You say "typical liberal" as if that's a genuine belief system and not just a storytelling style designed to persuade a specific subculture.
We really need some indication for distinguishing US "liberal" from actual "liberal" in discussions. US "liberals" jettisoned economic liberalism a century ago, and have gradually shed personal and social liberalism over the last half century. US "liberalism" has become some kind of authoritarian technocratic progressive welfare state; it is the antithesis of actual liberalism.
I think it's not an individual right because I'm literate. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Bill of Rights does not grant any new rights, it simply reaffirms rights that Americans already have under the Constitution. So, the language of 2A really wouldn't matter, even if your interpretation were correct. Gun control is not an enumerated power of the federal government, therefore the federal government has no authority to restrict individual gun ownership, 2A or not.
When Obama got into power, I assumed he'd be the typical liberal. Little did I know he'd get very friendly with the expansion of the police state.
Obama claimed to be a "liberal" (in the traditional sense). He turned out to be a progressive, and progressives favor police states; mass surveillance and suppression of dissent is the only way a progressive political program can be implemented.
And yet the final blow was fighting the 3rd Reich. Like I said an honourable way to lose it.
Well, you obviously don't understand "honor" if you think that two vile, racist empires fighting for dominance and survival makes either regime's motivations "honorable" after the fact.
My gosh you actually believe the crap spouted by the Trump campaign.
We are talking about Wikileaks here, not the Trump campaign. Yes, I do believe that the information released by Wikileaks is largely accurate.
No, what we did was finally bring the full weight of post factual politics to the NATO countries.
Well, yes, that's what you did and what you keep doing.
If you're going to start on about sins, then you'll realise that whoever is the most powerful in the world tends to be guilty of an awful lot.
That guilt is a result of unjust intervention, intervention rooted in the belief that a powerful benevolent state can fix people's problems, not just domestically but abroad. Europeans have held that belief for centuries, rooted in their false sense of moral, political, racial, and intellectual superiority, and it has found its expression in European imperialism, Christian conservatism, socialism, and progressivism, all of which believe in spreading their ideology to the rest of the world, if need be by force. Some of that has spilled over into the US. Hillary Clinton holds such beliefs strongly, which is one of the reasons I find her unacceptable.
Besides, it was lost fighting evil, which seems the most honourable way to lose such a thing.
Don't kid yourself: the British Empire was itself one of the most vile and destructive forces in all of human history.
Who isn't? US politics affect everyone sooner or later.
Well, I suppose the world can breathe a sigh of relief that Brits are now reduced to political misdirection and lies in foreign elections; it's far less violent and destructive than you folks used to be.
Well, whether you like it or not, what you call "low information voters" decide elections, and apparently the Democrats are too incompetent to craft a message that reaches us. Because I sure as hell would never vote for a candidate like Hillary Clinton.
Because you posted it a while back. Oxford computer vision, real-time tracking, no?
on an engineering course? That's not how things work
Basic logic is actually part of engineering and computer science. Of course, classical logic and philosophy is part of a liberal arts education, obviously something you didn't receive.
While not a proof in the strictest sense of the word, that certainly provided a very strong case for Hillary being clean.
You must be fucking kidding.
Actually that seems to be a peculiarly American obsession.
You're right: even more than the escapades of their royals, Brits are concerned with US politics. It must suck having fallen from the "empire where the sun never sets" to a Bismarck-style continental welfare state.
Indeed! The recipe tip about the reason for adding the rice piecemeal during the creation of a risotto is important to me and accurate, I can guarantee it. It works very well. Not sure how it's relevant to the election.
Well, I knew an Oxford education isn't what it used to be, but you'd think they'd still teach the difference between universal and existential quantifiers.
All he did was a data dump from hacked emails. It turns out the risotto trick was one of the most useful bits of information in there. There was very little of substance.
I'm sure that's true for a Brit like you, whose primary concern is whatever gay escapades the minor British nobility is up to. For informed American voters, however, Wikileaks has provided useful information.
