On November 15 2016 07:41 NMcNasty wrote:
Wow, so portraying Trump supporters as actually believing what Trump has been saying is unfairly stereotyping them. Absolutely incredible.
I am dumbfounded by this statement, I would expect it from some random guy, but this low level of critical thinking coming from a competent poker player from the community is surprising, I will sound extremely patronizing but I think you should take a step back and analyze this maybe you are just throwing the first thing that comes to mind and giving this emotional lines.
Obviously it is silly to think people who support Trump also support all his ideas, in the same way that if you support Hillary I dont think you are for bombing Libya, or Assad and the rebels while also supplying weapons and training para-military groups, I dont assume you support fracking or that you support lobbying from Wall Street or etc.
Thats the reason why I re-posted Locos video, because it is this kind of lazy thinking, caricaturing the opposing view into a bunch of racist, misogynist ignorant rednecks is the exact reason why Trump rose to power and why the right is as strong as ever and will continue to grow on the western civilization, refusing to understand this will only secure Trumps reelection.
I don't really understand your attack on him here. I'm trying to understand your perspective. In one part you're saying you obviously don't expect McNasty to support everything Hillary stood for and you'd expect he does the same to Trump supporters, but somehow the text you quoted indicates otherwise? I don't see how his statement implies that he thinks Trump supporters support him on every single issue (if that's what you're saying). I think it's pretty clear that you support someone over someone else because their overall vision and values are more in accordance with your own, and from what I gathered, he has said that they're both rotten pies and there were simply more rotten apples in the Trump pie.
Now the second part of the argument is the most interesting to me. I think we have to be careful not to only focus on the consequences of what people have been saying. The argument that goes something like, "Trump won because of this tendency of liberals to stereotype and insult their opponents and it won't ever lead us anywhere" is one of pragmatism. While this no doubt played a part in it, it's basically an appeal to consequences, not an attempt to find out the truth. We first have to find the truth about what people believe and only then should we ever discuss what is best on a pragmatic level. Obviously it's rarely ever a good way to win someone to your side to insult them, but that doesn't mean that the criticism doesn't have any merit. Then it changes the criticism you should level at them to become, "shh, don't say this out loud, it's not useful" instead of "that's not good thinking and it's what is responsible for this fiasco". And what if, for instance, you know someone is a racist and misogynist for a fact? Telling them that they are also won't help anything, but obviously if you do it it's because you feel better about yourself if you tell them. It's silly to assume everything a person says should be in service of their cause (and affects it) rather than personal.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On November 15 2016 07:41 NMcNasty wrote:
Wow, so portraying Trump supporters as actually believing what Trump has been saying is unfairly stereotyping them. Absolutely incredible.
I am dumbfounded by this statement, I would expect it from some random guy, but this low level of critical thinking coming from a competent poker player from the community is surprising, I will sound extremely patronizing but I think you should take a step back and analyze this maybe you are just throwing the first thing that comes to mind and giving this emotional lines.
Obviously it is silly to think people who support Trump also support all his ideas, in the same way that if you support Hillary I dont think you are for bombing Libya, or Assad and the rebels while also supplying weapons and training para-military groups, I dont assume you support fracking or that you support lobbying from Wall Street or etc.
Thats the reason why I re-posted Locos video, because it is this kind of lazy thinking, caricaturing the opposing view into a bunch of racist, misogynist ignorant rednecks is the exact reason why Trump rose to power and why the right is as strong as ever and will continue to grow on the western civilization, refusing to understand this will only secure Trumps reelection.
This mcnasty guy obv reads too much NY Times, washington post etc...He's forming his opinions based on the BS liberal media. He's opinions are just noise and are shared by a very small, yet very vocal, percentage of the population. No need to worry about such peasants as him
yet you still only did what he claimed Trump supporters do a few posts above: blame the liberal media and add nothing to the conversation. It would be far more useful to elaborate on the specific reasons you think he's wrong don't you think?
