U.S. (your?) Presidential Election 2016 :)

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

Okay, since we have no elections this year here in Finland I decided to try something more important.

So no matter if it's Clinton or Trump, interesting times ahead to whole worlds. I myself find it a bit funny, to say, among my communities, since, even where politics should be a taboo, everyone is dissing Donald Trump so much that I'm willing to question it.

and in before anybody else, how about #unbanDarkSage lol

[Drago]

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c268/Squidomar/300707.jpg
All hail Lord Trump.

[Magmar]

help. get me out of this country. if yall weren't all married and shit, one of you could just wed me out of here! (i have a terminal degree and a great booty.)

[Knight of Time]

TBH, I don't like Trump, at all.

If a candidate has been shown to be racist, sexist, etc., then there's something seriously wrong with that person IMO. That is exactly why I don't want him to be the next president of the United States. If he becomes president and draws a lot of negative attention because of things he said to offend certain groups of people, then it's his own fault. On the other hand, I'm not against Hilary Clinton, but I'm quite certain she would be a better president than Donald Trump. But, I've been noticing that if she becomes president, that she might not be the first female president...am I right or wrong guys? I'm just hoping there isn't any conflicting research here.

And regarding the Dark Sage thing, allow me to post a picture with what I think of that:

http://classyratchet.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/GrogWatch-Parents-right-to-say-no-630x330.jpg

aka Mikachu, I really hope you are kidding about wanting him unbanned.

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

Vigdís Finnbogadóttir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigd%C3%ADs_Finnbogad%C3%B3ttir)

Also, I was trollolling for TPM nostalgia with the Dark Sage remark.

[Blademaster]

I'm rooting for Trump just because it's going to be funny as Hell. I'm already stocking up on popcorn.

[ChobiChibi]

Barry, I told you before, I'll adopt you :)

Nothing Trump has said has made me believe he'll do a good job. Has anyone heard about the London Mayoral elections? Britain First are campaigning against the winner because he's Muslim... Makes me sad. Imagine Trump having to work with him? Too much sadness :(

[Lady Vulpix]

help. get me out of this country. if yall weren't all married and shit, one of you could just wed me out of here! (i have a terminal degree and a great booty.)We're not all married. :rolleyes: But you don't need to get married in order to leave the country. Come here if you want, no one will bother you. And according to some TV shows you may end up finding a "Latin lover".

[RedStarWarrior]

Time to Make America Great Again!

I'll support anyone over Hillary.

[Jeff]

Oh yeah, that's going on.

We weren't supposed to survive Bush, but we did. We weren't supposed to survive Obama, but we did.

I'm not buying into all the craziness being thrown around this year. No matter who gets elected, we'll be fine.

[Lady Vulpix]

I'm less worried about whether you'll survive than I am about what the consequences may be for the world as a whole. After all, you did survive Bush but the whole world is still dealing with the consequences of the war he started. But it's not like either of the candidates cares about that.

[Zak]

Oh yeah, that's going on.

We weren't supposed to survive Bush, but we did. We weren't supposed to survive Obama, but we did.

I'm not buying into all the craziness being thrown around this year. No matter who gets elected, we'll be fine.

Don't forget Reagan. Hell, I wasn't around for his election, but I'm pretty sure he was getting as much dread/negative attention as Trump if not more.


Time to Make America Great Again!

I'll support anyone over Hillary.

Pretty much... this.

I'll say this though, I'm not too crazy about Trump being in that position (some of you may have noticed my user title a few weeks ago, it was just intended as jimmy-rustling satire). However, in his defense, I do believe that a lot of the negative things people associate him with and are afraid of, is just some stuff that the media overexaggerates.

For one, he didn't "call Mexicans rapists", which seems to be everyone's go-to scapegoat. He said that a lot of the ones crossing the border illegally are... which I'm sorry but many are. There is a lot of very shady shit happening at the border, even though the PC crowd likes to pretend there isn't (much like how the media desperately tried to cover up the Germany rapefest on New Years Eve in Cologne because it was perpetrated by Muslim refugees and God forbid anyone dare criticize Muslims, LOL while meanwhile they're busy trying to convince everyone that the USA is a 'rape culture' lmao). It seems to rustle a lot of jimmies for the PC crowd when people talk about minorities committing crimes, even if they aren't being hateful or generalizing, so instead they ignore them and pretend they don't happen.

Which Trump wasn't. Hell, he even said they were "not bringing in their best", which directly acknowledges that he wasn't addressing Mexicans as a whole or making any sort of blanket statement. The PC media seems to have missed that part.

So yes, I don't believe the guy is racist or prejudiced towards any minority or marginalized group. He's just anti-PC and likes to give SJWs the middle finger. Yes, that's bound to rustle a lot of jimmies and push a lot of buttons, but it's still not the same as being racist or sexist. The problem is many seem to think that not being PC makes one racist or something, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Hell I'm very critical of PC culture myself for the most part, but people who know me know that I'm neither of those things and have a heart of gold. I would be willing to hazard a guess that a lot of the support which has been helping him win isn't just from "uneducated" people (though I don't doubt many of them are), but a lot of people in the closet about being anti-PC who are secretly aggravated by the PC controlled environment they live in where you have to walk on eggshells to not offend anyone, and see him as a breath of fresh air.

However, that's not to say he doesn't go overboard and cross lines. Not with his views and positions/stances, but with his behavior. He is without a doubt narcissistic, and a jerk and a bully. But I think my biggest concern with him is that seems to have a tendency to act before he thinks... which can be potentially dangerous for someone who's in the white house. Could definitely see him starting wars.

So yes... he's a lot of things but most certainly not a bigot. But of course, anyone in politics who dares shy away from PC by criticizing or challenging it, is gonna get compared to George Wallace.

Well anyway, hopefully Bernie Sanders can turn this around...

[Roy Karrde]

You know I am so burned out on politics I don't care.. I am just staying here in Japan.

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

*sees that Roy has the latest reply in this thread*

"Well now I can finally see his opinion..."

*sees Zak's lengthy reply*

"A quotewar coming up?"

*reads Roy's reply*

"Okay..."

[Roy Karrde]

*sees that Roy has the latest reply in this thread*

"Well now I can finally see his opinion..."

*sees Zak's lengthy reply*

"A quotewar coming up?"

*reads Roy's reply*

"Okay..."

Sorry, if I were to give my opinion I would go with Hillary Clinton, her husband was pretty moderate and I had a pretty good opinion of her coming out of the Democratic Primary in 2008

[mattbcl]

Bernie Sanders. Failing him, Hillary. I won't support Trump under any circumstances. If the guy has to keep walking back all the nonsense he says (and he does), that's a pretty good indication he doesn't have a brain-mouth filter, and I want a President who has one of those. He's a pompous gasbag that has absolutely no experience nor business being in politics.

[Link]

Trump has never worked a day in his life.

[Zak]

*sees that Roy has the latest reply in this thread*

"Well now I can finally see his opinion..."

*sees Zak's lengthy reply*

"A quotewar coming up?"

*reads Roy's reply*

"Okay..."

I must say, I'm kind of disappointed. I was looking forward to having some actual discourse.

[Roy Karrde]

I must say, I'm kind of disappointed. I was looking forward to having some actual discourse.

Only one thing to do... #unbanDarkSage

[Zak]

Somehow I feel like he's not the only one on this forum who would have stuff to say in response to me.

[Magmar]

I wish there were more hours in the day. I barely have enough time to check in here and there as it is, since I'm moving cross country soon.

[Blademaster]

Trump has never worked a day in his life.

Really? He got that 4 billion dollars he's worth by not working, ever?

Holy shit dude, tell me the secret. I got the not working part down; when's my first million coming in?

[kurai]

uh, obviously you rely on your father to get it

[Drago]

uh, obviously you rely on your father to get it
/thread

[Katie]

[Democrat] '16!

I'm pretty scared to see what batshit candidates pop up in future elections after they've seen what kind of behavior/opinions wins primaries now. :-/

[Zak]

Donald's victory in the primaries is kind of a parallel to how when the immoral/douchey high-school (or college) jock/bully gets all the girls and practically branch-swings from one to the other, while the lonely timid friendly "nice guy" who did everything his momma taught him frustratedly wonders why.


It's reality and it happens for a reason. When you go out of your way to pander and have the constant mentality of "oh no what do I say I better not fuck this up", the majority are gonna assume you're easily manipulated and trying too hard to pander and are probably very scared of criticism (and will probably be correct).

Whereas when you give less fucks, you probably will publicly take a lot of heat or get called an asshole, but at the same time more people will probably like you because it shows that things don't really get to you and you don't let people walk all over you no matter how hard they try. And that really is an admirable trait.

For the first time in probably ever, Donald tried applying that to politics and sure enough it's working. It would seem not letting yourself be controlled by PC culture is a trait that a lot of people seem to admire enough to support.

[Drago]

And that mindset is why America will lose billions of dollars in tourism, should Trump become president. :nod:

[Zak]

In hindsight that may be true, but we can't say that until it happens.

Either way, that mindset exists for a reason. It's just human nature.

[Roy Karrde]

Donald's victory in the primaries is kind of a parallel to how when the immoral/douchey high-school (or college) jock/bully gets all the girls and practically branch-swings from one to the other, while the lonely timid friendly "nice guy" who did everything his momma taught him frustratedly wonders why.


It's reality and it happens for a reason. When you go out of your way to pander and have the constant mentality of "oh no what do I say I better not fuck this up", the majority are gonna assume you're easily manipulated and trying too hard to pander and are probably very scared of criticism (and will probably be correct).

Whereas when you give less fucks, you probably will publicly take a lot of heat or get called an asshole, but at the same time more people will probably like you because it shows that things don't really get to you and you don't let people walk all over you no matter how hard they try. And that really is an admirable trait.

For the first time in probably ever, Donald tried applying that to politics and sure enough it's working. It would seem not letting yourself be controlled by PC culture is a trait that a lot of people seem to admire enough to support.

It does seem like the PC Culture that has become more and more silly these past few years ( Trump 2016 written in chalk on a college campus causes protests ), along with safe zones, trigger words, and all the other stupid shit is contributing to Trump's rise. Despite how much I hate Trump, it is hard to vote against him when you see how his opposition acts, just to spite them.

[Zak]

It does seem like the PC Culture that has become more and more silly these past few years ( Trump 2016 written in chalk on a college campus causes protests ), along with safe zones, trigger words, and all the other stupid shit is contributing to Trump's rise. Despite how much I hate Trump, it is hard to vote against him when you see how his opposition acts, just to spite them.

I had that as my user title here for that very reason a month back, to see how many jimmies it would rustle. But unfortunately this board isn't active enough anymore to test that.

Truth is, I do like him for giving that crowd the middle finger, and by that I mean calling them out on their bullshit.

Hell I don't even hate him all that much. The only reasons I wouldn't vote for him are because A - he acts a lot without thinking and I could see him being a loose cannon starting wars, and B - him being elected isn't gonna make all that stuff go away, unfortunately. It'll only fuel them more.


Too many SJWs obsessed with "Islamophobia" to the point that they fucking go out of their way to cover up any discussion about the New Years Eve Cologne rape-fest, because it was commited by Muslim refugees? Lmfao.

That was a pretty brutal and violent crime, it's rather frightening that the same group of people who constantly tries to convince everyone that the USA is a "rape culture", went out of their way to cover up any discussion of something that is an actual rape culture? Really? Just because white people didn't do it?

Pathetic.

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

I dreamed of Donald Trump last night. He was visiting Ylivieska, Finland. He asked me "And who are you?" and I didn't reply anything, we only shook hands.

[Zak]

If it was Milo Yiannopoulous (sp?), I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

No one puts SJWs in their place like he does. Plus he's got self-control.

[mattbcl]

Despite how much I hate Trump, it is hard to vote against him when you see how his opposition acts, just to spite them.

If you want to go spite opposition, don't let me stop you -- there's a whole Internet out there waiting for you, and there's plenty of spite to go around. But I think it's a monumental and disrespectful waste of your vote to spend it against voters you don't like, rather than on the candidate who shares your ideals.

And before I become a target for derisive terms like "social justice warrior," here's what it all boils down to this for me: Trump does not reflect my ideals in the slightest. I think his supporters are misguided but they're not deserving of my spite or hatred. That's a waste of my time and effort. I'm not focused on them or the choices they make. I'm focused on who I would want in that chair. Trump isn't that person... and so, quite simply, he won't enjoy my vote. Beginning and end.

[Roy Karrde]

If you want to go spite opposition, don't let me stop you -- there's a whole Internet out there waiting for you, and there's plenty of spite to go around. But I think it's a monumental and disrespectful waste of your vote to spend it against voters you don't like, rather than on the candidate who shares your ideals.