That's putting it likely; I'll bet that Hillary wants Assange's head on a pike. And to be honest, I'm not sure why anybody cares about him at all, to new he comes off as a total weasel.
He is a total weasel. He also has provided important, accurate, and relevant information to Americans.
The discussion is about the federal government and federal spending.
Federal tax dollars should be used neither for funding abortions nor for funding drug treatment programs. Both of those ought to be state and/or local issues.
Furthermore, the only reason we need these programs is the ill-conceived federal war on drugs.
specifies that one of its purposes is to "promote the general Welfare" --which does not mean promoting only the welfare of the rich, and it is mostly the rich who desperately want all the data about
Neither does it mean promoting the welfare of poor people, or immigrants, or Christians, or lesbians, or any other group. What the "general welfare" clause and oath refers to is that, within the already very limited original Constitutional powers of the federal government, it is further restricted to only acting in ways that clearly and directly benefit all people. That means spending money mainly on defense and interstate commerce. It does not mean massive taxation followed by massive subsidies to Democratic constituencies.
want all the data about Anthropogenic Global Warming [phys.org] to be ignored, so they can keep getting richer, while ocean levels rise and drown the home of millions of ordinary citizens
That claim is utterly stupid; sea level rise is so slow even under worst case scenarios, that people adapt by migrating. You can try to argue that this is a bad thing or that it is "costly" (for whom?), but the idea that people "drown" because of it is ludicrous.
Next, Trump claims to want to make America great again, but then he goes and starts appointing people who promote ignorance, not knowledge. Knowledge Is Power! --not ignorance. It is know-how that was one of the factors that made America great in the first place.
Yeah, we clearly should staff the EPA with large Democratic donors or their political minions so that they then have the power to funnel large amounts of money into failing green energy ventures and hassle opponents of the Democrats. Knowledge is indeed power!
The last thing I'll mention is Trump's claim to oppose abortion --and that means enslaving pregnant women, when they don't want to stay pregnant,
I am firmly pro-choice myself and do not consider a fetus to be a person. However, I respect that other people have other beliefs. Trump's stated position on abortion that women should pay for their own abortions and contraception, and that late abortions should be limited. Sorry, but this doesn't "enslave" women: non-medical abortions after 24 weeks are already extremely rare.
What Democrats and progressives fail to understand is that compromise is a necessary part of politics. The rigid and leftist positions of Democrats and Hillary on issues such as abortion, religious freedom, and big government programs is what cost them the election. And Trump's obviously rude and loudmouth demeanor was canceled out by Democrats' insults hurled against white males, the less educated, and successful professionals. Who would have thought that calling people "racists", telling them that you are going to shut down the companies they work for, and telling them that they didn't deserve what they earned would induce them not to vote for you? Obviously, Hillary and her highly paid campaign consultants were too stupid to figure that one out.
Bigot: one who is intolerant or hostile towards different social groups [wikipedia.org]. Trump != social group. The end.
Good grief, can't you even read English? From your link: "a term used to describe a prejudiced or closed-minded person, especially...". You're simply prejudiced and closed minded in the general sense--in your political beliefs--not in the special sense. This happens quite often in languages, words have multiple meanings.
You are again simply trying to change the subject. We were talking about immigration. You accused Trump of xenophobia based on his immigration positions, when his actual immigration positions are moderate and mainstream by world standards. On the other hand, Hillary's positions are a random collection of incoherent promises to special interest groups and beyond the pale. In addition, it's ridiculous to compare an official campaign site with an NBC political piece.
Funny. . . saying an entire nation is racist is, in itself, a very racist thing to say. Maybe if you were not so quick to judge your experience in Japan would have been different.
Saying that an entire nation is racist is obviously a statistical statement, and one that is well supported by data and experience. Furthermore, my experience in Japan was quite good; since the Japanese are usually polite and welcoming to guests and visitors, as long as they stay within their proper social role.
Straight white male.
Ah, so your primary way of classifying people is by sexual orientation, race, and gender. Sorry to have to tell you this, but it's a myth that being a straight white male gives you special powers; statistically, it gives you obesity and bad hair. Enjoy!