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
Trump is yet to prove anything on either pole.
The fact that the media still tries to portrait him inaccurately even after he s a President Elect is disturbing, however. This is not productive for anyone. I'm sure you all heard of yesterday's "news" that he asked for top-level security clearance for all of his children( yes including his 10yo son) which has been reported as false reporting since.
A good thing is imbeciles that claim to be "liberals" continue to smash themselves to new lows. The whole school has become a joke, at least now there 'll be a place for growth after such "crisis" . I still find liberal views superior to any other, however, when they are well balanced. And nothing was balanced in the near past, I'm somewhat glad about the development of the whole situation.
Anyway, it's a good time to point out that you should not be informing yourself by the media. Or at least not by one source. You can see one side bashing on Trump's image, and the other bashing on protesters, all coming down to a cheap sensationalism for temporary profits. The fact is Obama was protested at first by republicans as well, any new president will be protested by the opposition. Just don't give into pointless shit by the media
On November 15 2016 20:38 Santafairy wrote:
But keep up the "all his racist lies" track because I look forward to his second inauguration.
-Trump is incidentally the most liberal thing to happen to the GOP in years if you take the blinders off.
Santafairy you seem eloquent and genuinely thrilled about Trump getting elected. Would you mind (briefly even) explaining what you see in him?
Because there is a small chance he's not an imperialist but I'm worried him though and Hillary was shady she's the establishment maybe just sociopath puppet or higher position somehow due to being so ruthless so many rumours about this woman.
I don't really understand your attack on him here. I'm trying to understand your perspective. In one part you're saying you obviously don't expect McNasty to support everything Hillary stood for and you'd expect he does the same to Trump supporters, but somehow the text you quoted indicates otherwise? I don't see how his statement implies that he thinks Trump supporters support him on every single issue (if that's what you're saying). I think it's pretty clear that you support someone over someone else because their overall vision and values are more in accordance with your own, and from what I gathered, he has said that they're both rotten pies and there were simply more rotten apples in the Trump pie.
And I dont understand what you dont understand...
He said that he believes people who voted for Trump support what he says and that is not necessarily true
Now the second part of the argument is the most interesting to me. I think we have to be careful not to only focus on the consequences of what people have been saying. The argument that goes something like, "Trump won because of this tendency of liberals to stereotype and insult their opponents and it won't ever lead us anywhere" is one of pragmatism. While this no doubt played a part in it, it's basically an appeal to consequences, not an attempt to find out the truth. We first have to find the truth about what people believe and only then should we ever discuss what is best on a pragmatic level. Obviously it's rarely ever a good way to win someone to your side to insult them, but that doesn't mean that the criticism doesn't have any merit. Then it changes the criticism you should level at them to become, "shh, don't say this out loud, it's not useful" instead of "that's not good thinking and it's what is responsible for this fiasco". And what if, for instance, you know someone is a racist and misogynist for a fact? Telling them that they are also won't help anything, but obviously if you do it it's because you feel better about yourself if you tell them. It's silly to assume everything a person says should be in service of their cause (and affects it) rather than personal.[/QUOTE]
First of all I dont believe the reason is not engaging in discussion, I think the left has gone daft in many aspects, like political correctness, safe spaces and the absurd trend in University campuses in the west, also the increase in terrorists attacks scares people when the liberal governments in Europe allow immigrantes by the millions without addressing the potential social problems this causes because they are terrified to be labeled racists etc, I think I've stated this many times before this election.
I have nothing against calling a racist, "racist", but that is not what is going on, its calling this the result of white males, of sexysm and dozens of millions of white supremacists, hate etc.
