trump saying go beat up people because their black, because their hispanic. It doesn't exist and you're being incredibly disingenuous doing so.

Bullsh*t. You say they shouldn't censor themselves but you've tried and hide the fact you're making that point in more flower prose. People are not responsible for the actions of other's unless they directly call for those actions. If I told my friend to go kill person A, and my friend did, I would be responsible. If I tell my friend person A is a shi*ty person and my friend goes and kills him, that's not my fault that my friend acted completely irrationally and wrong because he came to the conclusion on his own from outside information. Also Natan, you might be the kettle calling the pot black here. viewtopic.php?f=20&t=394480&p=30357472#p30357472

Oh ya I found a good Democratic Party poster that accurately represents their "Stronger together" motto. http://www.newthinktank.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Long-live-Deutchland.jpg

So are you saying you're not going to condemn everything he does now because of some things he does? That was the issue I had initially with your point. Now that appears to be gone I agree with what you've said their.

1. That's not racist. That's merely speculating maybe she wasn't allowed to speak.
2. I don't know how claiming you have had a great relationship with black people to be racist.
3. He's essentially responding to identity politics there. People always claim we need equal representation so everyone can have a good role model who looks like them (which I think is stupid. Obama can be a good role model for a girl whose white even though they have a different sex and skin color). Not racist.
4. He's talking about illegal Mexican immigrants. Doesn't specify a race. Not racists. He's also not talking about everyone.
5. Context is important. Here is the original playboy article where Trump responded to the claims O'Donnel made in his book http://www.playboy.com/articles/the-art-of-the-donald. Notice that before Trump's quote that the stuff O'Donnel wrote was "probably true" that they mention O'Donnel's point that Trump has a astute business mind. Not racist.
6. How is saying well educated black man has an advantage over a well educated white man racist?
7. Basically what Trump is saying here is he doesn't think the people operating a casino don't look very native to him or other natives. I don't see how this is racist.
8. He said that he would love for his daughter to date a black guy and that he wouldn't have a problem with it. HOW!? IS!? THAT!? RACIST!?
9. Accusing the judge of having a bias. Not racist to do so.
10. This article is BS
11. The article that article sources does not contain the quote the first article claims it has. Natan this is the worse article ever to help back up your point.
12. This article is a joke. *checks to make sure this isn't a satire website*
13. I fail to see how wondering how much a person from Japan would pay for real estate in Manhattan to be racist.
14. Says Hispanics like him. Obviously racism right?
15. The birther thing was BS. He should have never started it but since then he has said he believes Obama was born in America and also this isn't racist.

So Natan the level of racism very from there being none to the article is obviously trolling you.

First wave of balloonists

Oh wow. Long posts. tl;dr

I'd just like to point out an opinion of mine: Donald Trump did not divide America. He just highlighted the preexisting divide.

First wave of balloonists wrote:Oh wow. Long posts. tl;dr
I'd just like to point out an opinion of mine: Donald Trump did not divide America. He just highlighted the preexisting divide.

Welcome back! :D

And Happy New Year everyone!!! Hope you all got as drunk as me lol

First wave of balloonists

United states of natan

Nakatomi wrote:Welcome back! :D
And Happy New Year everyone!!! Hope you all got as drunk as me lol

Happy new year to all! I hope this year is better than the year of crap we just went through.

I actually don't drink (I'm 18, but that's redundant, because I've decided never to drink alcohol). I was at a party on new years' though, and I was the only one who didn't drink besides one of my friends (and she only didn't because she took some nyquill). My girlfriend got mildly drunk on wine and then stopped, and everyone else besides the three of us and my friend's little brother did vodka shots and then smoked pot outside. Honestly I kind of question why I hang out with them xD

My girlfriend actually wishes college made me more "wild", for some reason.

First wave of balloonists

United states of natan wrote:Happy new year to all! I hope this year is better than the year of crap we just went through.
I actually don't drink (I'm 18, but that's redundant, because I've decided never to drink alcohol). I was at a party on new years' though, and I was the only one who didn't drink besides one of my friends (and she only didn't because she took some nyquill). My girlfriend got mildly drunk on wine and then stopped, and everyone else besides the three of us and my friend's little brother did vodka shots and then smoked pot outside. Honestly I kind of question why I hang out with them xD
My girlfriend actually wishes college made me more "wild", for some reason.

For some reason?
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/brows.gif

The Commonwealth wishes you all a Happy New Year.

First wave of balloonists and Frankish provence

United states of natan

First wave of balloonists wrote:For some reason?
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/brows.gif

I don't know what that reason might be, all I know is that I'm far from being a wild person and that, according to my friends at least, I'm "immune to fun" just because I don't drink, smoke, or do wild college stuff. But I think by now my girlfriend has accepted it.