And before I become a target for derisive terms like "social justice warrior," here's what it all boils down to this for me: Trump does not reflect my ideals in the slightest. I think his supporters are misguided but they're not deserving of my spite or hatred. That's a waste of my time and effort. I'm not focused on them or the choices they make. I'm focused on who I would want in that chair. Trump isn't that person... and so, quite simply, he won't enjoy my vote. Beginning and end.

But see this is my problem, I hate both of them equally right now and can think of things to not vote for either of them.

Hillary Clinton:
Pros: Will probably run the country in a more centrist vein like her husband, and will do a pretty good job at it.
Cons: Is sleezy as hell, and is willing to break the law in any way to gain power and avoid any type of check on her powers.

Donald Trump:
Pros: Has good ideas in regards to illegal immigration that is desperately needed.
Cons: Is sleezy as hell, does not really know what he is doing, and utterly untrustworthy.

Both of them I completely dislike, so I gotta look for something.. to break the tie, although right now I am leaning toward Hillary if anything because I have a good idea how she will run the country.

[Zak]

Of course I have. I've also seen the one where he was at my University (which by the way, thank god I graduated before the SJW era began). You've probably seen it too... if you're familiar with the 'Trigglypuff' meme, that's where it originated.

Also you should post more often, there's too many White Knights here.

[RedStarWarrior]

I like Milo. I talk to him on Twitter occasionally.

[Zak]

I like Milo. I talk to him on Twitter occasionally.

He just got suspended from there :/

So I shall quote one of his recent tweets which I thought was clever and spot on -

"The only good thing about being a male feminist is that you'll never have sex with a female feminist."

[shazza]

Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.

[Drusilla]

uh, obviously you rely on your father to get it


/thread

^this

I'm seriously considering a lengthy overseas assignment just to get away from the madness, but in reality it's everywhere. As previously mentioned, there's the Britain First loonies and now they're going around thinking this is Assassin's Creed.

Part of me kind of wishes I could believe in a promised apocalypse scenario, cause that's sounding like a decent option anymore. Everyone's too busy crying about how much they matter (bunch of special snowflakes) to do anything productive. At least I have no shortage of material for writing papers.

[Zak]

So, in the wake of what's going on, anyone here still 'with her'?

[mattbcl]

I say this while keeping myself updated on how the DNC stacked the deck against Bernie, and how the Clinton campaign hired Wasserman-Schultz straightaway following her resignation as DNC chair (a brand of nepotism which I can only describe as staggeringly transparent and phenomenally stupid). I wanted Bernie, and I'm very disappointed that he got such an unfair hand played him, but pragmatism is the deciding factor for me -- I won't be so stupid as to simply withhold my vote, like a 3-year-old trying to play keep-away. Hillary has loads of experience. Trump has loads of hot air.

I'm going with experience.

[kurai]

experience getting away with committing crimes #ImWithHer

[shazza]

I haven't been keeping up to date with American politics as I was earlier this year. Someone please ELI5 the updates of Hilary's transgressions.

[MToolen]

I haven't been keeping up to date with American politics as I was earlier this year. Someone please ELI5 the updates of Hilary's transgressions.

Let's see. Clinton was found by the FBI not to be guilty enough to prosecute in court ("if this had happened to a current employee, there would have been internal consequences" but she doesn't work there so). Before the convention, emails were leaked showing the DNC (a private entity) privately favored Clinton over Sanders (who caucused with the DNC but is not a member) in matters such as media coverage, deal-making, and service support. After the DNC chair promised to resign at the end of the convention, Clinton hired her for her campaign. There have been smaller slights, but these three frame then pretty well.

[Drago]

I remain firmly in the 'anyone but Trump' camp. Fuck it, I'm just going to vote Obama and pray that somehow that works.

[Katie]

I remain [Democrat] '16 so #imwithher - concerned about everything, yes, willing to risk Cheeto-man SCOTUS nomination(s), no. Lolbertarians/Greens not remotely a strong enough chance either.

[Magmar]

#ImWithHer

for many reasons which do include that fascist annoying orange

[shazza]

Well, upon some investigation, there's a myriad of valid criticisms regarding Hilary Clinton. But it is completely illogical to vote for Donald Trump, and it is terrifying that this is a potential outcome.

Good luck to you all.

[mattbcl]

I had an exchange this morning with a guy I respect. He's a philosophy professor at our local university, and he's also an avid gamer, with whom I've participated in tabletop RPG's and such. He entreated his friends on Facebook to unfriend him in the event that they felt his "voting behavior is immoral or irresponsible." Most of the replies to this asked him about his voting behavior in joking fashion. I remarked that as long as he was exercising his right to vote, I didn't think he was being immoral or irresponsible at all -- in fact, quite the opposite, he was being conscientious. He surprised me by asking this:

"Matt, if my vote won't make a difference in this election (and it wont) why would it be immoral or irresponsible to not vote?"

I could hardly fathom that the man would choose to sit out the very process which helps us determine the way our system of government will be dominated and functioning for the next several years. My girlfriend was also flabbergasted and exclaimed, "That's how the election could be won by Trump, because of people who think their votes don't matter and won't make a difference! How can he possibly KNOW that his vote won't make a difference? He doesn't!"

I agree with her. A philosophy professor ought to be rather inherently familiar with the concept of cold hard facts not being quite so cold and hard, and the fallacies of opinions (which ultimately, his is). However, it touched a different element within me. My reply was this:

"Maybe it's a difference in our perceptions that's posing the obstacle here. I've always been raised on the notion that my vote is my voice in politics, and that whether I give it to a winner or a loser, it matters. And yes, I've also been brought up on the idea that throughout the centuries, innumerable servicemen and women have fought and died to help protect that right... And that not exercising it when the opportunity presents itself is a dishonor to those people. Is it propaganda? Unquestionably. But it's still something I believe in. It also has been my experience that those who don't vote are among the loudest voices I hear when it comes to post-election apocalyptic whining. This is not to say you would be one of them, I don't really believe you would be, I'm only sharing what I've personally encountered. I don't like seeing such people complaining about the outcome when they did nothing to contribute to it. It's kinda like eating your vegetables... don't knock it if you haven't tried it. So what if your horse doesn't win, even with your vote? Do you truly believe it's better to stay silent than to speak your mind about who you would want to sit in that chair?

"If you honestly do, then you've exercised your conscience. And I suppose in a way you've exercised your right to vote. Not in the easiest way for me to respect... but who am I to tell you what you should do with it? It doesn't belong to anyone else but you."

[Zak]

I plan to vote for a third party, but... just throwing this out there.

https://i.sli.mg/4w8vPL.png

...Remnd me who the "lesser of two evils" is?

I guess bandwagons are easy to hop on.

[mattbcl]

I guess bandwagons are easy to hop on.

...dude, what?

Your so-called "infographic" is not so much informative as it is riddled with fallacies, including the author singlehandedly assigning, assuming, and explaining specific motives to the candidates' actions, and providing a wealth of baseless emotional entreaties badly dressed as factoids. There is not a shred of evidence provided to support the assertions that Trump would make a better world leader than Clinton. Numerous opinions are referenced and sourced, but facts are so poorly represented as to essentially be non-existent -- or perhaps they're simply considered irrelevant, just so long as Trump can somehow be made out to be more than the bloviating, self-important, bullying narcissist he is. The very last phrase of that graphic is laughable -- "But by all means, don't let pesky facts get in the way of your feelings." That's PRECISELY what the author of the graphic has done, simply by assembling this hodgepodge of propaganda. It's shameful and embarrassing that anyone would present that graphic as any sort of fair and factual comparison.

But sure, I'm a bandwagoner because I belong to a major party and I want to vote for my party's candidate, whose ideals are in alignment with most of own, AND has the best chance to defeat the Great Orange Id. We'll go with that.

[shazza]

I find it amusing that the graph used the increasingly popular 'Appeal to Bernie' argument to denounce Hilary.

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

What does the word 'orange' mean in this context? The first time I heard it in a factual connection like this was when I watched Code Geass Hangyaku no Lelouch anime.

[Heald]

What does the word 'orange' mean in this context? The first time I heard it in a factual connection like this was when I watched Code Geass Hangyaku no Lelouch anime.

I imagine orange refers to his fake tan.

[Zak]

What does the word 'orange' mean in this context? The first time I heard it in a factual connection like this was when I watched Code Geass Hangyaku no Lelouch anime.

It refers to the fake tan like Heald mentioned, but I figure it originally was also something that makes SJWs feel better and fun for them to say like they're giving a 'middle finger' to Trump's 'racism' by trying to be all funny and tough with "LOL SKIN COLOR!"

[shazza]

Zak, how is your personal life? Do you have a partner?

[MToolen]

See I thought "annoying orange" was a nod to the webseries-turned-cartoon Annoying Orange (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Annoying_Orange), which is about as impossible to listen to.

[Magmar]

See I thought "annoying orange" was a nod to the webseries-turned-cartoon Annoying Orange (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Annoying_Orange), which is about as impossible to listen to.

It absolutely is! Haha

[Blademaster]

Zak, your infographic needs sources. Just a friendly tip from someone who agrees with a lot of it, but has been on the not-agreeing side in the past. You need a way to prove your facts, and you can't just dump them all at once or you'll scare people off.

[Zak]

Zak, your infographic needs sources. Just a friendly tip from someone who agrees with a lot of it, but has been on the not-agreeing side in the past. You need a way to prove your facts, and you can't just dump them all at once or you'll scare people off.

To be fair, I just shared one image (which I didn't make/write the contents of, but happened to agree with most of), which is something that takes literally five seconds. So it's not really fair to say I'm manually "dumping them all at once". But yeah I guess my 'bandwagon' comment was a bit harsh. Though it is true that it's easy to believe and follow things spoon-fed by the media especially when someone who even most hesitantly and respectfully dares share an unpopular opinion on the subject (read: Anything in Trump's defense even if the person speaking happens to not support him), they're bound to get shunned by society and abused by liberals who in their mind believe what they're doing is okay, such is this woman who was surrounded, cornered, assaulted, and egged for being a Trump supporter and then they proceeded to victim blame her (https://sli.mg/Po93NS) (Full story (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-protests-san-jose-223858)). Yes, it's easy to be a sheep when this is the attitude the other side has.
I actually was hoping for discourse on the subject of whatever points you happen to find questionable/are interested in sources for. Like mattbcl's response (which I'll get to in a bit).


Zak, how is your personal life? Do you have a partner?

Well that sure was random... but I appreciate your concern/interest.

To answer your question, my life is actually quite good right now, I have a decent fun job (as of three years ago) that I actually enjoy and on some days even look forward to going to. Could pay better but whatever, I'm not a big spender. I'm also currently undergoing a six month dental surgery process which is kinda shitty right now but will be worth it in the end. In the mean time I have to wear a stupid fake tooth which kinda sucks (in fact when I first got it I was afraid of what making out while wearing it would be like, haha but I did it for the first time about a week ago since I got it and it was no big deal at all), but again it will be worth it in the end.
Which leads to your other question. No long-term/committed partner at the moment, just a few fun flings here and there. But I'm not really looking to settle any time soon, kinda happy constantly having new people in my life. :)

Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread since we're not in Mt. Moon, though I'd be glad to catch up sometime.

That said, where'd that come from? Is it 'concerning' to have unpopular opinions? I'm not looking to pick fights with anyone, I'd like to actually have a discussion. I actually attempted to earlier but my post kinda got buried (mainly due to Dark Sage being absent probably).

But really, it seems that any slightest backing up of anything Donald says or does (even if it's literally something small like "oh, well he's kinda got a point about those things" by someone who doesn't even support him), is met with vicious hostility. It also seems like any criticism of some of the mainstream anti-Trump media/movement (like simply saying a statement isn't true followed by facts to back it up), is met with the same kind of hostility. Why? Simply because that's how SJWs handle dissenting opinions, they treat it like a hate crime.

I mean, that's somewhat understandable to be angry about that considering the extreme picture the media is painting of him, but it's nice when people think for themselves and have an open mind even if they still disagree.

The latter of the above is actually me. I don't support Trump by a long shot, there are many things wrong with him and he's an insane megalomaniac and seems like he doesn't know what he's doing. I do, however, like to criticize liberals who's extreme dislike of him defies logic or is based on things that aren't true.

That being said, I do find a Clinton presidency to be more worrisome (but not by much) for several reasons. A lot of them being summed up in the image above which I'd be glad to discuss myself. I'd like to to get a response to this first though and see if anyone's even interested, because last time I tried no one seemed to be. If it helps you sleep at night, I'm not gonna "vote for Trump to stop Hillary", which seems to be the other consensus. They both terrify me.