Clinton Campaign Official blames Internalized Misoginy:
Sutherland is ashamed of being a white male:
Lady Gaga claims women are fighting for their lives after Trumps election:
And this is not some random celebrity cherry picking (Gaga was actually part of Hillarys Campaign), this is the actual rhetoric from the left and this is the problem, they are just polarizing this, shoving people in the middle of the political spectrum into the right, I have no problems with calling out on actual racists who are proven to be, but call millions racist because they voted republican is idiotic.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
Last edit: 18/11/2016 03:46
1
jeremy5408 United States. Nov 18 2016 05:53. Posts 122
“Then I watched our incredible first lady, Michelle Obama, talk in New Hampshire about how hurt she felt seeing it too. She talked about how women are often afraid to say anything because we’re worried that we will appear weak — that we’ll be told we’re being over-the-top, dramatic, emotional. But we’re not. We’re fighting for our lives”
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Nov 18 2016 07:45. Posts 2225
On November 15 2016 20:38 Santafairy wrote:
But keep up the "all his racist lies" track because I look forward to his second inauguration.
-Trump is incidentally the most liberal thing to happen to the GOP in years if you take the blinders off.
Santafairy you seem eloquent and genuinely thrilled about Trump getting elected. Would you mind (briefly even) explaining what you see in him?
Let me start just with the path he's taken, it's spectacular regardless of what he does with the office. 70 is probably not his personal optimum president age, but his historical timing is godlike. I mean you have to have some kind of patience. He's been toying with politics for 35 years. In the 80s he would even criticize the government when he was a Republican and it was the beloved Reagan and then Bush. The tune has always been the same, trade, globalism, our jobs are leaving, our leaders are stupid, and so forth. He was considered as a running mate for one-term GHWB, which is around when the debt ballooning started with the cost of the Gulf War. That would have been a dead-end. He also considered shooting for mayor of NYC and governor of NY. Those would also have been dead-ends. Imagine if he became governor and completely fucked up the state. Too risky. As an outsider you have one chance to throw your best punch and he's always wanted to be at the very top and smartly didn't waste his chance on something lower. He was briefly in Ross Perot's Reform Party in case he wanted to run in 2000, but realized that was fizzling out too. In the 2000s he switched his registration to Democrats, maybe in case he wanted to run as part of the opposition to GWB or the next president. Then Republican again when Obama came in. And yet still bided his time, withdrawing from 2012.
He has an ego that belongs in the Smithsonian, but without it it would be hard for any outsider to take over an entire party and then become president in less than 2 years. If you look at lists of presidential candidates and even prospective candidates, over the last few decades, non-politician outsiders can be counted on your hands. Yet of all the candidates, one of the successful ones was Ross Perot, just an independent billionaire. The electorate was saying something there. This very short list of outsiders was disproportionately represented among votes because of him, that indicates a high demand for one.
So I support the election for one thing because of the citizen president experiment. Obviously it's no Cincinnatus or Mr. Smith Goes To Washington situation. But it's important, firstly to prove the people can choose the president (the establishment, not by design, but just by its own organic stupidity, was going to give us a Bush/Clinton election - for any other office I don't care, but in principle we can't elect presidents from the same family anymore, this is the leader of the free world) and secondly to go through with it and see if it really works. I don't think anyone else could have even achieved this, you have to be an American fixture to even get a shot among the politicians.
I'm optimistic because celebrity governor seemed to work in California. Will he be the best president ever, no, not everyone gets to be JFK, will he deliver all his promises, solve all the problems, no, but neither does any president. But Trump is something who clearly doesn't owe anyone a single thing. He also has no political reason to be an obstructionist cunt, like some recent Republicans. This is someone. In 50 years people will be looking at the history books and see an (R) next to Trump's name, but that won't tell the whole picture. This is really the closest you can imagine to a third party/independent president. Someone who can clearly work with both sides. People also kept trying to zing me all campaign saying he wasn't a real conservative, as though I were a conservative.
I wish Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell would get dumped, but whatever.