You think ideology matters in Trump's America? This is about the "master" tribe, which people like you are not allowed to become "citizens" of
You are confusing me with a Trump supporter.
Reading through your posts, I really feel like you are having this conversation with someone else. . . maybe someone in your past. . . maybe your parents. . . Anyway, I am not that person, but I hope you were able to find some kind of resolve. Seems like you really needed it. ..
You are patronizing, you categorize people by their race, and you make excuses for a dishonest, corrupt, homophobic presidential candidate while demonizing her opponent. You have made it quite clear what kind of person you are.
Saying you seem lacking knowledge of Trump does not make me a "bigot" in any sense of the word
No, but accusing him of "conspir[ing] with foreign governments to defraud the American public" is, given what we actually know.
but saying you did not vote for Hillary because you support gay marriage
I did not vote for Hillary because it is clear that whatever she promises or says in her campaign bears no known relationship to what she actually intends to do. We know that both from her past behavior and from her leaked E-mails. In fact, I'm not even sure that she intends to do anything because she doesn't have any kind of coherent agenda or vision; all she does is have carefully crafted messages to special interest groups.
You see, I have also lived as an immigrant, and I know delusional xenophobia when I see it.
Unless you have actually gone through and changed your citizenship, you haven't lived "as an immigrant", you have merely worked as a temporary guest worker in a foreign country. Furthermore, limits on immigration (whether illegal or legal) are not xenophobic; all other advanced nations have them. Countries generally require valuable skills, cultural compatibility, and a blemish-free record for immigration. Trump's position on immigration is in no way xenophobic or unusual; Hillary's positions don't amount to much of a policy, just a set of carefully crafted messages attempting to maximize support from a particular demographic.
If you knew Japanese, I might be able to continue this discussion in a different language. . . but that seems statistically improbable. . .
Well, I suppose if Japanese is your native language, it is no wonder that you have such queer notions about identity and racism; Japan is one of the most xenophobic and racist countries I have ever spent time in.
Except, this time, I am part of the "demographic in power," and I fully intend to use that position of privilege to fight this dark shadow that has taken hold of my homeland
Which demographic would that be? Democrats just lost the House, the Senate, the presidency, and with that, the supreme court, so don't hold your breath.
At this point, I am not sure you can understand it, but my attacks on Trump are in defense of people like yourself. [...] Again, with the personal attacks. . . of someone you know so little about.
You accuse people of racism, xenophobia, and fraud for the flimsiest of reasons and express your disapproval and condemnation. Well, I'm accusing you of being a progressive and a Democrat; you certainly sound like one. And while you obviously don't understand why that offends people, I think it's important to make it crystal clear to you that it does. Perhaps that will induce people like you to reflect a bit on what you're saying and advocating, because obviously reason isn't getting through to you.
So I guess your "pretty much" is the difference between Hillary appointing supreme court justices
We were talking about how "Trump treated Obama", and I pointed out that Trump treated Obama like Hillary treated Obama.
I guess I don't understand the part where you are willing to defend someone you are not willing to vote for. ..
I'm not "defending" Trump; the elections are over. I'm explaining to you why the messages Democratic strategists concocted didn't work.
bigoted: Exactly WHICH group of people am I bigot of again (don't think that word means what you think it does)?
"bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." That pretty much describes you: you are utterly intolerant of anybody who doesn't toe the progressive party line.
ignorant: You calling me ignorant implies you know more about this topic than me. Your posts make it clear that you just checked out this election and have no context to understand what is happening or how you have betrayed your own ideologies.
See "bigot" above. You have no idea how much time I have invested in finding out about this or past elections.
selfish pricks: Again, please elaborate. Some one points out the flaws of your arguments and you resort to name calling.
Clinton's support is rooted in her advocacy of economic redistribution in areas like healthcare, education, welfare, etc.; that is, people support her because they expect monetary benefits and expect others to be taxed to pay for them. "Selfish pricks" describes that pretty well.
You may not have voted for Trump but you certainly act like him.
See "bigot" above.