But yeah Trump supporters surely are the dangerous ones, right? (http://imgur.com/a/44jJY)

EDIT: Incoming image oh noess

http://i.imgur.com/TdwZZjx.jpg


But yeah, the fact that you guys are ganging up on on me to the extent of making it personal kind of proves every point I've made above. Kthx :)

[Greyfox]

Wow, Zak, fuck "SJWs" for trying to make this country less shitty for anyone who's not a straight, white, cis male.

It's also very laughable that your example of trans support is Caitlin Jenner, the woman opposes support for other trans people and, despite being gay herself, opposes gay marriage (her name is Caitlyn, by the way--not Bruce).

How is Trump Racist? (https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4r2yxs/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is/)
How is Trump Sexist? (https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4r58wo/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is/)
How is Trump Homophobic?
(https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4svwua/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_donald_trump/)

[Zak]

Wow, Zak, fuck "SJWs" for trying to make this country less shitty for anyone who's not a straight, white, cis male.

It's also very laughable that your example of trans support is Caitlin Jenner, the woman opposes support for other trans people and, despite being gay herself, opposes gay marriage (her name is Caitlyn, by the way--not Bruce).


It's also funny that just one year ago these same SJWs were putting Caitlyn Jenner on a pedestal simply for being trans, since they have an obsession with gender dysphoria (much like the cucks who have "cis" as part of their vocabulary). Seriously, they had her so high on a pedestal such that they would shun anyone who'd dare criticize or say anything negative about her. I don't even mean about her trans-ness, but just about her as a person. And she *was* a pretty shitty person who had done a lot of other things, but of course a year ago we weren't allowed to talk about or acknowledge any of that stuff since she was a hero and a divine "symbol of trans acceptance" and it was forbidden and taboo to criticize her for anything even if unrelated.
Only once she said she opposes gay marriage did that turn around. That's what it took to get her off the pedestal. I'm sure everyone who pedestalized her and shut down criticism of her a year ago must feel silly.

[Blademaster]

You know I was kind of enjoying not being hated here for the past few years, but alas, all good things come to an end.


Wow, Zak, fuck "SJWs" for trying to make this country less shitty for anyone who's not a straight, white, cis male.

Fuck right off with that Tumblr garbage.

Straight, white cis males are probably the most victimized demographic in America, if not globally. You know why? Because we don't have affirmative action, hiring quotas (quotae?), 'safe spaces,' or armies of sheltered white kids screeching and clawing like rabid dogs at anyone who dares to not kowtow to the SJW narrative.
We don't have shelters for abused men.
We don't get fundraisers, awareness campaigns, and brown ribbons tied around trees during prostate cancer month.
We don't get into Ivy League Schools with a 3.2 GPA like black students do.
We don't get effeminate hipsters and fat chicks rallying their support behind us every time some uppity heterophobic flamer calls us "breeders," or when some 79 IQ 'rap artist' fills his Facebook wall with poorly-spelled decrees that the white devil should be shackled and genocided.
We don't get to skirt around minor, moderate, and sometimes even major offenses in school, at work, or with the police because it's 'racist' to prosecute us.
We don't even have the luxury of a Leave It To Beaver-style man-and-woman family anymore because divorce rates are at an all-time high and the very idea of being a wife (let alone a HOUSEwife) is like the 28 Days Later rage virus to feminists.

You know what we DO have? You know what 'white privilege' REALLY is?

The highest suicide rates.
The highest welfare recipiency.
The highest homelessness rates.
The highest wartime casualty rates.
The highest number of work-related accidents.
The most dangerous jobs.
The most victims of violent crime.
The fewest recipients of child custody.
The shittiest luck with the police on a case-by-case basis.
Rape and abuse statistics on-par with and sometimes exceeding those of white women.
And the most people in the world hating us because, despite most of us basically being kids that have never directly done anything more terrible than showing up late to some shit job, or firing a female coworker, or sitting with our legs too far apart on a bus or train, we're somehow perceived as the targets of every shitty thing that has ever happened in the history of the world.

But I'm sure you have some way of justifying that because about 0.01% of us are rich and powerful enough to account for every member of the evil old white business mogul archetype that has somehow fucked up everything and everyone in the world, even though there's plenty of rich Arabs, Asians, and Jews doing the same thing that mysteriously get pardoned, or are never shown as the antagonist in the latest "White people suck." AAA blockbuster to come out, right?

[Heald]

Sure is triggered in here

http://i.imgur.com/xLnp5Q3.gif

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

I'm fully aware that this eccentric post of mine will be outshadowed by Blade's cunning choices of words, but in any case, I'll throw in this in my clumsy English.

The main reason why many people around the world don't like, even hate, America is how they "interfere in other countries' business". That's what Russia does, too, though. Even the EU does that. Here in Finland, we aren't allowed to follow traditions hundreds of years old thanks to some bureaucratic directives. So we aren't that independent any more.

Anyway, I recall Trump heavily criticizing how Obama handled Afghanistan and Iraq operations. And if you ask me, I don't think Libya's doing well either. But can the other countries manage without the USA? Trump had this idea of giving Japan and South Korea nuclear weapons of their own to defend against North Korea. This could perhaps mean the USA withdrawing from Okinawa. I don't know if Trump knows the difference between James Monroe and Marilyn Monroe, but here he seems to be following the Monroe Doctrine, named after the 5th President of the United States of America, James Monroe, in office 1817 – 1825. WW I and WW II both made the USA to abandon the Monroe Doctrine, especially what happened in Pearl Harbor.

Back to my own point of view, I have never believed any president of the USA or any leader of the EU would help us if Russia attacked Finland. I'm not even one of those Russophobic Finns anyway, Finland was partly a part of Russia for centuries, and the entire country was under Russian rule from 1809 to 1917, and we got along quite well. We even got our own currency Markka in 1860 which we don't even have now thanks to the EU again.

I'm rambling, but the argument ”Hillary Clinton won't rage wars because she's a woman” sounds too good to be true. There's always the senate hindering the President's plans, that's why Obama couldn't accomplish everything he promised. And about female leaders and war, it's hard to find examples of female despots simply because women didn't get their names written down in history books too often anyway.

Wait, no, we can raise up a few famous female rulers. The Egyptian Pharaoh Hatshepsut (c. 1478 - 1458 B.C.) was successful in warfare during her early years of reign. Elisabeth I of England (1558 – 1603) distinguished herself in mainly defensive acts, but also supported Sir Francis Drake, who was a pirate to some. The Russian Empress Catherine the Great (1762 – 1796) engaged in several wars. The last Empress of Qing Dynasty Cíxi Tàihòu (1861 - 1908) strengthened the Chinese navy, but in the end, couldn't prevent the interventions made by the colonialists like England, Germany and Japan.

Long story short, history revolves around warfare regardless what the ruler has between his or her legs.

[Greyfox]

It's also funny that just one year ago these same SJWs were putting Caitlyn Jenner on a pedestal simply for being trans, since they have an obsession with gender dysphoria (much like the cucks who have "cis" as part of their vocabulary). Seriously, they had her so high on a pedestal such that they would shun anyone who'd dare criticize or say anything negative about her. I don't even mean about her trans-ness, but just about her as a person. And she *was* a pretty shitty person who had done a lot of other things, but of course a year ago we weren't allowed to talk about or acknowledge any of that stuff since she was a hero and a divine "symbol of trans acceptance" and it was forbidden and taboo to criticize her for anything even if unrelated.
Only once she said she opposes gay marriage did that turn around. That's what it took to get her off the pedestal. I'm sure everyone who pedestalized her and shut down criticism of her a year ago must feel silly.

Caitlyn Jenner is a piece of shit. I've always held that belief about her even when she came out as trans. Not calling her out on her bullshit simply because of her gender identity would be transphobic. However, my problem with her is the fact that, despite being in the LGBT community, she does nothing to support it and, in fact, opposes most of the ideals. People looked up to her because she came out as trans despite being an outspoken Republican -- that's a community that constantly is at odds with people with differing sexual and gender identities.

But seriously, "cuck"? You're making fun of my vocabulary for including an actual scientific prefix while using a meaningless word as an insult?


You know I was kind of enjoying not being hated here for the past few years, but alas, all good things come to an end.

Fuck right off with that Tumblr garbage.

You don't hafta sweet talk me, Blade.


Straight, white cis males are probably the most victimized demographic in America, if not globally. You know why? Because we don't have affirmative action, hiring quotas (quotae?), 'safe spaces,' or armies of sheltered white kids screeching and clawing like rabid dogs at anyone who dares to not kowtow to the SJW narrative.

Hilarious. You know what a safe space is? It's Alcoholic's Anonymous. It's the Veteran's Administration. It's the battered women's shelter. The term "safe space" only became a joke when it was used by "SJWs".


We don't have shelters for abused men.

Let me google that for you. (https://www.google.com/search?q=men%27s+shelters&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)


We don't get fundraisers, awareness campaigns, and brown ribbons tied around trees during prostate cancer month.

Here (http://www.pcf.org/site/c.leJRIROrEpH/b.5699537/k.BEF4/Home.htm?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=SEM&utm_campaign=PCF%2BGeneral&gclid=Cj0KEQjw8pC9BRCqrq37zZil4a0BEiQAZO_zrDrHa4IV l0AGbpjoyqpsXQaYVH3k6Kf8XZHjj7yy4cYaAinr8P8HAQ)'s whole website devoted to that very thing.


We don't get into Ivy League Schools with a 3.2 GPA like black students do.

No one gets into an Ivy League school with a 3.2 GPA.


We don't get effeminate hipsters and fat chicks rallying their support behind us every time some uppity heterophobic flamer calls us "breeders," or when some 79 IQ 'rap artist' fills his Facebook wall with poorly-spelled decrees that the white devil should be shackled and genocided.

Try to hide your bigotry better, Blade. This is [current year], after all.


We don't get to skirt around minor, moderate, and sometimes even major offenses in school, at work, or with the police because it's 'racist' to prosecute us.

We don't get prosecuted at all, really. Compared to POC, anyway.


We don't even have the luxury of a Leave It To Beaver-style man-and-woman family anymore because divorce rates are at an all-time high and the very idea of being a wife (let alone a HOUSEwife) is like the 28 Days Later rage virus to feminists.

Feminism is about choice, Blade. Would you prefer your partner be happy with what she's doing, of would you prefer her to be caged in a kitchen because you don't want her gettin' any ideas?


You know what we DO have? You know what 'white privilege' REALLY is?

The highest suicide rates.

Actually, the highest suicide rate is amongst (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/suicide/racial_and_gender_2009_2013.pdf) American Indians and Alaskan Natives. But that doesn't really help you.


The highest welfare recipiency.

Wait, how does this strengthen your argument? White people getting more help from the government is somehow a slight against us?


The highest homelessness rates.

The American population is white a majority. Of course we have a larger population of homeless people. That said, most of your points can be argued primarily because of that fact.


The highest wartime casualty rates.

The highest number of work-related accidents.

The most dangerous jobs.

The most victims of violent crime.

The fewest recipients of child custody.

The shittiest luck with the police on a case-by-case basis.

[Citation Needed]


Rape and abuse statistics on-par with and sometimes exceeding those of white women.

Not even close (http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf).


And the most people in the world hating us because, despite most of us basically being kids that have never directly done anything more terrible than showing up late to some shit job, or firing a female coworker, or sitting with our legs too far apart on a bus or train, we're somehow perceived as the targets of every shitty thing that has ever happened in the history of the world.

We're not to blame for the follies of our ancestors, but we do inadvertently receive benefits for those follies. No one ever says that we shouldn't have those benefits--but we should acknowledge where they came from.


But I'm sure you have some way of justifying that because about 0.01% of us are rich and powerful enough to account for every member of the evil old white business mogul archetype that has somehow fucked up everything and everyone in the world, even though there's plenty of rich Arabs, Asians, and Jews doing the same thing that mysteriously get pardoned, or are never shown as the antagonist in the latest "White people suck." AAA blockbuster to come out, right?

That's called overcompensating, Blade, and it's still racist. White people may be the villains of every movie, but we're also the heroes, sidekicks, and love interests of every movie too. When's the last time you saw the box office dominated by a POC?

[Drago]

Two pages of heated political discussion and not a single post about Ice Ninetales. This forum is a damned shame sometimes.

[Heald]

I'm not saying I miss the clusterfuck that was the Roy Karrde/Dark Sage shitstorm of US Pres Election 2012 but at least it had zero mention of either 'cis' or 'SJW'.

This generation is seriously going down as the worst in history.

[Zak]

I love the word 'cis'. It's a good indicator of who is capable of having a rational conversation, vs. who is a try-hard manipulated by society.


Caitlyn Jenner is a piece of shit. I've always held that belief about her even when she came out as trans. Not calling her out on her bullshit simply because of her gender identity would be transphobic.