If you're sifting through for a tl;dr, here are the key things. The US government is a shambles right now. I'm not a big government or small government person (although I hope Rand Paul gets his shot at the presidency someday). What I'm interested in is a working government of any size. The US government right now at every level has a use-it-or-lose-it mentality, and as such the main goal of the government has become perpetuating itself. What we want is a mission driven government. Spend money on what we need until we stop needing it, then stop spending. The government wastes money on everything. I've heard Trump talk about defense waste, who from the GOP has ever done that? We also have deepening divides - class and racial, but also these extra classes, like the military, the government itself, criminals, the intelligence class (like the surveillance state).
What I think the point of the president is is a decision making engine. It's partly ideological, but also a trust that the rich guy with a suit in a room at the head of a table with a bunch of other people can filter information reliably and use it because it's been his life work. He also works hard and has for a long time - in the campaign, too. Not that it's work in the sense of hanging drywall, but I think there's a chance he could be exceptional at it. With most other recent nominees I haven't seen the chance. Possibly Kerry. Definitely not HRC. I think there's a limit to how much damage a president could cause, but they don't all have the same chance of succeeding. The past corollary of this is you look at a presidency and say, well obviously he did the best he could, because if they could have done something better, they would have figured it out, so any problems aren't his fault. It's a weird thing where people think everything is inevitable - I'm especially looking at HRC's tenure here. But things won't just happen, you have to make decisions and then actually do them.
I don't think people like Bush and Trump are smart the way, say, Feynman was smart. But it's a sheltered idea people have where they fail to imagine what the person's world could possibly be like, so anyone who doesn't think like they do can't be smart. I don't think these people like Bush, Trump, even Carson and Palin, are stupid. And I've heard Trump's "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" tape. It was Buzz Aldrin endorsing Palin that made me start to think this way. Like, okay, Bush fucks up a lot of sentences. Is that it? Not that I agreed with Palin as McCain's VP choice.
The liberal things I've heard from Trump, if you ignore social things like him being pro-choice and a fake Christian, are him being open to raising the minimum wage and also wanting to "take care" of people, whether in the case of the VA or Medicare (which is fraught with fraud, healthcare costs are so high there are people committing Medicare fraud just to stay afloat in places). It was under Obama that the retarded stimulus happened, at the cost of like $1.x million per job created, and an originally good idea got funneled to progressives and women's issues advocates and ended up doing nothing. Because of the structure of the left and who they fill the executive branch with and who they hire to work for the government. That was like a trillion dollars that could have been spent on the infrastructure plan Trump is pushing now. That's why I say I don't care about the theoretical size of government. Right now in general shrinking looks good, but if for example socialized medicine were made to work, who wouldn't want to expand it?
I also bought the SCOTUS meme. I never thought marriage equality or abortion were in danger, even though the Republican party is the place for people who oppose those. Roe v. Wade is 45 years old and isn't going anywhere. You just can't do anything about it, and even if you did, it would suicide the party. People of similar values just want to be in a bloc. It's similar to how the Republicans are also the party for creationists and no sex before marriage people. But those are no longer tractable politically. What they are is cultural vestiges. There are some problems at the state level with abortion access, sure, but I didn't realize until Trump that pro-life is just virtue signaling and not so much an issue anymore. What I am worried about is future cases and laws, whether 2nd amendment in the vein of California's weird handgun laws (something about handguns without a magic nonexistent technology that puts a serial number on each bullet being illegal to manufacture), forcing people to use certain words, going after mom and pop shops to force them to write things on your cake, transgender children, Title IX at universities, new adventures in prejudice via diversity, and basically whatever else regressives will dream up and try to turn into the new frontier of civil rights. I would like those things to be hard to get through. Where the US is at right now is good and any change that would fall under SCOTUS should face opposition by default until we can show it's really worth it.
When one of two major coalitions in the US wants to allow people to subvert the law, go to the country illegally, and reward them with a path to citizenship in order to secure votes, that's alarming and maybe unique in the first world.
