Play Nice 2016 US Presidential Election Part 3 - Trump d Clinton

[Bomberboyokay]

What are you on about?
I have copped so much in my life and you refer to them as insults but are up in arms because Christmas is not celebrated in schools?
Think you need to take a reality check.

The "Ban on Christmas" isn't a real thing, people just ****ing make it up.

 

[Hoooops]

But given those who have lead the call for political correctness have not leant on left groups to tow the line and stop whinging it is little wonder a growing portion of the population want to dump it.

If by "left groups" you mean minority groups, then you have just highlighted the problem.

I'm a gay man and I identify more as a conservative than a liberal, however it is only the left wing that really campaigns for my rights in issues such as marriage equality. Minority groups who have traditionally been treated as second-class citizens need to "whinge" to be heard, or else nothing changes. The left provides a platform for these voices to be heard.

Logically, the whinging will die down when your sexuality, gender and race don't decide your social status.

 

[Viceregal]

But given those who have lead the call for political correctness have not leant on left groups to tow the line and stop whinging it is little wonder a growing portion of the population want to dump it.

- Chanting kill the cops
- Specifying a particular colour that matters
- Rioting, pillaging, looting, burning when some other colour shoots one of yours (while ignoring the circumstances, ignoring it when you kill them or you kill your own etc)
- Sermons in your churches that are explicitly anti another colour
- Even *having* churches your own colour
- plackards with Kill *insert other colour here*
- Police afraid to touch you not because you are innocent but because you are a particular colour
- Getting otgers in trouble for cultural appropriation when they do things that are publically perceived as 'yours'
etc etc etc

Imagine firstly that these were referring to the colour white ... eg a white church preaching against blacks, a white man holding up a sign saying Kill Blacky, wearing shirts saying Only White Lives Matter, white mobs randomly attacking blacks they see because a white cop killed a white man, white men chanting kill the cops etc ... reaction ... response?

If a white man did it and would be crucified for it and a black man isn't then either the one getting away with it is receiving special treatment or the one getting done for it is being persecuted...

If it is hate speech for one then it is hate speech for the other ... if it is robust communication from one then it is robust communication from the other. Otherwise it is bias and naturally going to generate negative feedback.

There is a saying that goes around that to the left the right's speech is violence and the left's violence is speech. However valid you perceive that sentiment to be it is a perception that includes a bias ... and when. Milo walking into a room is counted as an attack and a mob torching cars and beating bystanders is considered legitimate protest then you might start to wonder as to whether the umpire really is biased against your team!

 

[DrEvil_]

- Chanting kill the cops
- Specifying a particular colour that matters
- Rioting, pillaging, looting, burning when some other colour shoots one of yours (while ignoring the circumstances, ignoring it when you kill them or you kill your own etc)
- Sermons in your churches that are explicitly anti another colour
- Even *having* churches your own colour
- plackards with Kill *insert other colour here*
- Police afraid to touch you not because you are innocent but because you are a particular colour
- Getting otgers in trouble for cultural appropriation when they do things that are publically perceived as 'yours'
etc etc etc

Imagine firstly that these were referring to the colour white ... eg a white church preaching against blacks, a white man holding up a sign saying Kill Blacky, wearing shirts saying Only White Lives Matter, white mobs randomly attacking blacks they see because a white cop killed a white man, white men chanting kill the cops etc ... reaction ... response?

If a white man did it and would be crucified for it and a black man isn't then either the one getting away with it is receiving special treatment or the one getting done for it is being persecuted...

If it is hate speech for one then it is hate speech for the other ... if it is robust communication from one then it is robust communication from the other. Otherwise it is bias and naturally going to generate negative feedback.

There is a saying that goes around that to the left the right's speech is violence and the left's violence is speech. However valid you perceive that sentiment to be it is a perception that includes a bias ... and when. Milo walking into a room is counted as an attack and a mob torching cars and beating bystanders is considered legitimate protest then you might start to wonder as to whether the umpire really is biased against your team!

Why imagine? We went through that

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Biased media!

Nice of Megyn to come out with this after the election. I hope all those journalists who took gifts get exposed.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

View attachment 309526
The damn media, and so it starts. Way to ruin a good day. Has he been allowed to tweet again?

Just came across some very interesting photos of Melania (banning offence if I posted) of a shoot in 1996. No, not posting link. Don't you just hate the web.
Good warning for those that post photos on social media, there forever.

Who the **** gets all self pitying less than 48 hours after winning the presidency? What a joke.

 

[Betty Noir]

Its very short sighted to blame this on racism, sexism or bigotry.

The reason for the win was socialist policy being offered to the rust belt states, which resonated with former trade unionists.

Whilst this election has certainly emboldened racists, sexists and mysoginists, it wasn't the reason for Trump's victory. And its outright ridiculous to claim everyone who voted for Trump did so purely because of hate/racism etc.