Well that sure as hell didn't stop a lot of other people. Back around the time when she first came out a year ago, I made a status post wondering what the big deal about her and why she was on a pedestal is, and talking about how there are plenty of other famous trans people including some EuroVision winners and other celebrities. I got obliterated by whiny cucks (yes, cucks) yelling at me saying "I don't understand, why take Caitlyn Jenner down a peg" "you shouldn't trivialize trans acceptance" etc.

Well, anyway, apologies for mistaking you for one of them. It's hard not to when you take the policing "her name is Caitlyn" tone.


However, my problem with her is the fact that, despite being in the LGBT community, she does nothing to support it and, in fact, opposes most of the ideals. People looked up to her because she came out as trans despite being an outspoken Republican -- that's a community that constantly is at odds with people with differing sexual and gender identities.

But seriously, "cuck"? You're making fun of my vocabulary for including an actual scientific prefix while using a meaningless word as an insult?


It wasn't a 'scientific prefix' until a few years ago when whiny tumblrinas attempted to make an abnormality be not an abnormality. It's even considered "transphobia" now to use the word "normal" to refer to "cis" people. They're just living in a fantasy world of being in denial. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing inherently wrong or bad about being trans, just the whole militant effort to make it seem like something to be "proud" of and shutting down the word "normal", is pretty jarring and mock-worthy.

And yes, "cuck" is a slang term referring to someone who's a pushover allowing themselves to be manipulated by this agenda, who is constantly timidly walking on eggshells trying hard not to offend people and at the same time policing others in an attempt to sound 'progressive'.


Hilarious. You know what a safe space is? It's Alcoholic's Anonymous. It's the Veteran's Administration. It's the battered women's shelter. The term "safe space" only became a joke when it was used by "SJWs".

Let me google that for you

And yet, what do you make of this Australian woman who's an advocate for male victims of domestic violence, getting threatened and harassed by FEMINISTS to the point where she has to move out of her home and get a restraining order to protect herself and her daughter (http://relatingtomen.com/current-campaigns/)?

Yep, and who's the one that needs a safe space, you said?


Try to hide your bigotry better, Blade. This is [current year], after all.

Um, what? I'm looking at that quote from Blade preceding that, where exactly is the bigotry? This is exactly what I was saying above about people having difficulty conflating calling out shitty behavior, and hating on certain groups. It looks like he's doing the former.


Feminism is about choice, Blade. Would you prefer your partner be happy with what she's doing, of would you prefer her to be caged in a kitchen because you don't want her gettin' any ideas?


I certainly wouldn't want her to be getting these kinds of ideas (http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html) and then attempting to manipulate me to accept and be okay with it... like this poor soul here.

[Drago]

I'm not saying I miss the clusterfuck that was the Roy Karrde/Dark Sage shitstorm of US Pres Election 2012 but at least it had zero mention of either 'cis' or 'SJW'.

This generation is seriously going down as the worst in history.
I don't actually know what SJW is, and I don't care to. It makes me think of Saiyans for some reason. I wonder who Saiyans would vote for? At first I thought Vegeta would totally be a Donald Trump guy, but in hindsight, Vegeta definitely wouldn't vote, the slacker.

[kurai]

"Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said.

He added: "But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if Hillary gets to put her judges in, right now we're tied."

[mattbcl]

Maybe Trump should consider giving names to the goblins in his head so he can discuss these "many people" he keeps talking about.

Come to think of it, I'm not really sure what we're arguing about at this point. I could be quite mistaken, but so far, it seems fairly clear nobody who's commented on this thread is voting Trump. What is it we're hoping to achieve by squabbling over our political differences? We're not going to change each others' minds. I don't think I remember the last time we had "an open and honest debate on the issues" that didn't devolve into overstatement, exaggeration, reckless arguing, and general bitching about the array of candidates representing for their parties.

But the honest truth is, I don't mind being proven wrong. I have no problem admitting it when I am. It's the only way I can learn and grow. I can't afford to keep my mind closed to facts that don't agree with my perception of the world. Therein lies the rub -- FACTS. I don't want someone shoving their opinion in my face like somehow if they shout loudly enough, it'll become the truth. That's what it feels like it's been coming to, more and more with each election cycle. You make a claim? I want sources. I want reputation. I want non-partisanship. I want to be shown these are the cold, hard facts. The combination of your waggling fist, your conspicuously half-hidden gun holster, and your spittle flying all over my shirt will convince me of nothing, save that you're a lunatic.

[Zak]

So I don't like Trump but gotta hand it to him, he did set a clever trap recently.

He mentioned banning Sharia Law. I guess he thought it would be interesting to see if any far-left "Islamophobia" soldier would be stupid enough to defend Sharia Law in the US... enter, CNN's Sally Kohn (https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/pro-sharia-jewish-lesbian-sally-kohn-keeps-digging-the-hole-deeper)!

I really hope she goes through with that petition...

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

Time for a dumb question... how do you actually vote in America? Here in Finland, we have this voting booth where we go and write the number of the candidate on a piece of paper. Like I wrote 4 for Paavo Väyrynen during the last presidential election. He finnished third.

[MToolen]

There are a few different methods. The most common has you filling in bubbles like a standardized test. Some are similar, but you pop out perforated bubbles from a card. Still others (I've never seen one in person) are electronic, somewhere between an ATM and a slot machine.

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

That partly answered to my question, thanks! But do you vote for the candidate himself/herself, or some other person who then votes for the candidate? We had a somewhat similar system before, but it was complicated.

The most persistent Finns still voted for Väyrynen in the second round of the election although he wasn't a candidate anymore. I wish I had spammed as they did.

[MToolen]

That partly answered to my question, thanks! But do you vote for the candidate himself/herself, or some other person who then votes for the candidate? We had a somewhat similar system before, but it was complicated.

The most persistent Finns still voted for Väyrynen in the second round of the election although he wasn't a candidate anymore. I wish I had spammed as they did.

Yes, the US has what's called the Electoral College, which represents the nation through its Congress. Except for a few exceptions (because of course there are exceptions), if a candidate has more votes in a state, he/she gets all the Electoral College votes in that state (a few states split the votes by voting districts). This is a first-past-the-post system, meaning the first one to hit a certain number of Electoral College votes (the math says there can only be one) wins.

It's not a terribly popular system for a number of reasons, but each time it works, it puts someone in power that benefitted from it, so it is unlikely to change any time soon.

[Heald]

This might be slightly off-topic considering it's voting time tomorrow but...

Mikachu, is that Sequence you're playing in your sig? Great game.

[Magmar]

The ballots in Rhode Island have you fill in an arrow with a black marker, so you'd have something like:

--PRESIDENT--

Hillary CLINTON -- ---->
(Democrat)

Gary JOHNSON -- ---->
(Libertarian)

Jill STEIN -------- ---->
(Green)

Donald TRuMP --- ---->
(Republican)

WRITE-IN CANDIDATE ---- ---->
_________________

You'd use your marker to finish the one arrow which completes the vote.

Note: My keyboard is still f***ed so the letter u is on copy paste and I am too lazy to copy-paste a capital 'u', sorry Trump fans!

You also vote on local issues like this, so say...

Question ONE:
Do you want a new stoplight at the intersection of Main Street and Park Avenue? The Town of Quahog has been approved for a grant by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation to cover 90% of the cost. The remaining 10% of the bill, or $366,000 of $3,660,000, will cover the cost of the stoplight.

YES -- -->
NO --- -->

Question TWO:
Should the Mayor of Quahog be allowed a 3% raise in salary for the 2016-2018 terms? The initial salary is $50,000 plus $20,000 in fringe costs (healthcare, dental, life insurance, and contribution to retirement). Additional compensation is $1,500 per year, plus an increase in $650 allotted fringe costs. The last raise went into effect in 2010. The mayor's salary of $51,500 will be the median salary for a mayor in Rhode Island.

YES -- -->
NO -- -->

Edit: There's more space between the lines but it doesn't show in the post.

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

This might be slightly off-topic considering it's voting time tomorrow but...

Mikachu, is that Sequence you're playing in your sig? Great game.

Correct! We play it often in Mielikkitalo, a house for mental health trainees and other people who want company in general.

[Drago]

Seriously, America - you are fucking this up so bad right now

[kurai]

clinton needs to win michigan and pennsylvania to be able to win

pennsylvania is at 99% reporting, 48.7 to 47.7, 58782 vote lead for trump, 5588700 total votes, approx. 55887 votes remain

president-elect donald j. trump

[kurai]

pennsylvania called for trump

[kurai]

https://i.imgur.com/DxFyqas.png wrap it up

[Pokemaster Ash]

...I am so disappointed in my country right now, electing a man who had absolutely no place in this election.

...Unfortunately, I can't blame them. Hillary wasn't flawless, Congress has been absolutely fucking useless for about a decade, and our foreign policy has been falling apart. This wasn't the way to fix it. Hell, the stock market is absolutely tanking from these results and I can't even imagine the damage being done just from Trump being elected across the world and here in the US (since I'm sure absolutely no country in the world wanted to see Trump elected with the possible sole exception of Russia (...hell of an endorsement there...) and minorities are probably about to get fucked over badly, especially anyone hoping for immigration reform or...really any form of tolerance (instead they're probably going to get ICE or the FBI sent to kick their asses)).

...I was trying to enjoy the awesomeness of the Cubs winning the World Series, but now I feel like crap. This is going to be a disaster...

[ChobiChibi]

I was gonna make some kind of fb status about how everything is gonna be shit now, but I know for a fact that none of my American friends voted for this.

So I offer my sympathy instead, as both my country and America have made some poor decisions this year.

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

Hey! Since when was leaving the EU a bad thing for any country? Just the bad arguments for it made it look nationalistic in the bad sense. Yes, the word nationalistic isn't quite the same as nazist or something. Sorry, I'm still against the European Integration. Fortunately the EU isn't eternal.

What comes to Trump's victory, I can take an example from our own politics again. Timo Soini, the leader of his 'True Finns' party, used to refer to the EU as 'a dying mammoth', but now that he finally is the Minister of Foreign affairs, he's become quiet and easy-going.

However, if Trump really is good as his word, building that ridiculous wall, giving Japan and South Korea nuclear weapons etc. at least we can expect some action.

[ChobiChibi]

It's bad because my country doesn't actually have a plan of HOW they're going to leave the EU. Idiot politicians made false promises and then stepped down from their positions. The only reason I like the PM is because she's atleast going to see it through to the end.

Nuclear weapons is not exactly the kind of action that I want to see :/

[mattbcl]

I'm disgusted. But I think the result of this election places a particular burden on me. I am American, and I can still be proud of being one, even if I'm not proud of the people my country chose to elect. (It's like being proud to be me, despite having made choices I myself am not proud of. They are not the whole of me, and those who voted for this man are not the whole of America.) And if I'm going to wake up in the morning for the next few years to a leader that many vilify as the worst humanity has to offer, then I'd better damn well prepare to show the best.

[Oslo]

Welp, that's shitty. American TPMers, I wish you the best of luck in surviving the raging dumpster fire that the next few years is going to be.

[Zak]

President Elect Donald J Trump should not have been a shock to anyone. The mainstream media and polls were completely at odds with the numbers on Twitter and YouTube and social media. Clinton never had the lead on popular support and this election result, like Brexit, was a victory of the American people over the establishment. Trump appealed to the common people and their disillusionment with government in a way nobody else tried to and this is one hard lesson for the rest of the politicians. This is a massive blow to the globalist establishment, which I like: Clinton got what was coming to her. I just wish the guy who fucked the system up wasn't ostensibly an abrasive person with horrible past behaviour. I don't think this is the end of the world. I am just hoping - maybe naively - that the next two months sees Trump transform into someone respectable. It's all anyone can hope for, really. This isn't a punchline anymore. This has happened.

This article (http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/trump-won-because-leftist-political-corr) also hits the nail on the head. It's worth a read, regardless of your views on Trump.

I actually shared that article on my status the other day, and yes, it should not have been a surprise at all.

People simply came to the uncomfortable conclusion that someone who said some mean things is a safer choice than a dangerous lying criminal who should be incarcerated (and hopefully soon will be).

Seriously, if I see one more social media post about how "Hillary lost because she's a woman"...


The white knighting I have seen since the election does not disappoint!

[Oslo]

Clinton never had the lead on popular support

she got more votes than the other guy

[shazza]

I actually shared that article on my status the other day, and yes, it should not have been a surprise at all.

People simply came to the uncomfortable conclusion that someone who said some mean things is a safer choice than a dangerous lying criminal who should be incarcerated (and hopefully soon will be).

Seriously, if I see one more social media post about how "Hillary lost because she's a woman"...


The white knighting I have seen since the election does not disappoint!

