Forum Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About butterbumps!

  • Rank
    totally cromulent

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. US elections 2016 - "Go ahead, throw your vote away"

    Yea I'm "struggling" with my feelings toward trump voters a lot less right now. There is no justification to vote for this pile of human garbage. And I have no sympathy for the Supreme Court excuse either. What the could possibly be that important to these alleged "disgusted by trump but voting for him anyway" people that they think Clinton will snatch away that's worth it to them to inflict a putrid heap of incompetence on this country? I think I've reached my limits
  2. Given my location, I'm not personally around rally-attending Trumpkins. Rather, my partner's elderly relative in a swing state, who is insanely racist, is insanely pro-Trump (I preferred to avoid this guy even before the election). The Trump supporters I'm around are, frankly, people who know better. For example, people I went to undergrad with, who are definitely doing well in life and living in Mahattan, who fancy themselves gentlemanly republicans cut in the Reagan mold, who simply cannot bring themselves to vote non-Republican no matter what candidates are put forward. And who, it turns out, are actually super racist, and in one case super misogynist (the only woman he likes being lectured by is Ann Coulter). But they prefer when it's in a dog whistle form, rather than the openly cringe-worthy Trumply variety. One is hiding behind the court appointment excuse on the "one-issue" of abortion; it's not sincere or well-reasoned in his arguments, especially considering Trumps breath-taking disregard for the Constitution at all. There is always a magnificent amount of denial in the damage Trump is already doing to this country, and the fact that no one but his hired gun manager has been able to rein him in yet to mitigate his prodigious externalities, but "Hillary is a Dem and Clinton and a vote there is a loss of my identity!" I've become very cynical of those supporting Trump for reasons of "court appointments." My anger finds a much larger target in these Trump-voters. There's no shortage of pieces and best-sellers looking at the rally-attending Trumpkins to humanize them, explain their origins, scold asshole liberals like me to not call them "stupid," and so on. And the "tribal-republicans" who know better make me just as, if not more, angry than the "typical Trumpkin." I struggle, though, with "they simply hold a different set of beliefs." It is becoming infuriating to hear that "they simply hold a different set of beliefs," suggesting we should be tolerant, when those beliefs involve negating entire groups' humanity on the basis of gender, orientation and/ or race. To sum it up as merely a "difference in beliefs" is not adequate. Those beliefs are just morally wrong, and need to change. Except, to go back to the second reason I gave, it is profoundly naive to see Trump as the right person for this job. He despises the masses more than anyone. He can't even be bothered to join wages to labor for those who work for him in some case. He is not a populist, and has devoted his life to ripping these people off for his own profit. He's giving them lip-service, but that's all. By all accounts, Trump should be utterly reviled by the very people he's appealing to. ok, so let's burn it down for everyone. I fear this is not a particularly sympathetic reason or goal either.
  3. You don't think it's maybe a bit unfair or slightly disingenuous to draw equivalency between wanting Sanders to get behind Clinton and unify against a unilaterally unfit dangerous demagogue and reps who simply can't bring themselves to vote for the other team, lying to themselves that trump won't be that bad despite all evidence to the contrary? i agree the general tribalism is a massive problem, but it seems unfair to equate the call to unify against someone like trump to that.
  4. does that in some way run counter to my post? what I posted applies to those who come to the conclusion that Trump is a lesser evil than Hillary. Any Trump vote seems utterly indefensible.
  5. Is anyone else struggling with seeing all Trump voters as unworthy of sympathy and any Trump vote as wholly indefensible? I say "struggle" because feeling this way toward huge swaths of the populace isn't really morally right, but nothing I've read or seen or witnessed of the various people making up Trump support is remotely sympathetic or reasonable to me. is it unfair to understand his support as a combination of the following: -racists, xenos, misogynists -the woefully gullible (I'm including "normal" republicans voting for the home team tribalistically, because party over country, how bad could he really be, right?) even those who "just want change" have no ground to stand on; even if it is desirable to shake up the whole system from scratch, Trump is absolutely not the person who should be at the helm of that mission, and one has to be incredibly naive to think otherwise. Or totally unable to understand that not all change is good change-- change isn't exactly a self-evident positive. I get that my east coast super liberal urban disdain for them/ their voting choice exacerbates the issue, but I'm still really struggling to be tolerant or sympathetic toward this. Is anyone else going through this?
  6. US Elections - From Russia with Love