I don't think the left is approaching the global problem of Islamism honestly. And US foreign policy is shit and has been for a long time. Messing with Syria to hurt Russia reminds me of 80s Afghanistan, letting it just sit and fester instead of leading the international community forward.
Federal control of education was a mistake, from what I can see people are slipping political indoctrination in it. Again, this isn't my accusing there of being a conspiracy, it's just a natural problem.
There's a lot of little things like simplifying the tax code, immigration reform, repatriating corporate profits.
But in Trump's case I have to admit I would have voted for him simply out of spite after the unprecedented media dogpiling. The fourth estate really overextended itself with this self-referential narrative about him being Hitler and that's not their role. HRC got 20 times as many periodical endorsements, and in the top 100 papers she had 57 to his 2. Rutenberg of the NYT came out saying it's basically your job in journalism to oppose someone as a journalist if you truly think they're bad. I had a brief vision of having a conversation with people in 30 years and having to explain to kids why he wasn't Hitler, having witnessed the campaign. It's very good in this case that history is written by the victors. Even if it doesn't really matter who the president is, which is a fair idea, for culture war reasons, it was just necessary, progressives are pulling the political spectrum out from under me and have strayed from reality.
Now, maybe I'm just some rube who gets duped by the change candidate every few years, but eventually they're bound to turn out good.
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
On November 18 2016 04:53 jeremy5408 wrote:
“Then I watched our incredible first lady, Michelle Obama, talk in New Hampshire about how hurt she felt seeing it too. She talked about how women are often afraid to say anything because we’re worried that we will appear weak — that we’ll be told we’re being over-the-top, dramatic, emotional. But we’re not. We’re fighting for our lives”
Im not surprised people are saying she's a good candidate for 2020 lol
Liberals are turning the states into a 3rd world country esp it's politics
On November 18 2016 07:37 Baalim wrote:
That was pretty well written and I agree with a lot, I dont get why sometimes you just go full retard in other threads lol
Exactly.
Took me time to get off the Trump-hate bandwagon pre-elections though
Last edit: 18/11/2016 09:17
4
JonnyCosMo United States. Nov 18 2016 21:43. Posts 7292
On the bright side, hes going to build a wall and make Baalim pay for it
Everyone needs to see that you are king of the castle - PoorUser
On November 18 2016 20:43 JonnyCosMo wrote:
On the bright side, hes going to build a wall and make Baalim pay for it
I think the media made the terrible mistake in only sensationalizing that thing yet not pushing him to elaborate how was he going to make Mexico pay for it, when a journalist just probed a bit Trump hinted the possibility of declaring war to Mexico which is ridiculous.
If any journalist really doesnt let him off avoid the question and forces an answer he was going to fuck up big but in general liberal media was focusing so much on just the reaction to what he said that ironically they left him off spit all the ridiculous bullshit he waned.
Also I dont know if people are aware but there is already a wall, there isnt a wall in the most absurd parts to cross like in huge deserts and the biggest sections of the river but people cannot just walk into the states, they already use ladders, tunnels and wander the desert, It baffles me that people think making the wall longer and taller would stop a single immigrant, let alone significantly impact the migration problem.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Liquid`Drone Norway. Nov 19 2016 19:40. Posts 3093
how do Trump supporters feel about his climate change position? Not talking about 'he thinks it's a hoax created by the chinese' (even if those are his own words), but that he's 'not really into that idea' or whatever. Asking because to me, that is the one absolutely indefensible aspect of him. (As anti-trump as I have been, if him and hillary swapped positions on climate, I might have favored him).
I would assume majority of world population doesn't
A) care
B) doesn't believe
C) doesn't understand
That climate change is influenced heavily by humans
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
1
thewh00sel United States. Nov 20 2016 01:07. Posts 2734
theres a valid skeptical stance on it and huge government incentive for global warming to exist, so i'm ok with his non-interventionist stance. The free market will adjust to global warming if its a real threat.