This is ridiculous. Sure, social justice warriors/regressive left are paradoxically illiberal. That doesn't mean it follows that to minimise Trump's words in the same ballpark as "mean things" - which is obviously not your words but a meme from your echo chamber.

Regardless of all of the legitimate concerns pertaining to the regressive left, the establishment, political correctness, and Hillary's corruption (some of it true, some hyperbolic, and some in conspiracy theory levels), Donald Trump was the greater of the two evils.

Not my words, but this sums it up:

Donald Trump has ascended to power despite showing every sign of being dangerously unfit for it and by exposing in himself and in the electorate the worst that America has to offer: racism, sexism, antisemitism, a contempt for the most vulnerable among us, intimations of fascism, a positive love of bullying, total disdain for our democratic institutions, a willingness to make threats of political violence just for the fun of it, a contempt for science, and a love of conspiracy theories. I mean, I could run through it all again, the crazy things he’s said and the toxic alliances he’s made.

The irony is: If he had been merely half as bad, he would have seemed worse. He would have been more recognizably dangerous. But there were so many awful moments that the media couldn’t focus on them for long enough, or weigh their significance. And the big things were as big as they get, right? “Climate change is a hoax.” “Why can’t we use our nuclear weapons?” “Maybe nuclear proliferation is a good thing. Let the Saudis and the Japanese and the South Koreans build their own nukes.” “Who’s to say we should support our NATO alliances? What have they done for us?” “Putin is a great leader.” “Maybe we should just default on our debt, cut a better deal.” Any one of those things should have ended it.

But of course, the little things were just as weird, and should have been just as disqualifying. I mean, we have just elected a president who has bragged about invading the dressing rooms of beauty pageant contestants, so that he could see them naked, when they were effectively his employees—he owned the pageant. And then he even bullied some of these young women publicly, some on social media in the wee hours of the morning while campaigning for the presidency. And then he denied doing any of these things when no denial was even possible. We had all seen his tweets. And in response to the astonishment of the media, he looked the American people in the eye, and said, “No one respects women more than I do. No one.” And half the country accepted that as, what, the truth? As good theatre? As sketch comedy? I mean, there are really no words to describe how far from normal we have drifted here.

[Magmar]

But of course, the little things were just as weird, and should have been just as disqualifying. I mean, we have just elected a president who has bragged about invading the dressing rooms of beauty pageant contestants, so that he could see them naked, when they were effectively his employees—he owned the pageant. And then he even bullied some of these young women publicly, some on social media in the wee hours of the morning while campaigning for the presidency. And then he denied doing any of these things when no denial was even possible. We had all seen his tweets. And in response to the astonishment of the media, he looked the American people in the eye, and said, “No one respects women more than I do. No one.” And half the country accepted that as, what, the truth? As good theatre? As sketch comedy? I mean, there are really no words to describe how far from normal we have drifted here.

Even scarier is his diehard followers who actively espouse these values. The typical Trump voter chose to look past them (which is at least just as harmful), but there is a sizeable portion of the population here who have taken Trump's election as permission to take hateful action in the last few days. Hate crimes are on the rise. I've had friends physically assaulted for being queer or of color. Regardless of how you identify, politically, this is not okay. This is the furthest thing from okay. It's terrifying. It's literal terror, and Trump NEEDS to speak up and say no and take a stance against it, because he alone has the platform.

[Zak]

This is ridiculous. Sure, social justice warriors/regressive left are paradoxically illiberal. That doesn't mean it follows that to minimise Trump's words in the same ballpark as "mean things" - which is obviously not your words but a meme from your echo chamber.

Actually, I live in very blue (liberal) state, so you can tell me all you want about echo chambers. But you're correct, not my words originally.


Regardless of all of the legitimate concerns pertaining to the regressive left, the establishment, political correctness, and Hillary's corruption (some of it true, some hyperbolic, and some in conspiracy theory levels), Donald Trump was the greater of the two evils.

Frankly I think there's a lot of stuff about Hillary that the mainstream media did a terrible job covering because they were so afraid of Trump getting elected, so they minimized coverage of that. When I was younger I always used to ignore when someone said "oh, the media is biased" because I'd assume it was just them trying to sound smart and know-it-all, but this year for the first time I'm seeing it firsthand. There are some pretty serious damning scary things about her which, scarily enough, every network (except Fox) pretty much pushed under the rug, which if it had happened to Trump, they would talk non-stop about it and meme about it left and right and probably run him out of the country.

Now it's my turn to say, not my words, but this pretty much sums it up (a woman's words, actually):

'I will NEVER be with her. I don't care if that horrible witch becomes president. I will never accept her. I forgive all of you who are voting for her because I know you have no idea what you're actually supporting. If you did, you may not vote for Trump, but you wouldn't give her your support either. Every new thing I find out is worse than the last. I will take Trump's over tanned, rude, fast talking, womanizing self over her ANY day. #neverkillary'

Also. this article (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/16/tammy_bruce_i_prefer_to_be_offended_by_trump_on_oc cassion_than_to_be_left_for_dead_by_hillary.html) should serve as some food for thought.

It's kind of a shame that one has to go on the internet to know about this stuff when news outlets should have been reporting it. Most people seem to be under the impression that "the emails" were her only crime. Not even remotely close. Seth Rich. Juanita Brodderick. The Bernie Sanders incident in the primaries. Some incriminating videos were also released of her team plotting to do similar things in the general election. The Clinton Foundation. Could easily go on with more.

Should also add, Jill Stein, a third-party candidate who was actually popular among the democrats, acknowledged that the believes Hillary is the far greater of the two evils.


Not my words, but this sums it up:

Donald Trump has ascended to power despite showing every sign of being dangerously unfit for it and by exposing in himself and in the electorate the worst that America has to offer: racism, sexism, antisemitism, a contempt for the most vulnerable among us, intimations of fascism, a positive love of bullying, total disdain for our democratic institutions, a willingness to make threats of political violence just for the fun of it, a contempt for science, and a love of conspiracy theories. I mean, I could run through it all again, the crazy things he’s said and the toxic alliances he’s made.

The irony is: If he had been merely half as bad, he would have seemed worse. He would have been more recognizably dangerous. But there were so many awful moments that the media couldn’t focus on them for long enough, or weigh their significance. And the big things were as big as they get, right? “Climate change is a hoax.” “Why can’t we use our nuclear weapons?” “Maybe nuclear proliferation is a good thing. Let the Saudis and the Japanese and the South Koreans build their own nukes.” “Who’s to say we should support our NATO alliances? What have they done for us?” “Putin is a great leader.” “Maybe we should just default on our debt, cut a better deal.” Any one of those things should have ended it.

But of course, the little things were just as weird, and should have been just as disqualifying. I mean, we have just elected a president who has bragged about invading the dressing rooms of beauty pageant contestants, so that he could see them naked, when they were effectively his employees—he owned the pageant. And then he even bullied some of these young women publicly, some on social media in the wee hours of the morning while campaigning for the presidency. And then he denied doing any of these things when no denial was even possible. We had all seen his tweets. And in response to the astonishment of the media, he looked the American people in the eye, and said, “No one respects women more than I do. No one.” And half the country accepted that as, what, the truth? As good theatre? As sketch comedy? I mean, there are really no words to describe how far from normal we have drifted here.

First of all -

One (https://twitter.com/BrielleMissNJ/status/786245620524781568)
Two (http://www.infowars.com/former-miss-teen-usa-defends-trump-on-allegations/)


And you are right, one should not trivialize the things he said, a lot of it was horrible.

But my point is, at the end of the day, all of Trump's disqualifying faults (with the exception of maybe the Trump University scandal) sum up to things he said, and personality flaws. While Hillary Clinton had a MOUNTAIN of disqualifying things which actually directly compromised her credibility, as well as her performance in such a position. It really is -that- bad, which is probably what helped Trump win. If she didn't illegally and unjustly steal the nomination from Bernie, we wouldn't be having this and Trump would probably get disqualified a lot quicker.
Legally and politically, Trump does have a clean slate compared to her. He just has a potty mouth and zero filter, which is problematic. And yes there are a lot of other things wrong with him (like his stance on abortion). But next to Hillary's dirt, sadly, and it pains me to say it, they actually are just, as the meme said, "mean things". Trump never intentionally got anyone killed. Trump didn't have to engage in voter fraud to win the primary.
The media may have drifted from the Trump issues, but at least they thoroughly covered them and talked about them enough to make sure people know about it and pop out a few memes.


Also, since you acknowledged the faults with the regressive left, I probably don't need to explain that, but in addition to the article that Gavin posted, the mentality that "anyone who voted for Trump/finds him to be the lesser of the two evils (which I do but I didn't vote for him) is a racist/sexist/homophobe/bigot/hateful person" doesn't exactly do a good job winning over/swaying Trump supporters that are on the fence. I'm sure you know that though.

About time people realize that obnoxious smug assholes like these people, are responsible for alienating the white vote, particularly white men.
Think about it, if given the option for voting for a party that claims you're a bigot for existing or someone else, people will have no problem going for that someone else. Not because they're a bigot, but simply because they're repulsed and put off more by that side than by Trump. I'm sure Hillary's criminal record also helps.
Congrats, they took what should have been a slam dunk and handed it to Trump. All so they could feel smugly superior to people they consider the enemy based on how they were born.

Hopefully it gives them something to think about the next four years.

Going back to Trump's 'lack of filter' - From what I saw, rather than directly spew racist shit like Hitler or KKK, it seemed that definitely enjoyed to intentionally push the buttons of the regressive left and give extremist PC culture the middle finger. Kind of like I do... except, of course, that's a very dangerous thing to do when you're running for president. I know it's fun to cherry-pick racists who are "in denial" and make very subtle racist statements like "I'm not racist but...". Sure, Trump is arguably that, I'll give you that. I realize it's much more fun for the left to pick at them than at KKK members or neo-Nazis or Muslim extremists (sorry not sorry LOL), sure.
I will say I wanted to high-five him back when he said "this nation doesn't have time for Political Correctness" back near the beginning of his campaign, but that was too early to form an opinion of him. I knew it would win a lot of people over though.

But because he *is* that type, there hasn't exactly been anything to suggest that while in office he's gonna commit a race genocide, or go all Jim Crowe on us. Nothing. That's why his bigotry and off-putting personality flaws doesn't seem to faze a lot of minorities who voted for him, as well as a lot of non-racist whites. And again, Hillary's criminal record helps. And maybe they like the good traits and selling points he brings to the table, like Gavin said, a lot of people voted for him with enthusiasm.

For instance, I'd love to see ISIS defeated. In fact, it would always piss me off to no end how whenever there was an ISIS attack that killed people by the hundreds, a lot of social media's immediate priority above all was "let's try hard not to offend Muslims and police people saying mean things on the internet about them". I get it, we shouldn't stereotype based on that, but there is a time and place for everything, but the last thing people need to hear after such an attack like that happens is "BUT NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE BAD". Yes, no shit not all Muslims are bad, and I've got news for you - wishing ill will specifically on the terrorists doesn't make one a bigot. And really, that's the first thing that comes to your mind over "my heart goes out to everyone in ____ affected by the attack"? Yeah, I'm sure their families would love somebody dangling "NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE BAD" in their face trying to educate them.

If he fixes the economy that would be awesome as well.

I think in most of his voter's minds, the worst case scenario is that he gets lazy and doesn't end up fulfilling his promises. Which is far less of a risk than what Hillary might have done (or what the far left is afraid of him doing).

In case you haven't guessed, I lied actually, I did vote for him, but the fact that I needed to lie about that because of the leftist backlash and what you might assume about me if I hadn't made the above post, speaks volumes. If it makes anyone feel better he didn't win in my state.

[Zak]

Even scarier is his diehard followers who actively espouse these values. The typical Trump voter chose to look past them (which is at least just as harmful), but there is a sizeable portion of the population here who have taken Trump's election as permission to take hateful action in the last few days. Hate crimes are on the rise. I've had friends physically assaulted for being queer or of color. Regardless of how you identify, politically, this is not okay. This is the furthest thing from okay. It's terrifying. It's literal terror, and Trump NEEDS to speak up and say no and take a stance against it, because he alone has the platform.

This is horrible and I really hope he does speak up about it. He wasn't exactly happy with the KKK's "endorsement" of him and denounced it, so hopefully he does this and ASAP, especially if he wants to create unity.

[Drago]

In case you haven't guessed, I lied actually, I did vote for him, but the fact that I needed to lie about that because of the leftist backlash and what you might assume about me if I hadn't made the above post, speaks volumes. If it makes anyone feel better he didn't win in my state.
HC-FFCbd3_k

[shazza]

Thanks for engaging me. With the aftermath of this election, one thing I've learned is that it is truly injudicious to engage in ad hominem and regressive left tactics. I'm sure I've been guilty in the past to make unfair assumptions, based on emotion, that a Trump supporter is racist. This is a learning process for me and I hope it is for you as well. As we have alluded to, I speculate that much of Trump’s win is a backlash response to the regressive left. Nevertheless, this does not justify it as the right choice, nor should the regressive left be considered the most important issue.

