U.S. Elections: Trumpsterfire Unchained

[Maester Drew]

@Daniel Plainview

Quote

Easily, the right wing is ignorant and filled with mostly white people. They are anti lgbtqia, they are racist, they are misogynistic.

BTW, Ben Shapiro is a fucking daft shit. So we must have different definitions of what bright is.  

Anti-LGBT? So... why does the Republican Party have the Log Cabin Republicans? And they certainly didn't boo Peter Thiel off the stage at the RNC, so maybe they're not as "anti-lgbt" as you make them out be.

Racist? Huh... maybe you should tell that to Republican senators Tim Scott (a black man) and Marco Rubio (a Hispanic). Maybe the right-wing isn't as 'racist' as you make it out to be.

Misogynistic? Just take a look at the Governor of New Mexico, she's a woman and Latina. And of course, she isn't the only female politician in the GOP, there's Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and so on. Maybe, the right-wing isn't as 'misogynistic' as you make it out to be.

As for Ben, he's an excellent orator and debater who presents well-reasoned arguments for his views. Plus, for someone so "daft" he graduated from Harvard Law School.

@Kalbear

Quote

Because for the most part the right wing - especially the alt-right that you so admire - is the group that has the following:

I never said I admired the alt-right. All I said was I admired certain figures within the movement, namely Milo Yiannopoulos. Why do I admire him? Simply put, he's a fucking bad-ass! First, he bravely speaks his mind, despite all the vociferous protests from triggered students and faculty when he lectures at a university (which reminds me, I wish I had attended one of the universities on his Dangerous Faggot Tour). Secondly, he doesn't pull any punches when he speaks candidly about Islam. And finally, he isn't afraid to tackle Neo-Feminism (aka Third-Wave) head on. He's awesome!

Now, that isn't to say I agree with him on everything. For example, he credits one of the key principles of Western Civilization, civil rights and democracy, with our "Judeo-Christian" heritage. That's simply wrong. They came about as a result of the Enlightenment, not the Bible. And achievements like democracy came about due to pagans, the Greeks.

To save space on this already long post, I'll respond within quote. They'll be in red and italicized.

Quote

• believes that climate change is a hoax. Some do, which is regrettable.
• believes that Obama is a Muslim. Yes, that's moronic. No one should care about the religion of the president.
• believes that Obama is not a US citizen. Trump has since recanted that view, as you well know, and since he is so infuential among his supporters, maybe they'll heed his words.
• believes that religion beats law of land. Examples?
• believes that gay rights are sinful. Not really. While it's true some view homosexuality as a sin, that doesn't necessarily mean they hate gay people. Remember the Christian adage: hate the sin, not the sinner. Besides, if they were so anti-gay, they would've run of people like Milo instead of embracing him.
• believes that women's rights are sinful. That's nonsense. They only oppose Neo-Feminism as a political ideology, they aren't against women's rights. Otherwise, they wouldn't be commenting on the horrid treatment of women in Muslim countries.
• is likely racist. Some are, but most aren't.
• openly supports white supremacy. Not necessarily, most are only concerned with the future of the white race, given the plmmeting birth rates among that demographic group in Europe.
• openly and unironically supports mens rights movements. And? Why is that a problem? The Mens' Right Movement brings much-needed attention to issues pertaining to men.

 

[Crazydog7]

5 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

@Daniel Plainview
@Kalbear

 

To save space on this already long post, I'll respond within quote. They'll be in red and italicized.

 

 

 

Yeah thanks for clearing that up. 

[Dr. Pepper]

8 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

@Daniel Plainview

Anti-LGBT? So... why does the Republican Party have the Log Cabin Republicans? And they certainly didn't boo Peter Thiel of the stage at the RNC, so maybe they're not as "anti-lgbt" as you make them out be.

Racist? Huh... maybe you should tell that to Republican senators Tim Scott (a black man) and Marco Rubio (a Hispanic). Maybe the right-wing isn't as 'racist' as you make it out to be.

Misogynistic? Just take a look at the Governor of New Mexico, she's a woman and Latina. And of course, she isn't the only female politician in the GOP, there's Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and so on. Maybe, the right-wing isn't as 'misogynistic' as you make it out to be.

 

@Kalbear

So basically what you're saying is some of the Republican Party's best friends are gay black women so they can't be racist misogynistic anti-lgbt bigots, just ignore all that policy they keep passing or trying to pass.