True, not only because of his "agenda" regarding "outsiders"... they voted for him because of their dissatisfaction in all sorts of areas loosely called "the system".
They ranked this above his promised (illegal/unconstitutional) human rights abuses, (documented fact: water boarding, killing family of terrorists, religious freedom, press freedom, etcetc)
However they were able to justify to themselves that voting for a racist is okay.
So, they seem complicit to me. They are okay with it. This means they do harbour some racist views. If you turn your back on it, you are guilty in my opinion.
Uneducated folk will do this. I feel sorry for them. Educated folk doing it, bad form.

 

[happy_eagle]

I didnt realise how bad white people have had it, until I read this thread
Poor folks, hope they are OK

Thanks Bigfooty

 

[QuietB]

That number is way off. It's more about 51-52% who voted. About a 3-4% drop compared to 2012

Doesn't 25.6 and 25.5 = 51.1

 

[QuietB]

View attachment 309526
The damn media, and so it starts. Way to ruin a good day. Has he been allowed to tweet again?

Just came across some very interesting photos of Melania (banning offence if I posted) of a shoot in 1996. No, not posting link. Don't you just hate the web.
Good warning for those that post photos on social media, there forever.

That is hilarious. Confirmation that it is not rigged anymore

The first backflip of many

 

[Maggie5]

That is hilarious. Confirmation that it is not rigged anymore
The first backflip of many

Who the **** gets all self pitying less than 48 hours after winning the presidency? What a joke.

I would have thought it would have been a great opportunity to address it in terms of acknowledging, addressing then offer carrot geared towards uniting.

Too much to ask?

 

[JeffDunne]

Biased media!

Nice of Megyn to come out with this after the election. I hope all those journalists who took gifts get exposed.

Ms. Kelly writes that her problems started in August, the Monday before the first Republican presidential primary debate. She had just done a segment on her show, “The Kelly File,” that infuriated Mr. Trump. He refused to make his own scheduled appearance on her show unless she phoned him personally.

“I almost unleashed my beautiful Twitter account against you,” she says he told her, “and I still may.”
Continue reading the main story

Then, the day before the first presidential debate, Mr. Trump was in a lather again, Ms. Kelly writes. He called Fox executives, saying he’d heard that her first question “was a very pointed question directed at him.” This disconcerted her, because it was true: It was about his history of using disparaging language about women.

She doesn’t speculate where the leak came from. (She reports. You decide.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/b...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


Interesting that Donald too was getting debate questions from friendly media. Yet Kelly doesn't report this?

Man, talk about the biggest con ever to be had on the American people.

 

[Gough]

Who the **** gets all self pitying less than 48 hours after winning the presidency? What a joke.

It's not a good sign of things to come, imagine what he might do if he had the power to act against them.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Its very short sighted to blame this on racism, sexism or bigotry.

The reason for the win was socialist policy being offered to the rust belt states, which resonated with former trade unionists.

Whilst this election has certainly emboldened racists, sexists and mysoginists, it wasn't the reason for Trump's victory. And its outright ridiculous to claim everyone who voted for Trump did so purely because of hate/racism etc.

His economic/anti-'the system' narrative certainly helped him get over the line. But his racism and misogyny, and the firm backing America's racists and misogynists gave him, shouldn't be downplayed in the least. There was nothing close to 60,000,000 desperately poor people voting for him.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

True, not only because of his "agenda" regarding "outsiders"... they voted for him because of their dissatisfaction in all sorts of areas loosely called "the system".
They ranked this above his promised (illegal/unconstitutional) human rights abuses, (documented fact: water boarding, killing family of terrorists, religious freedom, press freedom, etcetc)
However they were able to justify to themselves that voting for a racist is okay.
So, they seem complicit to me. They are okay with it. This means they do harbour some racist views. If you turn your back on it, you are guilty in my opinion.
Uneducated folk will do this. I feel sorry for them. Educated folk doing it, bad form.

Its not really about education, its about self interest.

If a candidate comes along and says he's going to reinvigorate your community with economic activity - even if he's a crass moron with questionable morals - you have to take that chance. I know what its like in small towns in Australia that have lost their way due to mass migration and corporations buying up the farms - they'd take a guy like Trump every day of the week.

And let's be honest, he isn't even the worst bloke to be elected President of the USA. Maybe the least aware of what he says, but not the worst bloke.

 

[james Dean]

Doesn't 25.6 and 25.5 = 51.1

Yeah, and?

 

[Betty Noir]

Ms. Kelly writes that her problems started in August, the Monday before the first Republican presidential primary debate. She had just done a segment on her show, “The Kelly File,” that infuriated Mr. Trump. He refused to make his own scheduled appearance on her show unless she phoned him personally.