For such an emotionally driven topic as today’s politics, the appropriate response, to me, is to distance our emotions as much as possible. Let us therefore rely on logic and reason, and I implore you to do so. If you’re unable to do so, and can’t distance yourself from your biases and identity politics, then please let me know and we can cease the discussion since it won’t do either of us any good. I would suggest in engaging in 20 minutes of meditation or something.


Actually, I live in very blue (liberal) state, so you can tell me all you want about echo chambers. But you're correct, not my words originally.
I apologise, I meant online echo chambers. We all now have access to the 'real information' that supports our views thanks to the internet, and we communicate it with others that support our views. There's so much cognitive biases entrenched in today’s online identity politics that I’ve hitherto never witnessed. And I am not being partisan here; it’s rampant in both the regressive left and the alt right – the two main ideologies, from my understanding, that have originated from online discussion.


Frankly I think there's a lot of stuff about Hillary that the mainstream media did a terrible job covering because they were so afraid of Trump getting elected, so they minimized coverage of that. When I was younger I always used to ignore when someone said "oh, the media is biased" because I'd assume it was just them trying to sound smart and know-it-all, but this year for the first time I'm seeing it firsthand. There are some pretty serious damning scary things about her which, scarily enough, every network (except Fox) pretty much pushed under the rug, which if it had happened to Trump, they would talk non-stop about it and meme about it left and right and probably run him out of the country.

Sure, the media is biased, but voting for Trump will not resolve this. Could you provide me evidence that a vote for Trump is going to help directly influence the media, or was it merely an emotional response? My thesis is this: if we try our best to weigh up the faults of both candidates, both their history and character traits, then Donald Trump were logically the wrong choice. To summarise, Donald Trump appears to me to be severely psychologically damaged, highly narcissistic, superficially charming, and has this odd tendency to express a theory or thought that has no coherency from a thought he had a week ago. This is not ad hominem, for the personality and character traits of a president should be earnestly considered. How does this pale in comparison to Clinton? Because Trump has no history of political indiscretions (due to a lack of political experience), when his business indiscretions and corruption are plentiful? How do we account for his supposed backtrack of Obamacare? Was his personality throughout the campaign hyperbolic for the sake of entertainment and attention, and we should disregard everything he has said? If so, that’s frighteningly deceitful. Or is he living in the moment and convinced of his series of lies and contradictions, when they are recorded? If so, that’s frighteningly delusional.

If Trump’s win is a response to the establishment, and the corruption of Hillary, then I cannot see how this was not emotionally driven. Voting for Trump will not fix the establishment or promote positive change. Moreover, there appears to be a consistency of minimising Trump’s flaws for those who have voted for him to attenuate cognitive dissonance. A more logical response would have been to vote for Hillary without minimising her DNC indiscretions.

And, yes, I understand: Trump didn’t win; Hillary lost. And many have a right to be angry at her, however the emotional justification doesn’t really have logical substance if the consideration is based on the lesser of two evils.


"I will NEVER be with her. I don't care if that horrible witch becomes president. I will never accept her. I forgive all of you who are voting for her because I know you have no idea what you're actually supporting. If you did, you may not vote for Trump, but you wouldn't give her your support either. Every new thing I find out is worse than the last. I will take Trump's over tanned, rude, fast talking, womanizing self over her ANY day. #neverkillary"

Once again, there is the reoccurring issue of maximising Hillary's corruption by minimising Trump as merely "rude". We need to detach from our emotional suppositions.


"Also. this article should serve as some food for thought."

This article's contention once again has the flawed assumption that Trump's main issue is that he occasionally offends. If we wish to argue this properly, I repeat: it is imperative to accept the flaws of both candidates without the tactic of minimising the other. If I am here to accept that Hillary is a compromised character with a series of indiscretions, and the media had a bias to hide this, then do you accept that Trump is more than just someone that occasionally offends? What is your assessment of Trump and why would you say he is the lesser of two evils? For us to move forward, we need to logically do this and emotionally remove our attachment to identity politics. If we cannot, which is the issue of 99% of discourse with both the alt right and regressive left, then this discussion will be circular and pointless.


It's kind of a shame that one has to go on the internet to know about this stuff when news outlets should have been reporting it. Most people seem to be under the impression that "the emails" were her only crime. Not even remotely close. Seth Rich. Juanita Brodderick. The Bernie Sanders incident in the primaries. Some incriminating videos were also released of her team plotting to do similar things in the general election. The Clinton Foundation. Could easily go on with more.

I agree. It still doesn’t hold that she is the greater of two evils. Also, I suspect that the issues with the Clinton Foundation donations have a tinge of the post hoc fallacy – e.g. Clinton created ISIS. Correlation does not equate to causation.

Should also add, Jill Stein, a third-party candidate who was actually popular among the democrats, acknowledged that the believes Hillary is the far greater of the two evils.

I don’t know how to respond to this. I’m sure there are Republicans who would have thought Trump was the greater of two evils. Other people’s opinions without some logic and proof don’t hold.



First of all -
One
Two

“You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody okay?’” he continued. “And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that.” (https://thinkprogress.org/trump-beauty-pageants-naked-2dc4b6c6d507#.1zc683ufb)

Please don’t let your rationale for Hillary being the greater of two evils require you to minimise Donald Trump’s character and history. Provide me proof.


But my point is, at the end of the day, all of Trump's disqualifying faults (with the exception of maybe the Trump University scandal) sum up to things he said, and personality flaws. While Hillary Clinton had a MOUNTAIN of disqualifying things which actually directly compromised her credibility, as well as her performance in such a position. It really is -that- bad, which is probably what helped Trump win. If she didn't illegally and unjustly steal the nomination from Bernie, we wouldn't be having this and Trump would probably get disqualified a lot quicker.

Okay, this outlines your argument quite well. I refute this and would argue that, since Trump has hitherto had no history in politics, which in of itself is disconcerting, we need to rely on his personality flaws and psychological faults. I will ignore the business indiscretions of the fact that words precede action.

The United States of America has elected a pathological liar, a buffoon, a narcissist, a man devoid of empathy and compassion, a climate change denier, and a sexual predator as the 45th President of the United States. This man now has access to nuclear weapons who has allegedly being quoted as saying, ”Why can’t we use them?” (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html)
Finally, electing this man to punish Hillary for the way she acted in the DNC and with Bernie Sanders was completely emotionally driven. Based on the above, there is no logic for his election and an emotional justification is certainly not the correct one.

Legally and politically, Trump does have a clean slate compared to her. He just has a potty mouth and zero filter, which is problematic. And yes there are a lot of other things wrong with him (like his stance on abortion). But next to Hillary's dirt, sadly, and it pains me to say it, they actually are just, as the meme said, "mean things". Trump never intentionally got anyone killed. Trump didn't have to engage in voter fraud to win the primary.

Again, you’re minimising Trump as merely having a “potty mouth”. Also, you need to look at both of these candidates’ flaws independent of the other, then weigh up which is the better or worse. If you consider Donald Trump’s flaws ONLY in relation to Hillary, and consider them “mean things”, then I don’t think you’re looking at this logically.


Also, since you acknowledged the faults with the regressive left, I probably don't need to explain that, but in addition to the article that Gavin posted, the mentality that "anyone who voted for Trump/finds him to be the lesser of the two evils (which I do but I didn't vote for him) is a racist/sexist/homophobe/bigot/hateful person" doesn't exactly do a good job winning over/swaying Trump supporters that are on the fence. I'm sure you know that though.

I agree.


About time people realize that obnoxious smug assholes like these people, are responsible for alienating the white vote, particularly white men.

For the failures of the regressive left, it seems to me ill-wise and selfish to vote for Trump. Also, I sincerely doubt that this means the death of the regressive left and political correctness – I’d argue that they are going to be more charged than ever.

Think about it, if given the option for voting for a party that claims you're a bigot for existing or someone else, people will have no problem going for that someone else. Not because they're a bigot, but simply because they're repulsed and put off more by that side than by Trump. I'm sure Hillary's criminal record also helps.

I understand the rationale. But it is not logically sound to vote for an actual racist in response to accusations of being a racist. And to minimise cognitive dissonance, people are minimising Trump’s deeply entrenched flaws. It’s emotionally driven.


Going back to Trump's 'lack of filter' - From what I saw, rather than directly spew racist shit like Hitler or KKK, it seemed that definitely enjoyed to intentionally push the buttons of the regressive left and give extremist PC culture the middle finger. Kind of like I do... except, of course, that's a very dangerous thing to do when you're running for president. I know it's fun to cherry-pick racists who are "in denial" and make very subtle racist statements like "I'm not racist but...". Sure, Trump is arguably that, I'll give you that. I realize it's much more fun for the left to pick at them than at KKK members or neo-Nazis or Muslim extremists (sorry not sorry LOL), sure.
I will say I wanted to high-five him back when he said "this nation doesn't have time for Political Correctness" back near the beginning of his campaign, but that was too early to form an opinion of him. I knew it would win a lot of people over though.
I get the impression you think Political Correctness and the regressive left is the gravest concern and issue of this election, more important than aspects like climate change and placing the nucleolar codes in the hands of a psychologically imbalanced individual.


But because he *is* that type, there hasn't exactly been anything to suggest that while in office he's gonna commit a race genocide, or go all Jim Crowe on us. Nothing. That's why his bigotry and off-putting personality flaws doesn't seem to faze a lot of minorities who voted for him, as well as a lot of non-racist whites. And again, Hillary's criminal record helps. And maybe they like the good traits and selling points he brings to the table, like Gavin said, a lot of people voted for him with enthusiasm.

In line with this topic, I think it’s more apt to describe him as a bigot as opposed to a racist. If he doesn’t like your ideas, he doesn’t like you. This is a tad ironic given the criticisms of the regressive left.


For instance, I'd love to see ISIS defeated. In fact, it would always piss me off to no end how whenever there was an ISIS attack that killed people by the hundreds, a lot of social media's immediate priority above all was "let's try hard not to offend Muslims and police people saying mean things on the internet about them". I get it, we shouldn't stereotype based on that, but there is a time and place for everything, but the last thing people need to hear after such an attack like that happens is "BUT NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE BAD". Yes, no shit not all Muslims are bad, and I've got news for you - wishing ill will specifically on the terrorists doesn't make one a bigot. And really, that's the first thing that comes to your mind over "my heart goes out to everyone in ____ affected by the attack"? Yeah, I'm sure their families would love somebody dangling "NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE BAD" in their face trying to educate them.

I agree, but I think where we differ is that you think this is the biggest issue and concern of the election. And since you think this is the biggest concern, you think Donald Trump was the right choice. Am I correct?


If he fixes the economy that would be awesome as well.

How?


I think in most of his voter's minds, the worst case scenario is that he gets lazy and doesn't end up fulfilling his promises. Which is far less of a risk than what Hillary might have done (or what the far left is afraid of him doing).

I disagree. The worst case scenario seems to be fear of what he is capable of. I think most people are hopeful that a lot of his promises and rhetoric throughout the campaign were hyperbolic and fictitious. If this was purposeful, then the USA has elected a great conman. But what are the chances that someone so blatantly horrible was pulling an act for the last 18 months? And if this was his way of getting elected, then surely that’s an insult to his voters? But why is he now talking about merely amending Obamacare? I don’t think he knows what he’s going to do. A part of me feels like he felt his own joke went too far.

The best possible outcome is that his narcissism wants him to be a great president in history, and he changes his act accordingly. Perhaps the altruistic motives that come from being president will be self-serving for him. Perhaps he will have some sound advisors, and in this case I wish for a successful Trump presidency.

But I guess as I’ve said before, I’m not quite sure whether he was putting on an act, or he’s so delusional that he says what comes to mind in the time that benefits him.

Donald Trump is the greater of two evils – even with all of the flaws of Clinton. The man is psychologically warped from either way you look at it, and we have no idea what he is capable of.

[Blademaster]

I ain't reading all this shit. I'm just glad God-Emperor Trump won and is going to make America great again. :)

[Mr.E]

Yeah I've already argued enough about this junk elsewhere, so I hope nobody wants to engage me too hard here, but the whole LOL LIBERALS leftist-SJW-tumblrina bashing shit is no better than the people who characterize every Trump supporter as if they're part of the extreme alt-right hyperbigot crowd.