    I can't address all of this right now but how on earth can you chalk these allegations and characterization a up to the media? He-- himself-- presents himself this way. He clearly believes that this "persona" is of great value and/ or virtue. "The media" is not running his Twitter account! Is trump also part of this media conspiracy against him? You are basically suggesting that trump could be pulling off a Prestige-level deception of his apparently more palatable inner self, despite decades suggesting the contrary. That article you quoted stated that these people who follow trump are powerless and legitimately fucked over by the system: The reason they resonated is that people have been so fucked by the prevailing order in such deep and fundamental and enduring ways that they can’t imagine that anything is worse than preservation of the status quo. You have this huge portion of the populace in both the U.K. and the US that is so angry and so helpless that they view exploding things without any idea of what the resulting debris is going to be to be preferable to having things continue Are these people actually worse off and powerless? Or is their feeling this way the product of thinking only in binaries and seeing the world as zero sum, the idea that if things are better for previously oppressed classes it must be worse for them? As trump supporters have been known to point out the average income for a trump supporter is apparently higher than for Hillary. on the rest of your post I honestly can't believe that you question whether his campaign of fear hate and hypocrisy is "bad" for the country.
  7. US Elections - From Russia with Love

    Altherion, what is your incentive for writing the kinds of posts like the one quoted below and the one wondering whether there's a better man behind Trump's odious public "act?" I'm genuinely asking-- why are you holding out hope that Trump is somehow less disgraceful than he's shown us? Ok, so you say these interviews don't make him seem unreasonable. But how many interviews in general have you read that make their subjects seem utterly reprehensible and unreasonable? If it was common practice, no one would ever agree to an interview with that reporter or publication. Despite that, we do know that he's a misogynist from various comments he's made over the years. We also know he's deeply problematic and petty because of his long history of viciously and totally enforcing confidentiality agreements (I don't think most other companies with non disclosure policies are as litigious about it as he's famous for being). We know he's a con man, because of things like Trump University. We also know that he historically shirks responsibility, as he has a pattern of not paying his workers. We know he's incredibly reckless and not a fraction of the genius businessman he claims to be because of the string of bankruptcies he's left behind. And I could keep going with this. All of which is totally consistent with his public persona. Are you suggesting that all of these actions of his are also an act? I wish NBC would start releasing the unedited Apprentices, as I've heard he's even more odious and outrageous in what was left out. But ok, even if this guy is only Joffrey Baratheon Reborn in public (but has a really good heart behind the facade), why in god's name does that matter??? He's fear-mongering. He's normalizing racism, misogyny, Islamaphobia, ablism, and xenophobia. He's glorifying bullying. Do you honestly believe that the fact that someone with his public persona-- facade or not-- so close to the presidency, is not extremely damaging already?
  8. U.S. Elections: The Trumph of the Will

    @Dr. Pepper Why? Did she present a policy platform that is even remotely palatable? ETA: Just read some snippets. From NPR: "He is colorblind and gender neutral," she said to applause. "When Donald Trump is in charge, all that counts is ability, excellence and effort." Yeah, no. This is fucking offensive. Yea seriously, kill me now. I just honestly don't understand why everyone jumps on the Ivanka train like this. It seems so abundantly clear that she is nothing more than a more polished, better coiffed version of her shameless father. Other than her sexism/ racism apology/ denial, her speech was proposing progressive policies geared toward helping women. The sort of proposals that are in Hillary's platform (and in the Dem platform more generally). Great, you'd think. Except when you remember that A. her entire business is about a lifestyle brand for working women, so this speech about equal pay and affordable child care and the like is basically free advertisement for more street cred for her website and clothing line, B. giving her plausible deniability to preserve her brand (or, god help us, possible political career) in the face of her father's odious politics, C. has nothing to do with anything in Trump's campaign or platform. I mean, none of these things she brought up has fuck all to do with anything (well, outside of Hillary's campaign), D. all to basically mislead women into believing that this super misogynistic candidate has their best interests at heart.
  9. US Elections: My religion Trumps yours