A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. - Ayn Rand
On November 18 2016 20:43 JonnyCosMo wrote:
On the bright side, hes going to build a wall and make Baalim pay for it
I think the media made the terrible mistake in only sensationalizing that thing yet not pushing him to elaborate how was he going to make Mexico pay for it, when a journalist just probed a bit Trump hinted the possibility of declaring war to Mexico which is ridiculous.
If any journalist really doesnt let him off avoid the question and forces an answer he was going to fuck up big but in general liberal media was focusing so much on just the reaction to what he said that ironically they left him off spit all the ridiculous bullshit he waned.
Also I dont know if people are aware but there is already a wall, there isnt a wall in the most absurd parts to cross like in huge deserts and the biggest sections of the river but people cannot just walk into the states, they already use ladders, tunnels and wander the desert, It baffles me that people think making the wall longer and taller would stop a single immigrant, let alone significantly impact the migration problem.
that Dilbert comic guy (Scott Adams?) actually talked about this at length in one of his vlogs and said it was a business technique of 'selling past the sale'. Basically, Trump added 'and Mexico will pay for it!' because it subconsciously put into the mind of the public that the wall was already going to happen, and instead they focus on the 2nd part.
regarding Trump's idea on 'how they will pay for it', iirc his official website originally said what he meant by 'Mexico will pay for it' was that he wanted to put a 30% tax/fee on all cash sent via Western Union directly to Mexico and use 100% of the proceeds to fund a wall. someone can correct me if I'm wrong, it appears he took all the wall stuff off his official website.
On September 08 2008 10:07 Baal wrote: my head is a gyroscope, your argument is invalid
On November 18 2016 20:43 JonnyCosMo wrote:
On the bright side, hes going to build a wall and make Baalim pay for it
I think the media made the terrible mistake in only sensationalizing that thing yet not pushing him to elaborate how was he going to make Mexico pay for it, when a journalist just probed a bit Trump hinted the possibility of declaring war to Mexico which is ridiculous.
If any journalist really doesnt let him off avoid the question and forces an answer he was going to fuck up big but in general liberal media was focusing so much on just the reaction to what he said that ironically they left him off spit all the ridiculous bullshit he waned.
Also I dont know if people are aware but there is already a wall, there isnt a wall in the most absurd parts to cross like in huge deserts and the biggest sections of the river but people cannot just walk into the states, they already use ladders, tunnels and wander the desert, It baffles me that people think making the wall longer and taller would stop a single immigrant, let alone significantly impact the migration problem.
that Dilbert comic guy (Scott Adams?) actually talked about this at length in one of his vlogs and said it was a business technique of 'selling past the sale'. Basically, Trump added 'and Mexico will pay for it!' because it subconsciously put into the mind of the public that the wall was already going to happen, and instead they focus on the 2nd part.
regarding Trump's idea on 'how they will pay for it', iirc his official website originally said what he meant by 'Mexico will pay for it' was that he wanted to put a 30% tax/fee on all cash sent via Western Union directly to Mexico and use 100% of the proceeds to fund a wall. someone can correct me if I'm wrong, it appears he took all the wall stuff off his official website.
Mexicos second biggest income comes from money sent directly from the US, only behind oil.
I dont know how easy would to stop this cash flow but it would for sure fuck our country up and I've wondered why this hasn't been a big talking point for previous administrations
On November 20 2016 00:07 thewh00sel wrote:
theres a valid skeptical stance on it and huge government incentive for global warming to exist, so i'm ok with his non-interventionist stance. The free market will adjust to global warming if its a real threat.
I would be ok if he just advocated non-intervention, but he said it was a hoax invented by the Chinese which is absolutely retarded.
Trying to answer Eris question, I dont think there is any blind Trump supporter here that would agree with Trump on that stupid stance, I think the people who support it in this forum are for much well thought reasons than just believing whatever idioticy he spat out during campaign
United States. Nov 20 2016 01:07. Posts 2734