As a Bernie supporter I was a reluctant but confident Clinton voter. While it's easy to say in hindsight oh my god clinton was the one candidate that could have lost to Trump, and yeah I can say with all confidence Sanders would've completely destroyed Trump in the general election, she was still the clear choice between her and Trump. They're both flawed candidates, but while the knocks against Clinton are nebulous and opinionated, Trump's are concrete. He's outright admitted to stiffing contractors over legitimate work performed, serial sexual assault, and so on. And while the tax dodgery is technically legal, it's certainly the type of ethical/moral conduct nobody should want to see out of a presidential candidate... Clinton mishandled some emails and she's made plenty of partisan political decisions in her 20+ year career that people don't necessarily agree with.

Nevermind that Clinton is arguably the most qualified candidate we've ever had, while Trump is inarguably the least qualified candidate ever. Trump had and still doesn't yet have much of any concrete policy plans in place either. The most of what we know is that he wants to toughen immigration laws and slash taxes to an insane degree on the rich, and his tax proposals keep changing but remain universally panned by every economist and political think tank on all sides of the political spectrum. And while I think all the bigot-talk was more rhetoric than substantial, the fact is that electing this man has legitimized the type of backwater assholes that actually do still have such regressive, outdated thoughts and feelings. It makes me sick to my stomach that "we" (I sure didn't) elected literally Donald Trump. Which is why I know that Bernie would've curbstomped him and ate his heart for breakfast on inauguration day, because obviously the result was simply about sending a message to "the establishment." And I don't disagree, the Clinton campaign had a number of issues, but Donald Trump was just about the worst champion to hoist the anti-establihment's banner. :(

Only bright side for us progressives? The Democratic party, after losing to the most grossly unqualified presidential candidate ever, simply has no choice but to take a long, hard look at itself in the mirror and fucking fix itself. I hope it's in Bernie's direction, as his relative success in the primaries versus Clinton proves there's a market for truly progressive policies while Trump's victory proves that populism is important again. I worry it might be too late already, as the likely appointment of hyperconservative Supreme Court justices could set us back decades of social progress to say nothing of the immediate effects of a Republican-controlled everything, but regardless it obviously needs to change for the future.

But, it actually happened. It actually fucking happened. Holy shit. What the fuck is wrong with people? :confused:

Welp, nothing to do at this point but hope and pray for the best. This is no longer a joke. (It's a nightmare. CAN'T WAKE UP!)

Best-case scenario, Trump actually has a number of liberal positions. Reminder that he is a true Republican-In-Name-Only, he just ran on their ticket. I've heard he used to be pro-choice, and I'm not going to waste my time verifying that or not but regardless, while he professes to be pro-life at this time he's also been supportive of Planned Parenthood for all their non-abortion-related services; the stereotypical Republican wants to gut it. He was against the Iraq War from the beginning, so all the rhetoric about wanting to "bomb the fuck out of" everyone was likely just that, rhetoric. While racially insensitive at best, and surrounded by staunch conservatives who disagree with him on this regard, Trump himself is pro-LGBT.

Maybe he pulls a Tom Wheeler on us who, despite being a former lobbyist for the cable industry, has proven he just does his job either way and has stood for the people quite handily as Chairman of the FCC. Maybe Trump is really just the ultimate gamesman and he'll knock it out of the park as President likewise. I doubt it, but all we can do is wait and see, so best to acknowledge the good he could do and hope for the best. Perhaps, since he's butted heads so much with the establishment Republicans so much the whole time, his penchant for revenge and in-fighting between Trumpers and the old guard keep the Republican-controlled Congress from passing too many crazy laws. More than likely, Trump doesn't know what the hell he's doing anyway and he'll just puppet the conservative positions of all his advisors, so we'll "only" end up with another Dubya rather than anything truly catastrophic and we can hopefully move back toward making progress in four years.


So... Here's to hoping net neutrality isn't dead, a ballooning national debt on the order of 10+ trillion dollars doesn't drive us into Great Depression 2.0 somewhere down the road, the Earth remains physically habitable in the face of environmental deregulation and minority rights aren't set back decades. And that Donald doesn't actually press the button, granted Hillary's record as a war hawk probably doesn't make her that much less likely to have done it either (but at least she has a calm and collected temperament). It's already not looking promising based on Trump's named cabinet appointments thus far, though.

And fuck the Republican Congress for getting away with blackballing Obama's Supreme Court appointment.

At least I'm a white male, so I'll suffer less on the way down. :notfunny:

[Zak]

Sorry for delayed response. Been a crazy week. But thanks for hearing me out.


Thanks for engaging me. With the aftermath of this election, one thing I've learned is that it is truly injudicious to engage in ad hominem and regressive left tactics. I'm sure I've been guilty in the past to make unfair assumptions, based on emotion, that a Trump supporter is racist. This is a learning process for me and I hope it is for you as well. As we have alluded to, I speculate that much of Trump’s win is a backlash response to the regressive left. Nevertheless, this does not justify it as the right choice, nor should the regressive left be considered the most important issue.

It wasn't the logical reason to make the choice. The "middle finger to the regressive left" was just the icing on the cake (I can't speak for everyone who made that choice, but that is the case for me and everyone else who thought it through with logic). If I was sold based on that, I would have voted for him in the primary. At that time, a vote for him wasn't even on my radar and I never thought it would be. Sure, he appealed as a person, but that was it.

In fact, part of me doesn't agree with the "This is why Trump won" articles talking about the extremity of the regressive left. It implies that everyone who voted for him voted based on pure emotion that you said, and zero logic. In a way that's true though since many voters like that (on both sides) do exist, so that does indeed help his numbers in states that matter, can't argue that.

But the reason he won, and the reason I voted for him (or more specifically, the reason I logically find him to be the lesser evil), are two very very different things.


For such an emotionally driven topic as today’s politics, the appropriate response, to me, is to distance our emotions as much as possible. Let us therefore rely on logic and reason, and I implore you to do so. If you’re unable to do so, and can’t distance yourself from your biases and identity politics, then please let me know and we can cease the discussion since it won’t do either of us any good. I would suggest in engaging in 20 minutes of meditation or something.

I'm following. If I wasn't able to I probably wouldn't have taken the time to engage you in the first place on the subject. But yes, I think what's prevented this discussion is not necessarily letting emotions get in the way, but more out of assumption of the other person to do that and shut you down. But we have each other's full attention now, so, moving forward.


I apologise, I meant online echo chambers. We all now have access to the 'real information' that supports our views thanks to the internet, and we communicate it with others that support our views. There's so much cognitive biases entrenched in today’s online identity politics that I’ve hitherto never witnessed. And I am not being partisan here; it’s rampant in both the regressive left and the alt right – the two main ideologies, from my understanding, that have originated from online discussion.

I agree, though in my experience it is clear one is spoken out against more than the other. Still, me having a tendency to play Devil's Advocate and speak out against the one that less draw attention to, that actually has nothing to do with what makes him the lesser of the evils, in my mind. In fact, in the primary, Sanders was my choice and he's a Socialist, and had he gotten the nomination I would have voted for him over Trump in a heartbeat.


Sure, the media is biased, but voting for Trump will not resolve this. Could you provide me evidence that a vote for Trump is going to help directly influence the media, or was it merely an emotional response? My thesis is this: if we try our best to weigh up the faults of both candidates, both their history and character traits, then Donald Trump were logically the wrong choice.

I actually don't expect him at all to influence the media - in fact, like I said above, during the primaries I was literally saying the exact same thing you're saying right now: As much as I hate SJWism, him being elected isn't going to make it go away at all, it's only gonna kick it into high gear. Which is why he wasn't my candidate at the time. Ironically, Sanders was.

As for it being "emotionally driven", of course it was for a lot of people. But no more "emotionally driven" than many of the votes against him, wouldn't you say? But that doesn't mean logic wasn't taken into account. They aren't mutually exclusive.

For me (and I'm sure many others), it was not an easy choice, took about a month of weighing to make up my mind, without minimizing any of Trump's indiscretions either. But, weighing all the dirt on both (as well as fact checking some of the more shocking things), Hillary Clinton comes up as the far, far greater threat, and watching her lie through her teeth during the debates was shaking to the core. Her DNC indiscretions got someone killed after having exposed them. Also, the last thing we need is to go to war with Russia.

And this is even taking into account Trump's indiscretions.


To summarise, Donald Trump appears to me to be severely psychologically damaged, highly narcissistic, superficially charming, and has this odd tendency to express a theory or thought that has no coherency from a thought he had a week ago.

True, but for many, that is arguably less terrifying than someone who lies through their teeth while putting on a sweet face, and even worse, hides behind a mask of 'morality'. He's a narcissistic douchebag that has no shame shitting on others as he sees fit. He's a bully, yes. HRC is a straight up psycho. I know people might disagree here, but I find the latter far more terrifying.
As for the lack of coherency, yes, he's stupid. I find a stupid villain less threatening than a smart villain.


This is not ad hominem, for the personality and character traits of a president should be earnestly considered. How does this pale in comparison to Clinton? Because Trump has no history of political indiscretions (due to a lack of political experience), when his business indiscretions and corruption are plentiful?

They should be taken into account, but thanks to Hillary, that's a risk I'd prefer to take. A lot of presidents (and people in politics) had a shady past. People were saying the same thing about Ronald Reagan. Thing is, being a business leader or a lawyer you have a lot less at stake than as a world leader. Look how few cared about his business indiscretions until he started running for office. Prior to that, in addition to being a reality show host, he was seen as "a powerful business mogul", not so much a "corrupt business mogul". Even with his business indiscretions, he still was able to get away with continuing his business career and hosting a popular reality TV show.
Speaking of which, why's he being given criticism for settling in the Trump University case? Because it 'makes him look weak and defeated'? I would think it is the right thing to do.
But anyway, yes, he really has to redeem himself. Given HRC and her goons' continued indiscretions up until election day, I can honestly say (and we probably differ here) that I have more faith in him doing that than her. She has clearly demonstrated up until election day she knows exactly what she's doing and doesn't care and just smirks about it.

Mind you, that's still not a great amount of faith, but it's the cards we're dealt.


How do we account for his supposed backtrack of Obamacare?

That is worrisome, but still, him getting lazy and lost and not keeping his promises is *still* less of a catastrophe than what almost certainly will happen with HRC.

Also, despite all the reasons everyone is scared of Trump or threatened by him, *this* is what I think is the worst case scenario. I'd rather risk someone not "do good" than someone "do horrible".

Again, it's the cards we're dealt.


Was his personality throughout the campaign hyperbolic for the sake of entertainment and attention, and we should disregard everything he has said? If so, that’s frighteningly deceitful. Or is he living in the moment and convinced of his series of lies and contradictions, when they are recorded? If so, that’s frighteningly delusional.

Has he contradicted or gone back on anything else aside from Obamacare yet?

Yes he did push hard the positive things he was selling (which frankly, I know it doesn't matter really at this point but I did find those things far more appealing than anything HRC sold, should they come to fruition) and it would be a shame if he didn't keep them and a huge insult to his voters. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Honestly though if he could fix what was problematic about Obamacare rather than completely replace it like he's been saying, I don't think people would be all that angry.

In the end of the day, all of this is *still* a preferable risk to take than HRC.


And, yes, I understand: Trump didn’t win; Hillary lost. And many have a right to be angry at her, however the emotional justification doesn’t really have logical substance if the consideration is based on the lesser of two evils.

Once again, there is the reoccurring issue of maximising Hillary's corruption by minimising Trump as merely "rude". We need to detach from our emotional suppositions.

The thing is, usually when people criticize Trump, quite often the only thing they have to bring to the table is his personality flaws. You did bring more and I appreciate that (though as I outlined above in my response to them I still stand by my conclusion of HRC as the greater of the two evils), but do you understand why when that's all one takes into account, that's not enough to make him the greater evil over a history of political corruption (which has been made clear the candidate doesn't care about redeeming)?


This article's contention once again has the flawed assumption that Trump's main issue is that he occasionally offends. If we wish to argue this properly, I repeat: it is imperative to accept the flaws of both candidates without the tactic of minimising the other. If I am here to accept that Hillary is a compromised character with a series of indiscretions, and the media had a bias to hide this, then do you accept that Trump is more than just someone that occasionally offends?

Yes, I do. Like I said above, it would be easier to acknowledge that if 'he offends' wasn't the left's primary go-to in arguing that HRC is better. But since it is and they often use that as a scapegoat implying that's all they need, that's why it gets minimized. In fact they probably would have a better platform if they argued that without mentioning personality flaws at all and instead took into account what is actually at stake.
I mean, in the end of the day, lets say his only issue was his personality flaws and vulgarity (I know it's not). But IF that were the case, you wouldn't still consider him the greater of the evils, right? He's not a pleasant person, but you don't have to work alongside him. You just have to live with the fact that he's representing your country which is slightly embarrassing but in hindsight, you'll live. That's why that particular aspect of him gets minimized in comparison to HRC. Do you see why that doesn't calculate?