    Are you sure, though? You argued in favor of Trump because you believe he has more integrity of sorts (that he truly believes these things he says), as well as on your belief that he genuinely intends to make the things better: Can you explain what you believe is behind why "establishment" politicians are afraid of Trump? That is, I'm asking if you wouldn't mind articulating what you believe it is about him that they are afraid of. As an adjacent issue, could you also articulate why alarming the "establishment" in that way is such a self-evidently good thing?
  10. US Elections: My religion Trumps yours

    In other words the American mentality is basically a Stannis-Dany thread circa 2012-3. Except with consequences. And with one candidate who is objectively unequivocally utterly devoid of virtue. I just really don't understand how anyone can honestly see Trump as anything but comically, uniformly unfit, or as remotely preferable to anyone barring the most petulant toddlers who also happen to suffer from intense auto-erotic narcissism (saying nothing of the relentless assault on truth and human decency for a moment- you'd think his pissant persona would be a turn off no matter what the content). None of the justifications I see make any sense at all that I can tell.
  11. US Elections: My religion Trumps yours

    These things you say Hillary will do that makes her unfit for presidency are things Trump brags about doing, save, perhaps, adopting accents. Could you expand on what has led you to believe that Trump truly wants to make things better-- specifically where it applies to making things better for those whose last name is not Trump? What does an "i'm a woman in the White House" tour mean? bringing in her #girl squad to insta pics in matching flag onesies?
  12. US Elections: My religion Trumps yours

    I suspect that for lots of women who support him, either A. They've convinced themselves that he's not actually misogynist for some inexplicable reason (perhaps tribalistic justification to stick with the GOP ticket?), B. They personally subscribe to a sexist worldview despite being women (surprisingly common) or C. They feel like they're taking a stance that differentiates themselves from the more "excitable" and "weak" women/ feminists who need to be coddled with PC behavior-- it establishes them as "winners" of a fashion or something like that.
  13. U.S. Elections: American Hitler 2016

    How many people who hold these (what you're calling "beyond the pale") beliefs seek to come here? And how many of those who hold these beliefs and come here act on said beliefs? Is the issue for you that people who want to come here shouldn't hold these beliefs even if they never act on it, that the virtue is simply in keeping one more person with these beliefs out? If this is the idea, then isn't there something to be said for us to let them in instead, on the principle that immersion in this more liberal society might serve to change their beliefs more than remaining in their previous culture will? One possibly fewer adherent of toxic ideology for the world?
  14. U.S. Elections: American Hitler 2016

    I remarked on this somewhat in the next post I made-- Are there that many new immigrants to the states who hold these more egregious beliefs who then go on to commit those crimes? It was my understanding that the majority of these more recent attacks have been carried out by second or third gen citizens. Which would not be captured in this questionnaire. And that more "garden variety" misogyny, racism, homophobia and general hate you are distinguishing as less egregious (which yes, seems reasonable to do) seems to be responsible for a lot more tragedy over here-- fully homegrown-- than these more egregious beliefs being isolated from best I can tell.
  15. U.S. Elections: American Hitler 2016

    I understand the technical legal argument you're making in favor of this. But there's something really bizare to me in being a nation where almost half hold such avowedly odious beliefs, yet blocking newcomers who hold certain of these beliefs under the auspices that those beliefs are un American. As a second issue, how many first gen immigrants actually go on to commit these acts on their adopted countries in the first place? Haven't the vast majority of these been carried out by second or third generation citizens, radicalized via (essentially) webinars and the like that Isis puts out? What would this questionnaire even really accomplish? Moreover what use is it to make distinctions about a more "garden variety" homophobia or misogyny versus people who believe that women and homosexuals should be stoned? Are there that many instances of women and homosexuals being stoned by first gen immigrants here? I'm not aware of any (has it happened?) but I do know that hate crimes against gays, trans men and women, and violence against women are Very much happening, very much by people holding these "garden variety" levels of -phobia/ -geny. Im not convinced that there's a correlation between the questions you're proposing and reducing hate crimes or terror.