Granted, she's not particularly wild herself, and honestly, I think that any wildness she does have is primarily due to peer pressure, from the influence of our friends. I think she looks up to them, and when she's around them, she feels pressured to act "cool" and "wild", like they do. She's actually really susceptible to peer pressure, and it does worry me a little, that our friends will influence her too much. But, it hasn't been a huge problem yet, so I don't feel the need to discuss her susceptibility to peer pressure with her at this moment (basically meaning I don't have the balls to tell her the truth about an issue that she might have, as guys will typically have trouble discussing with their girlfriend about problems the girl has, so typical relationship stuff xD)

United states of natan

Just watched the Brooklyn Nine Nine 2-part special. Is it true that the nfl can fine players for refusal to speak to the media? If that's true, then that's a clear violation of someone's constitutional rights. You have a right to not speak. Hell, police even say "you have the right to remain silent."

United states of natan wrote:I don't know what that reason might be, all I know is that I'm far from being a wild person and that, according to my friends at least, I'm "immune to fun" just because I don't drink, smoke, or do wild college stuff. But I think by now my girlfriend has accepted it.
Granted, she's not particularly wild herself, and honestly, I think that any wildness she does have is primarily due to peer pressure, from the influence of our friends. I think she looks up to them, and when she's around them, she feels pressured to act "cool" and "wild", like they do. She's actually really susceptible to peer pressure, and it does worry me a little, that our friends will influence her too much. But, it hasn't been a huge problem yet, so I don't feel the need to discuss her susceptibility to peer pressure with her at this moment (basically meaning I don't have the balls to tell her the truth about an issue that she might have, as guys will typically have trouble discussing with their girlfriend about problems the girl has, so typical relationship stuff xD)

There's no problem with her smoking and drinking once and a while. As long as it's not interfering with important stuff like school or work or relationships.

United states of natan wrote:Just watched the Brooklyn Nine Nine 2-part special. Is it true that the nfl can fine players for refusal to speak to the media? If that's true, then that's a clear violation of someone's constitutional rights. You have a right to not speak. Hell, police even say "you have the right to remain silent."

It's true. It's part of the job description though. They have a media requirement in their contract that they have to fulfill. Since the constitution only applies to the government it's not like the NFL is infringing on any kind of right. It would be like someone was a spokes person to a company but refused to do any speaking for the company. There would be some kind of disciplinary action taken.

First wave of balloonists

United states of natan wrote:Just watched the Brooklyn Nine Nine 2-part special. Is it true that the nfl can fine players for refusal to speak to the media? If that's true, then that's a clear violation of someone's constitutional rights. You have a right to not speak. Hell, police even say "you have the right to remain silent."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1kvwXsZtU8

The NFL players sign contracts that state that if the player refuses to speak to the media, the player is subject to penalties.

United states of natan

Slarvainian wrote:There's no problem with her smoking and drinking once and a while. As long as it's not interfering with important stuff like school or work or relationships.
It's true. It's part of the job description though. They have a media requirement in their contract that they have to fulfill. Since the constitution only applies to the government it's not like the NFL is infringing on any kind of right. It would be like someone was a spokes person to a company but refused to do any speaking for the company. There would be some kind of disciplinary action taken.

1. Yeah, I know, nothing wrong with doing it in moderation, I just feel that she's just being pressured into it.
2. Yeah, but football players aren't spokespersons (at least not for the NFL), and they should not be obligated to speak to the media.

First wave of balloonists

United states of natan wrote:1. Yeah, I know, nothing wrong with doing it in moderation, I just feel that she's just being pressured into it.
2. Yeah, but football players aren't spokespersons (at least not for the NFL), and they should not be obligated to speak to the media.

2) But they signed contracts saying they would. It's not like Congress passed a law that all football players must speak to reporters. The players willingly entered into a contract, and thereby agreed to speak to the media or face hefty penalties. So, actually, NFL players are contractually spokespersons.

United states of natan wrote:1. Yeah, I know, nothing wrong with doing it in moderation, I just feel that she's just being pressured into it.
2. Yeah, but football players aren't spokespersons (at least not for the NFL), and they should not be obligated to speak to the media.

Like Baloonists said, contractually they are spokespersons, but that aspect of their job is also vital to the NFL as a business. Teams will advertise players as gods almost. People admire them, look up to them, buy their merchandise ect. For this business model to operate, the model that has made the NFL billions of dollars a year, the players need to talk to the media so that this perception of them can continue.

I have time today and thought I would write a response to the recent report released of alleged Russian involvement in the election. After a quick scan of the report it's honestly laughable.

«12. . .767768769770771772773. . .814815»

Advertisement