Are you guys done beating up the strawman? Trolls ain't gon' scare themselves off our memefield.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Ohh, didn't realize it was a penis thing. The nuance of beating on a strawman vs beating off on a strawman is subtle.
Lots of people glad not to see President Clinton, though.
How on earth could you possibly think that THIS is better?!
I'm sorry you are incapable of seeing any possible benefits to this administration over another Clinton administration. Given how you've reacted over the election period I don't have any hope that I can possibly assuage your darkest fears, so I'm not going to waste time saying stuff that's already been said.
I hope you understand that I'm taking a wait and see attitude. I didn't vote for him, but I can see some ways in which he will be better, some ways where he'll be worse.
It doesn't affect him negatively in any way. There's probably a few of us who benefit in some ways from Trump's intentions. There are also many more who may suffer from him.
The people who cried when Romney wasn't elected and the people who cried when Clinton wasn't elected aren't remotely similar.
Really at this point it doesn't matter. Unless Trump steps down or the EC does something, we're stuck with this.
FTFY for that 2008 feel.
Yeah guys, member when Obama campaigned y saying "If you elect, i will take away everyone's guns, until we find out what's going on, believe me."
While I do not agree with some of what he says, and I think there's some bad logic leaps and meh sources in there, I generally think this was a good read: You Are Still Crying Wolf. Hadn't heart of Trump's past history with the KKK, for example.
IIRC he opposed concealed carry, and wanted to re-instate the "assault rifle" ban, known dog-whistles for complete government ban on guns, which is why nobody has guns anymore.
I'm not against the idea of more thought being put into what to do prior to doing it, much like one has to pay closer attention to the manual the first few times operating the equipment.
I realize that's no guarantee the decisions will be better, of course.
--Patrick
I can see ways in which a republican WH might be desirable, and even ways in which "an outsider" might be a good pick, but I have a hard time getting anything positive out of a Trump presidency. Everything I've seen and heard so far - from the left and right wing media, thank you very much - is scary, dangerous, hporrible, a step backwards, or a combination. if it was, say, a third GW Bush term, who was widely called a crappy and incompetent president, there'd stil lbe a lot of gnashing of teeth and wailing and The End Is near crying from the left, but at least most people would believe there'd still be a USA afterwards, where liberty and respect and so on are a thing. Trump is in many ways the very, very worst of all worlds. His picks, his suggestions, his ideas, his leadership choices and their ideas and statements truly and seriously fill me with dread. Pulling out of "all of that global warming nonsense" is very literally a way in which Trump might doom us all in 50 years. Having someone in charge of healthcare who thinks vaccines cause autism is dangerous and could lead to a resurgence of several nearly-wiped-out diseases. The way they're talking about Muslims should horrify anyone who claims to like freedom of religion. The way he's refusing to put his property in a blind trust but is openly and bazenly flirting with nepotism and the limits of "conflict of interest" even before taking office is telling. We already know from his many, many statements about women, justice, people of color, etc that he's barely got any morality. The fact he'll likely be choosing 2 or maybe even 3 SC Justices is a baffling thought and will most likely make sure the power will now definitively move away from people to corporations.
No, there's no ways in which a Trump presidency might be "better". It might not be the literal end of the world, but he may very well contribute to that in an actual, meaningful way.
Nah, man, we just gotta wait and see, gonna ride this one out and hope for the best, you get me?
In related news, steinman grows some gooooood stuff.
I SWEAR TO FUCKING GOD I WILL TURN THIS PLANE AROUND!!!
Expecting him to gain more white racists when they literally have no one but republicans to vote for is kind of rich.
And he got more black votes then the guys that ran against a black guy? Funny how that's an argument now when back then "the blacks" where being racist for voting based on race.
Harping on the racism thing was a mistake because clearly enough people don't much care for muslims, and at least with the mexicans he only talked about the illegals. But lets not pretend that Trump was basically playing dumb over David Duke to court a certain demographic.
Sure, he's likely not a racist himself, but he certainly courted them for his own gain. And like with the attacks on polish people in the UK, emboldening racists is never a good idea.
Oh, and KKK membership isn't required to share in their beliefs, or to just be racists but not as bad.
Well that's clearly the same as saying he wanted to ban all muslims from entering the country...
Look, Trump didn't imply those things, he outright said them. Even if he was lying about it, it still encouraged certain people.
May I suggest you do some investigation before you write such idiotic claims?
Read this:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN13B05C?feedType=RSS
So here's the upshot:
1. At points during his campaign trump has indicated that he wouldn't be opposed to bringing back a registry that bush set up after 9/11 which had much more strict registration procedures and even parole type procedures for immigrants from certain countries. It didn't target muslims, technically, but given the countries involved it practically did. A lot has been written about this registry, and it was discontinued before it ever saw a court ruling on constitutionality.
2. There is absolutely no basis for the claim of Muslim interment camps. Perhaps someone you trust is telling you a slippery slope story. I don't see any basis in reality that suggests Trump is repeating World War Two measures.
3. The current kerfuffle is coming from a hardline anti-immigration person who suggests they are considering sending a recommendation that suggests they implement that registry.
Which is a roundabout way of saying
"It's maybe possible that a person who is not trump but is believed to be on the trump transition team is currently considering the possibility of suggesting how and why they would reestablish an immigrant program that existed for a period of time after 9/11."
You might indeed interpret that to say with certainty, "Trump administration is starting the process for the internment of Muslims" but you would be spreading blatantly false information.
The only reason why I'm even bothering responding to you particularly ignorant claims is because it seems a few others here who are usually better informed than you seem to believe what you are saying.
If can't be bothered to fact check your sources, don't bother spreading their claims. It only continues to confirm that you choose active ignorance.
In the same way that Obama promised to close Guantanamo, then changed his mind once he understood the peculiar situation that is that facility, I expect Trump to evolve as he better understands the administrative job he has. I don't think he's an idiot, nor do I believe he's literally unreasonable. I'm sure he will stick to his guns on some things, but I expect he will alter or soften his position on a lot of issues. He already has in some ways.
And that's all before the checks and balances in the system which so many people suddenly believe will fail now that we have a "bad guy" in one branch.
Will he restart the high risk immigrant registry? Will he target muslims? Maybe. Maybe not. It's not clear right now, but let's say he does. Does it call for interment camps? No.
So not only are we several steps removed from even the possibility of restarting an old program, but it never included the horror that you suggest he is already taking steps to implement.
Media reports suggest that I may be eventually influenced by a man who has claimed that he is considering advising me to reinstate a program I followed weeks ago where I stopped responding directly to your political posts where you chose not to cite reasonable sources.
Feel free to interpret that however you like.
GasBandit
Staff member
Thank you for not deleting that post until after I'd had a chance to read it.
--Patrick
Last edited:
Star Slate Codex is great, so many of his posts are eminently re-readable.[DOUBLEPOST=1479488518,1479488425][/DOUBLEPOST]Edit: Especially - I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup and The Toxoplasma of Rage
AKA population map?
It's an interesting argument both ways. Why should a tiny state with almost no one in it have such influence over the election? Or, why should the big states dominate every decision while ignoring the smaller ones?
Neither side of the argument owns the high ground. I wish I had a better solution. The polarization of this country means there's always a significant chunk of the country fucking pissed after an election, no matter the outcome. No one would be bitching about the EC if we didn't literally hate both candidates.