“I almost unleashed my beautiful Twitter account against you,” she says he told her, “and I still may.”
Continue reading the main story

Then, the day before the first presidential debate, Mr. Trump was in a lather again, Ms. Kelly writes. He called Fox executives, saying he’d heard that her first question “was a very pointed question directed at him.” This disconcerted her, because it was true: It was about his history of using disparaging language about women.

She doesn’t speculate where the leak came from. (She reports. You decide.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/b...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


Interesting that Donald too was getting debate questions from friendly media. Yet Kelly doesn't report this?

Man, talk about the biggest con ever to be had on the American people.

Ailes. Her boss who got sacked for sexual harassment... Trump's key advisor.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

His economic/anti-'the system' narrative certainly helped him get over the line. But his racism and misogyny, and the firm backing America's racists and misogynists gave him, shouldn't be downplayed in the least. There was nothing close to 60,000,000 desperately poor people voting for him.

You don't have to be 'desperately' poor though.

If you're from a small town in Wisconsin and Michigan you might still be employed. But you remember when you used to have an actual good job and your town felt like a real community.

I've said it many times, but parties like the Dems and ALP haven't really done shit to improve the lives of the average working stiff for a long time, because as long as they can get the inner city, uni students etc voting for them along with the minority votes they can still win elections. They were able to do this because their conservative counterparts in the Repubs and LNP don't care about working stiffs either so they'd still get a decent portion of votes from those working stiffs they'd long since abandoned.

But then a non-conservative, non-neoliberal candidate comes along and starts talking about socialist economics to an audience incredibly receptive to it.

If an LNP candidate ran for election on the basis of nationalising our natural resources, bringing manufacturing jobs back to Australia and value adding businesses etc. I'd probably vote for them because I want those economic benefits, regardless of whether that person has said some shitty stuff. Bob Katter would be a good example.

 

[Maggie5]

Question:
Does the US have public servants like we do here so that when a new government comes in they are assisted by PS?
Or does each new administration bring in those type of people too?

 

[Betty Noir]

Its not really about education, its about self interest.

If a candidate comes along and says he's going to reinvigorate your community with economic activity - even if he's a crass moron with questionable morals - you have to take that chance. I know what its like in small towns in Australia that have lost their way due to mass migration and corporations buying up the farms - they'd take a guy like Trump every day of the week.

And let's be honest, he isn't even the worst bloke to be elected President of the USA. Maybe the least aware of what he says, but not the worst bloke.

If someone doesn't understand the nuances of racial invective then it's excusable. (Perhaps like the young girl who didn't mean to vilify Goodes.)
But when a person with a wider world view does it, (Maguire referencing King Kong and Goodes), it is unacceptable.
I can't see any time that it may be justified because "times are tough for me".
The reality will be, that if the candidate harbours these views, and the electorate condones it, then "their times" are not going to get better. They will get worse. In many different ways.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

If someone doesn't understand the nuances of racial invective then it's excusable. (Perhaps like the young girl who didn't mean to vilify Goodes.)
But when a person with a wider world view does it, (Maguire referencing King Kong and Goodes), it is unacceptable.
I can't see any time that it may be justified because "times are tough for me".
The reality will be, that if the candidate harbours these views, and the electorate condones it, then "their times" are not going to get better. They will get worse. In many different ways.

But is Trump genuinely racist?

He certainly tapped into the fears of both regular workers and racists by talking about illegal mexican migration and the wall. But he has also said that he wants immigration from Mexico as long as they go through the correct process and that he will be very considerate towards people who might be undocumented but arrived as children.

As a voter I don't think you need to vote for everyone in the country about what is best for everyone. I think you need to vote in self interest (something Australians are notoriously bad at I'll add) to an extent.

You can very easily vote for a guy like Trump if you think he's going to significantly improve your economic life (the most important life anyone has) whilst disagreeing with his morals and comments about women.

 

[Betty Noir]

Question:
Does the US have public servants like we do here so that when a new government comes in they are assisted by PS?
Or does each new administration bring in those type of people too?

President will appoint 4000 new staff.

 

[Gypsy King]

The Democrats might hate Trump at the moment, but when the Republicans want to overturn or repeal same sex verdicts (because the Republicans will attack same sex marriage), it will be Trump that stands up for same sex supporters, and it will Trump that stands up for LBGTQ. He isnt as bad as the guy they seen beat Hillary. Trump had to fight dirty to win, that much he understood. That is the difference between a Trump and a Romney. Trump gets the job done. He will be a candidate for both parties.

 

[Slax]

What are you on about?
I have copped so much in my life and you refer to them as insults but are up in arms because Christmas is not celebrated in schools?
Think you need to take a reality check.

What I'm on about is that there is a difference between being politically incorrect and insulting people. If you don't understand the difference then try, because they aren't the same so stop pretending they are.