What is your assessment of Trump and why would you say he is the lesser of two evils? For us to move forward, we need to logically do this and emotionally remove our attachment to identity politics. If we cannot, which is the issue of 99% of discourse with both the alt right and regressive left, then this discussion will be circular and pointless.

I covered this above.



“You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody okay?’” he continued. “And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that.” (https://thinkprogress.org/trump-beauty-pageants-naked-2dc4b6c6d507#.1zc683ufb)

Please don’t let your rationale for Hillary being the greater of two evils require you to minimise Donald Trump’s character and history. Provide me proof.

Again, personality flaw.

Character, yes, history, no. Though I did outline above why I stand by that despite his history.


Okay, this outlines your argument quite well. I refute this and would argue that, since Trump has hitherto had no history in politics, which in of itself is disconcerting, we need to rely on his personality flaws and psychological faults. I will ignore the business indiscretions of the fact that words precede action.

The United States of America has elected a pathological liar, a buffoon, a narcissist, a man devoid of empathy and compassion, a climate change denier, and a sexual predator as the 45th President of the United States. This man now has access to nuclear weapons who has allegedly being quoted as saying, ”Why can’t we use them?” (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html)
Finally, electing this man to punish Hillary for the way she acted in the DNC and with Bernie Sanders was completely emotionally driven. Based on the above, there is no logic for his election and an emotional justification is certainly not the correct one.

Well, I have to disagree about some of those descriptions. I certainly don't believe he's devoid of empathy and compassion. I also don't think he's a sexual predator, despite the lewd tape released. I'll be glad to engage in debate about that, but I can assure it would take up half this page. There was actually a long post I made on FB about it when it first surfaced which you may have seen (my own words), where I censored myself more than usual and had a disclaimer, but gave a logical assessment of that. I can dig it up and copy/paste it here if you'd like. I will tell you, it did get me some unexpected positive responses from some of my harshest liberal critics.


Again, you’re minimising Trump as merely having a “potty mouth”. Also, you need to look at both of these candidates’ flaws independent of the other, then weigh up which is the better or worse. If you consider Donald Trump’s flaws ONLY in relation to Hillary, and consider them “mean things”, then I don’t think you’re looking at this logically.

If we're only looking at his personality and character, then yes, I outlined why above. But as you brought up, there is more than that which requires a little more weighing. Though again, I outlined above why in my mind, it still amounts to HRC being the greater of the two evils.


For the failures of the regressive left, it seems to me ill-wise and selfish to vote for Trump. Also, I sincerely doubt that this means the death of the regressive left and political correctness – I’d argue that they are going to be more charged than ever.

I agree. I was saying this during the primary. Covered this above anyway.


I understand the rationale. But it is not logically sound to vote for an actual racist in response to accusations of being a racist. And to minimise cognitive dissonance, people are minimising Trump’s deeply entrenched flaws. It’s emotionally driven.

Alright, here's another thing that may be a bit more than a mere personality flaw which requires a little more rationalizing, but here goes.

So I'm not necessarily saying this is the case with Trump, but you seem familiar with the regressive left and how a lot the things they label 'racist' is cherry-picking. Thing is, this does apply to a lot of the things they quote Trump for, but not all, some are more of a big deal.

That being said, they're acting like he's going around spouting the N word and threatening a genocide or to go Jim Crowe on us (you're familiar with who that is, right?) or trying to actively oppress minorities.

When in fact, a lot of it is criticizing the left for being overly obsessed with tolerance in a way that is detrimental, kind of like their attitude towards ISIS attacks like I described above. The wall (which I have mixed feelings about) doesn't seem to stem from any animosity towards Mexicans, but rather from a lot of drug trafficking and even human trafficking that occurs on that border and how the security leads to a lot of people getting killed. Of course, the regressive left makes discussion of this topic feel like walking on eggshells since it involves a minority and it's hard to address without looking racist to them. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a serious problem, and the notion that we should ignore it and close our eyes and pretend it doesn't happen, to avoid sounding racist? That's ridiculous.
The same applies to terrorist attacks. All of these issues are things I've never seen ANY liberal address, I've only seen them yell at non-liberals for innocence of bringing them up.

While Trump's plans to tackle these issues might be a bit unorthodox, I still wouldn't call them racist. Sure, he didn't censor himself or give disclaimers when addressing him, like most people intimidated by the left probably would have. That's not racist though, that's just giving zero fucks about pandering to the left.

Have you heard about what's been happening in Sweden lately? A perfect example of why the left's obsession with 'tolerance' is a dangerous way of thinking.

Yes, the KKK endorsed him. He wasn't exactly thrilled about that. Yes, we've got idiots committing hate crimes in his name which as Magmar mentioned earlier in this thread it would be nice if he calls out. It would seem he has started to (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/).


I get the impression you think Political Correctness and the regressive left is the gravest concern and issue of this election, more important than aspects like climate change and placing the nucleolar codes in the hands of a psychologically imbalanced individual.

It actually isn't. My biggest concern was corruption and going to war with Russia. What you described is just the icing on the cake which if it weren't for those other two things I wouldn't be voting for him.


In line with this topic, I think it’s more apt to describe him as a bigot as opposed to a racist. If he doesn’t like your ideas, he doesn’t like you. This is a tad ironic given the criticisms of the regressive left.

Sure.


I agree, but I think where we differ is that you think this is the biggest issue and concern of the election. And since you think this is the biggest concern, you think Donald Trump was the right choice. Am I correct?

I answered this a few times above but no, not the biggest issue, just the icing on the cake.


How?


I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking how fixing the economy would be a good thing? Why wouldn't it?



I disagree. The worst case scenario seems to be fear of what he is capable of. I think most people are hopeful that a lot of his promises and rhetoric throughout the campaign were hyperbolic and fictitious. If this was purposeful, then the USA has elected a great conman. But what are the chances that someone so blatantly horrible was pulling an act for the last 18 months? And if this was his way of getting elected, then surely that’s an insult to his voters? But why is he now talking about merely amending Obamacare? I don’t think he knows what he’s going to do. A part of me feels like he felt his own joke went too far.

I think we disagree with what he's capable of, but as for promises not being kept, yes, that would suck. But hey, still prevented war and corruption.


The best possible outcome is that his narcissism wants him to be a great president in history, and he changes his act accordingly. Perhaps the altruistic motives that come from being president will be self-serving for him. Perhaps he will have some sound advisors, and in this case I wish for a successful Trump presidency.

But I guess as I’ve said before, I’m not quite sure whether he was putting on an act, or he’s so delusional that he says what comes to mind in the time that benefits him.

That's right, we can only wait and see. I really hope he doesn't let us down.


Donald Trump is the greater of two evils – even with all of the flaws of Clinton. The man is psychologically warped from either way you look at it, and we have no idea what he is capable of.

I respectfully disagree, but I do see where you're coming from and I appreciate the discussion.

[Zak]

So I dug it up... Re: Trump not being a 'sexual predator' (my own words):




http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html?_r=1

So I'm probably going to get some shit for this post (and yes, I have thought it through), but really, this needs to be said.
I'm also not looking to troll or "trigger" anyone or pick any fights (though I can't speak for what ensues), but this is mainly to clear the air of some of the anger that many seem to be harboring, as well as a legit, genuine concern.

So first of all, the usual disclaimer that I don't like Trump, and I *absolutely* don't condone what was said on that tape (specifically, the highlights that the media has emphasis on).

That being said, I also find it disheartening when people spread around a false rumor, and find it even worse when media outlets that a number of people rely on do it, and misquote things, regardless of who it is about. I find this to be one of those cases. I was actually quite shocked when I saw what the actual dialogue consisted of after having read all the hysteria surrounding it.
Most of the news articles and social media posts and memes surrounding this recent leaked tape, seem to just be various accounts of it in someone else's own words, rather than an actual transcript of it. So here's a link to it for reference.

So first off, a lot of these posts claim him to be "bragging about sexually assaulting/groping without consent". Of course, described that way, that sounds absurd and a bit hard to believe that anyone would brag about committing a felony, let alone a felony that would render you socially isolated and practically unemployable.
So, let's take a look at the transcript and find where he supposedly said that...

"...And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."

They LET you do it. LET. That appears to be one big keyword many media outlets and those sharing the story seem to be conveniently missing here. "Let", for those who understand basic English, implies permission, i.e. -consent-. He did not say that being a 'star' means one should *assume* consent (god forbid) nor that it guarantees it, just that it happens to be a common phenomenon for a 'star' to receive consent, albeit not always. Which is actually quite true, to some extent.

But the bottom line here is, he is not bragging about "sexually assaulting" or "doing things without consent"; he is bragging about having the status which helps earn him that consent from these women. Which is also shitty and not cool to brag about, in fact it is wrong on many levels to brag about it. But it's still not even remotely the same thing. Sure, it's Trump, but that difference *does* matter. I really want to cringe when the words "sexual assault" are used to describe that tape. Say he's objectifying and degrading all you want (which he is doing, but it's been established a while ago that he shamelessly does that), but please, stop comparing him to Bill Cosby and the like. I realize "but it's Trump, we have to stop him somehow" might sound like a viable excuse to paint that fake picture, but that's still not cool.

Secondly, regarding the "grab them by the pussy, you can do anything" line: Obviously it sounds horrible and rapey when cherry-picked with no context. However, going back to the transcript and the context of where it was said (which was actually separate from the above quote), it actually sounds like rather than randomly spontaneously grabbing random female strangers by the crotch (which would be assault), it seems to be more of a metaphoric euphemism for seduction to say "stimulate their interest, and then use that stimulation to your advantage". Kind of like the idiom "she has him by the balls" or "he thinks with his dick". The idea here seems to be "have control over their sexual interest and seduce them". Now, again, seduction is immoral, but still not assault.
Alternatively, I'd like to remind that he also has a tendency to use hyperbole, like with that line about "shooting someone in the street in Times Square, and people would still vote for me" (which I actually think is more serious if anything), as a way of saying his supporters are THAT loyal. Again, this could be a case of hyperbolically talking about having captured someone's interest to the extent that he could practically do that (but not really). The possibilities are endless. I should also remind that he didn't say any of this publicly trolling like he usually does, he said it in a private conversation between two people, likely in confidence that the other person knew him well and would know what he meant and would not be weirded out by it.
Context. Is. Everything. No matter how off-the-wall a quote sounds.

Now, regarding the so-called "locker room talk".
Obviously, no one brags about sexually assaulting people with his buddies in the locker room. It's no wonder athletes would get angry at that implication. And of course, going with my above case/narrative, Trump didn't say that either. But that makes me wonder if many of them actually read that transcript, or took second-hand what the media was spoon-feeding them. There are a disturbing amount of articles straight-up using the "bragging about sexual assault" narrative and cherry-picking little snippets rather than even bothering linking to the tape or the transcript.

Now, here's the most important bit. Some people have close friends who they're comfortable enough to joke about or say things around that they would never say in a stranger's presence, or on social media where not everyone is that close. Offensive jokes. Gossip (which can sometimes be quite cruel unfortunately when it's about someone you know, but there's a reason the close friend is the only one to hear it and be okay with it, and ultimately no one gets hurt).
I believe this is what was referred to as "locker room talk". The reality is, there are, in fact, a lot of things said behind closed doors among certain tight circles that they wouldn't dare say outside of it. I'm sure most would find some of it disturbing. Like sometimes for instance the subject of "who would you want to fuck most" and other fantasies might come up, which I'm sure the women being talked about wouldn't want to hear. But that doesn't change the fact that they would never speak of these things around these women, and they absolutely have no intention to assault anyone. Of course, shit would undoubtedly hit the fan if they were to hear about it, and there would be nothing anyone could do. It's a fragile trust. But that still arguably doesn't inherently make them bad people for having that conversation with no intention of ever acting on anything (except maybe asking them out on a date).

So yes, I know it's easy to say "it doesn't matter when and how he said it, he still said it". I can understand being uncomfortable with the idea of a potential president talking about seduction (which is still a heap of difference from him talking about sexual assault). But still, the fact that he said it in a private personal conversation over a decade before running president was even on his radar, IS in fact relevant. Hell, he said he before the first season of Apprentice even finished production, pretty sure.

Sure, Trump could have clarified this further when asked instead of dismiss it as "locker room talk", but it's probably a wise choice not to waste his time on the debate stage going through what he said. "It's locker room talk, I've never actually done that, let's get on with the debate". Because anyone who actually listened to it or saw the transcript and doesn't blindly take everything the media spoon-feeds them, doesn't even need clarification.

There are many reasons to hate Trump, but that doesn't mean this is ethical. I find the media's fabrication of this almost as disturbing and disgusting as any of what was said, if not more.

end rant

TL:DR - no, read it you lazy