[Ormond]

10 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

@Daniel Plainview

Anti-LGBT? So... why does the Republican Party have the Log Cabin Republicans? And they certainly didn't boo Peter Thiel of the stage at the RNC, so maybe they're not as "anti-lgbt" as you make them out be.

 

Honestly, the Log Cabin Republicans THEMSELVES say that the 2016 Republican platform is the most anti-LGBT in history:

http://www.logcabin.org/pressrelease/a-message-on-the-gop-platform-from-log-cabin-republicans-president-gregory-t-angelo/

The idea that the national Republican party is not in fact"anti-gay"because the Log Cabin organization exists and Peter Thiel was not "booed off the stage" is just about the weakest argument I have seen anybody make about anything on this thread. You are really saying that in order to not be "anti-" members of a certain group, there literally can be NO members of that group who identify with the party, and people who are openly members of that group MUST be treated so rudely by convention goers that they feel they have to leave the stage? That's just ludicrous. There were a few people of Jewish descent in Germany during World War II who proudly identified with the Nazi party. That doesn't mean the Nazis were not anti-Semitic. 

I will let others deal with the rest of your post. 

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Someone mentioned earlier how Clinton can't be that good, because against Trump she should be winning by 50 points.

No president in history has won by that much. The biggest blowout in popular vote in the last 50 years was with LBJ winning over Goldwater - the previously worst candidate ever - at 61% and a 22% differential And that was an incredible, historic landslide against a divisive candidate who was opposed strongly by members of his own party. The biggest blowouts ever happened largely at the turn of the 20th, and were on the order of a 25% differential. And that was all before the stratified electorate system. 

An LBJ-size victory is probably out of the question at this point, but it could happen. 

Trump is on track to get Goldwater numbers, but Clinton won't get LBJ numbers - grumpy Republicans will go third-party instead. I think a better analogy is 1980 or (if things narrow) 1996.

[Kalbear]

40 minutes ago, Altherion said:

To be clear, it is Clinton herself who has asked “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?” and has been mocked for this ever since.

And to be clear if you had read the article she was repeating the question others have asked over and over.

[Ariadne23]

29 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

I never said I admired the alt-right. All I said was I admired certain figures within the movement, namely Milo Yiannopoulos. Why do I admire him? Simply put, he's a fucking bad-ass! First, he bravely speaks his mind, despite all the vociferous protests from triggered students and faculty when he lectures at a university (which reminds me, I wish I had attended one of the universities on his Dangerous Faggot Tour). Secondly, he doesn't pull any punches when he speaks candidly about Islam. And finally, he isn't afraid to tackle Neo-Feminism (aka Third-Wave) head on. He's awesome!

 

Now, that isn't to say I agree with him on everything. For example, he credits one of the key principles of Western Civilization, civil rights and democracy, with our "Judeo-Christian" heritage. That's simply wrong. They came about as a result of the Enlightenment, not the Bible. And achievements like democracy came about due to pagans, the Greeks.

 

What does "neo-feminism" mean in this context? I typically associate it with the movement to glorify/value the feminine, but it sounds like you might mean "radical feminism," or something like that, which is, I think, very different.

 

Also, does it feel strange to be so certain about things like, say, the origins of western civilization? I've never met anyone who thought the answers to questions that expansive were "simply" anything.

[butterbumps!]

34 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

@Daniel PlainviewI never said I admired the alt-right. All I said was I admired certain figures within the movement, namely Milo Yiannopoulos. Why do I admire him? Simply put, he's a fucking bad-ass! First, he bravely speaks his mind, despite all the vociferous protests from triggered students and faculty when he lectures at a university (which reminds me, I wish I had attended one of the universities on his Dangerous Faggot Tour). Secondly, he doesn't pull any punches when he speaks candidly about Islam. And finally, he isn't afraid to tackle Neo-Feminism (aka Third-Wave) head on. He's awesome!

Could I trouble you to give some examples of Milo's righteously "speaking his mind" on those subjects that you agree with (ostensibly his positions that you don't view as racist/ misogynist, but telling it like it is very bravely in the face of excitable sjw)?

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, LongRider said:

Trump is now unshackled, next stop, unshackling the polls as well.  Hey, it worked for Romney, right? 

Remember Unskewed Polls?

There is data and metrics for the reality based community.

And then there is alternate reality data for conservatives.

[The Anti-Targ]

35 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

 

Now, that isn't to say I agree with him on everything. For example, he credits one of the key principles of Western Civilization, civil rights and democracy, with our "Judeo-Christian" heritage. That's simply wrong. They came about as a result of the Enlightenment, not the Bible. And achievements like democracy came about due to pagans, the Greeks.