Hillary appointing supreme court justices that will protect gay marriage and Trump appointing justices that will overturn gay marriage
Like the Democratic strategists, you think you can divide voters into blocs and then push their buttons at will. Yes, I'm a gay man and I'm happy that we have gay marriage. No, I'm not a one issue voter. And, no, I don't believe for a moment that Hillary gives a fuck about whether the justices she appoints support gay marriage or not. She will throw gays and lesbians under the bus if it advances her political interests, like she has always done.
Trump is president because of people like you, people who made the Democratic party such a bigoted and corrupt place that even gay immigrants like me left in disgust. Democrats won't come back until they kick people like you out.
I didn't say she "started" it. I said "[Trump] treated Obama pretty much like Hillary Clinton treated Obama".
Rich. . . so you voted for the ticket with MIKE PENCE!? [...] Face it, you were also duped.
Which part of "I didn't find either Trump or Hillary to be an acceptable choice in this election." did you not understand?
It will be interesting to see how long people like you will defend him.
I haven't "defended" Trump, I called him an "inexperienced, rude loudmouth".
Trump will eventually unite America. . . with his universal disappointment. ..
Trump can't disappoint me because I don't expect anything of him.
But I will never be "united" with bigoted, ignorant, selfish pricks like you. Fortunately, as you point out, you make up less than 18% of the population.
Are you being serious!? To not know this is to not know the origination story of the 2016 Trump campaign or the driving force behind his wanting to become president
Oh, you mean he treated Obama pretty much like Hillary Clinton treated Obama? You mean one of the many non-issues that the Democratic propaganda machine uses to demonize opponents, first by implying (with plausible deniability) that Obama was foreign, then blaming Republicans for the whole thing?
In any case, you don't seem to understand what the "birther" controversy was about. It wasn't about Obama's actual citizenship (which was a simple legal matter), it was about Obama's foreign vision for America was foreign, that of a European social welfare state and critical race theory. He articulated that in 2012 in "The Life of Julia", something so offensive to people that even MSNBC ripped it apart and Obama has now removed it from his website.
Thanks. Trump established this standard for the president and two days ago the Americans (at least 18% of them) validated it.
People were tired of the racism, divisiveness, and bigotry spread by Obama and Clinton; and they were tired of their foreign wars, constitutional violations, and crony capitalism. They were tired of politicians that believed it was justified to lie to the American people in order to implement policies Americans reject. They were tired of the broken promises. That's why so many voters voted for an inexperienced, rude loudmouth over a bigoted, racist, corrupt liar.
It will probably be impossible to ever convince people like you that your ideas are hurting people; but what the rest of us can do with the 18% of the population that voted for Clinton is to communicate to them in no uncertain terms that we find their bigoted, racist, and selfish views deplorable, and that they shouldn't fool themselves into believing that they have the moral high ground.
Please tell me you are not an American voter and that you did not vote for Trump.
I used to be a registered Democrat and I voted for Obama in 2008. I didn't find either Trump or Hillary to be an acceptable choice in this election.
I could never have voted for Hillary, if not for any other reason than because of her long standing opposition to gay marriage and her subsequent lies about it. But, hey, what's a little homophobia and lying to you, as long as you get free stuff and can wallow in your self-righteousness, right?
While there was government discrimination (although the military was integrating before the 1960s) the primary discrimination was private. If you were black, you wouldn't be allowed into various business places.
Yes, and that private segregation was mandated by law. Jim Crow laws required private businesses to have separate waiting rooms, separate lunch counters, separate toilets, etc. Here is just one example from Alabama:
Restaurants: It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment. Alabama
That is in addition to the massive discrimination progressives (e.g. Wilson) imposed on government itself. It is government mandates that allowed racists to stay in business back then by making racism and segregation universal. And post-civil-rights, government mandates still allow racists to stay in business, this time not by mandating discrimination but by hiding it.
As far as carbon taxes go, the market is a wonderful economic structure. It works superbly when all costs are accounted for. However, it leads to bad things when this isn't the case. If I'm running a business, I have to balance costs against profits. [... more ignorant drivel...] Assuming the tax fairly represents the costs other people are paying, I shift my fossil fuel use to what produces the most profit for everyone.