 

And Judaism was right there influencing thought in ancient Greece. And concepts of civil rights significantly pre-date the enlightenment. Milo is actually correct in asserting that the history of civilisation is the history of religion, except he's too narrowly defining it as Judaeo-Christian only.

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

Another canard is "conservatism cannot fail it can only be failed." The logical outcome of Paul Ryan's actions is that the conservative base will believe he was part of the "be failed" problem by not supporting trump. This means the RINO goalposts shift and a new round of purges and a more extreme version of trump ethos is in the cards in 2020, more extremely supported.

Trump isn't a conservative and the RNC and GOP elite know this.  But he captured the nomination and they thought he could win.  Surprise, his base isn't particularly conservative either, near as I can tell, though they would call themselves that.  Authoritarian, which is different from conservative.  Big Daddy Trump tells them 'how it is' and how they should think and who they should hate and they love him for it.  He changes his positions on abortion and other issues and they don't care.

Bob Altemeyer wrote a book about authoritarians and he felt it was so important he put his book online for anyone to read. (big ole pdf)  Here's a page discussing his studies and how this book came about.  It's worth it to take the time to read it.  

Trump isn't conservative enough, but that fool Gov. Paul LePage thinks he's authoritarian enough.  Hopefully, he'll crash and burn, but understanding him and other like him is something worth knowing.

[LongRider]

10 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Remember Unskewed Polls?

There is data and metrics for the reality based community.

And then there is alternate reality data for conservatives.

Yes, we'll always have the sweet, sweet memory of the unskewed polls, the binders full of women and 'Please proceed, Governor.'  Good times, good times.

 

[Maester Drew]

 

45 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Honestly, the Log Cabin Republicans THEMSELVES say that the 2016 Republican platform is the most anti-LGBT in history:

http://www.logcabin.org/pressrelease/a-message-on-the-gop-platform-from-log-cabin-republicans-president-gregory-t-angelo/

The idea that the national Republican party is not in fact"anti-gay"because the Log Cabin organization exists and Peter Thiel was not "booed off the stage" is just about the weakest argument I have seen anybody make about anything on this thread. You are really saying that in order to not be "anti-" members of a certain group, there literally can be NO members of that group who identify with the party, and people who are openly members of that group MUST be treated so rudely by convention goers that they feel they have to leave the stage? That's just ludicrous. There were a few people of Jewish descent in Germany during World War II who proudly identified with the Nazi party. That doesn't mean the Nazis were not anti-Semitic. 

I will let others deal with the rest of your post. 

 

Hmm... I never thought about it like. I'll have to ponder on this.

24 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

What does "neo-feminism" mean in this context? I typically associate it with the movement to glorify/value the feminine, but it sounds like you might mean "radical feminism," or something like that, which is, I think, very different.

 

Also, does it feel strange to be so certain about things like, say, the origins of western civilization? I've never met anyone who thought the answers to questions that expansive were "simply" anything.

I did clarify with adding "aka Third Wave" in parentheses immediately after "Neo-Feminism." If I got the terminolgy wrong, I apologize. I have heard modern feminism referred to as Neo-Feminism, Third-Wave Feminism, and Radical Feminism, so maybe its inconsistent or just a matter of preference.

As for my comments on Western Civilization, I wasn't speaking for the origins of the civilization as a whole, rather certain aspects of it. But I concede I could have worded it a bit better.

12 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

And Judaism was right there influencing thought in ancient Greece. And concepts of civil rights significantly pre-date the enlightenment. Milo is actually correct in asserting that the history of civilisation is the history of religion, except he's too narrowly defining it as Judaeo-Christian only.

Like I said above, I could have worded that paragraph better. The concepts of civil rights, democracy, etc. are deeply rooted in other cultures predominantly non-Judeo-Christian and came to fruition with the Enlightenment. Now, I'm not discounting the contributions made by Jewish and Christian men and women. Rather, specific dogmas and passages found in their religious texts had nothing to do with the development of democracy or civil rights.

21 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Could I trouble you to give some examples of Milo's righteously "speaking his mind" on those subjects that you agree with (ostensibly his positions that you don't view as racist/ misogynist, but telling it like it is very bravely against the excitable sjw)?

A good example I can think of is his interview with Dave Rubin, where he lays out his views on free speech, Islam, and feminism. Plus, there's also his lecture (along with Christina Hoff Summers and Steven Crowder) at the University of Massachusetts on free speech, political-correctness, micro-aggressions, and trigger-warnings.

[Inigima]

Milo Yiannopolous is a tremendous asshole. The right and alt-right have been confusing that with "speaking one's mind" for a while now.

In related news, arguing with a Milo fan is kind of a waste of time. You are not going to convince him that being a decent person is a good idea.

[butterbumps!]

1 minute ago, Maester Drew said:

A good example I can think of is his interview with Dave Rubin, where he lays out his views on free speech, Islam, and feminism. Plus, there's also his lecture (along with Christina Hoff Summers and Steven Crowder) at the University of Massachusetts on free speech, political-correctness, micro-aggressions, and trigger-warnings.

I am asking you for specific examples though (like quotes perhaps).  He's basically peddling racist and misogynistic vitriol to a specific type of audience.  So I am asking you what specific gems of brilliant, intrepid, unique insights you find so valuable in that slog, just so I don't misunderstand.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

“You can’t have it both ways here,” Obama said Tuesday during a rally in Greensboro, North Carolina. “You can’t repeatedly denounce what is said by someone and then say, ‘But I’m still gonna endorse them to be the most powerful person on the planet' and to put them in charge.’”

“So I just wanna make that point because there are still a number of Republican elected officials, some of whom I know and I’m sure are embarrassed and say, ‘Wow, that was a really terrible thing he said,’ but they can’t bring themselves to say, ‘I can’t endorse this guy,’” Obama told the energetic crowd of more than 7,000 people. “And by the way, why did it take so long for some of them to finally do walk away?”

 

Obama mocks Republicans for standing by Trump

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/obama-donald-trump-comments-women-229636

[David Selig]

Milo is a very boring troll. There is nothing brave about his tired routine. Some leftists will insult him online or maybe scream at him "Get out" when he comes to the university to give another silly speech, big deal.

[DraculaAD1972]

16 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

 Could I trouble you to give some examples of Milo's righteously "speaking his mind" on those subjects that you agree with (ostensibly his positions that you don't view as racist/ misogynist, but telling it like it is very bravely in the face of excitable sjw)?

Milo is all about free speech. It really is about resisting the SJW tactics of bullying alleged thought criminals. The dangerous effect of too much political correctness. Like the British rape gangs protected from investigation due to being Muslim and everyone shit scared of being seen as racist. Or the scientist who was sacked due to sjw pressure after saying some fairly mild things about women. Or the media suppression of immigrant sexual assaults in Europe due to racial sensitivity. All this shit accrues and while no one wants to return to the good old days of open racism and sexism, the strangling effect of the sjw narrative is something that needs to be resisted. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

“Despite winning the second debate in a landslide (every poll), it is hard to do well when Paul Ryan and others give zero support!” Trump wrote on Twitter earlier Tuesday morning, adding an hour later that “our very weak and ineffective leader, Paul Ryan, had a bad conference call where his members went wild at his disloyalty.”
He kept it going, essentially declaring war on the GOP. “With the exception of cheating Bernie out of the nom the Dems have always proven to be far more loyal to each other than the Republicans!” Trump later tweeted, following up that blast, with, “Disloyal R’s are far more difficult than Crooked Hillary. They come at you from all sides. They don’t know how to win - I will teach them!”

Unshackled Trump declares war on GOP
'It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me,' the Republican nominee tweets after Ryan abandoned him.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-declares-war-on-gop-229593

[The Anti-Targ]

6 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

Like I said above, I could have worded that paragraph better. The concepts of civil rights, democracy, etc. are deeply rooted in other cultures predominantly non-Judeo-Christian and came to fruition with the Enlightenment. Now, I'm not discounting the contributions made by Jewish and Christian men and women. Rather, specific dogmas and passages found in their religious texts had nothing to do with the development of democracy or civil rights.

 

The Torah established obligations of the slave owner towards the slave, hence civil rights for slaves. One might argue that the Torah should have abolished slavery, but the fact of the matter is the Bible does contain civil rights language. Possibly the very first civil rights ever formally recorded and established in a culture.

Quote

papal election decree 1059

Scholars interpret these rules to mean that the cardinal bishops were to nominate a candidate, that the lesser cardinal clergy were to approve him, and that the other clergy and the people were formally to accept him. The decree then quotes a passage from the letter of Pope leo i to Rusticus saying that no one could be truly a bishop unless he were elected by the clergy of his church, accepted by his people, and consecrated by the bishops of his province on the approval of their metropolitan. 

Sounds like the rudiments of democracy to me.