Sorry, economics doesn't work that way. In the end, your carbon tax is simply going to turn into a massive crony capitalist project that enriches a bunch of special interests, fails to compensate anyone for damages, encourages the use of inefficient technologies, slows economic growth, and delays the transition to a low carbon economy. The net result is going to be more carbon in the air, not less, and less economic power to be able to deal with climate change.
I'm just glad that we are getting a four year reprieve from progressives and their racism, environmental destruction, and economic failures.
As I said before: our free speech is the same as yours.
We have already established that that is false, with half a dozen German laws criminalizing various forms of speech.
Your believe that you have more freedom just because your restrictions are not coded in laws but in court cases is simply idiotic.
What is "idiotic" is that you don't understand the fundamental difference between a country that can throw you in jail just for insulting someone vs a country that cannot do that.
They aren't. You can perform any religion you want... unless it contains practices e.g. rape or human sacrifices which are obviously against other laws.
The German government massively subsidizes and supports certain politically connected and favored religions while denouncing others. As a German tax payer, you are even required to declare your religion to the government. That is not "freedom of religion". In fact, many of those laws were established during the Nazi era, which makes the whole thing even worse. And the fact that you ignorantly try to defend this crap shows how little Germans have learned, and how much of the old Nazi structures survive in Germany.
Trump set his own standard of presidency by how he treated Obama.
Huh? How did he treat him?
Until Trump can prove, without a doubt (in long form), that Russia is not controlling him, I will assume his presidency is fraudulent and that he is a mere puppet.
Say what you will about Hillary she is not an impulsive person and for all her faults I do not believe she'd make rash promises to anybody,
I completely agree. All of Hillary's promises are carefully calculated to increase her power and wealth, and she plans that for the long term. Trump is too much of an idiot to be a fraud on Hillary's scale.
because after he promised to do the modern equivalent of pining a yellow star on every Muslim in the USA people basically think he's capable of anything.
Evil demagogues like you are what has caused registered Democrats like me to leave the party in disgust. If you want people like Trump to keep winning election after election, you just keep up that shit.
No, it is always evil when a president, at any time (before or after their presidency), conspires with foreign governments to defraud the American public.
What "fraud" are you talking about?
Hillary has accused the Russians of helping leak her and Podesta's emails to the public. There is little evidence of that, but even if it were true, how does leaking emails amount to "fraud"?
Congrats idiots in the Democratic party. Trump's election is your fault: you put up a corrupt, dishonest, incompetent loser as a presidential candidate. Don't complain that voters turned away in disgust.
Slashdot Mirror
We really need some indication for distinguishing US "liberal" from actual "liberal" in discussions. US "liberals" jettisoned economic liberalism a century ago, and have gradually shed personal and social liberalism over the last half century. US "liberalism" has become some kind of authoritarian technocratic progressive welfare state; it is the antithesis of actual liberalism.
The Bill of Rights does not grant any new rights, it simply reaffirms rights that Americans already have under the Constitution. So, the language of 2A really wouldn't matter, even if your interpretation were correct. Gun control is not an enumerated power of the federal government, therefore the federal government has no authority to restrict individual gun ownership, 2A or not.
Obama claimed to be a "liberal" (in the traditional sense). He turned out to be a progressive, and progressives favor police states; mass surveillance and suppression of dissent is the only way a progressive political program can be implemented.
Well, you obviously don't understand "honor" if you think that two vile, racist empires fighting for dominance and survival makes either regime's motivations "honorable" after the fact.
We are talking about Wikileaks here, not the Trump campaign. Yes, I do believe that the information released by Wikileaks is largely accurate.
Well, yes, that's what you did and what you keep doing.
That guilt is a result of unjust intervention, intervention rooted in the belief that a powerful benevolent state can fix people's problems, not just domestically but abroad. Europeans have held that belief for centuries, rooted in their false sense of moral, political, racial, and intellectual superiority, and it has found its expression in European imperialism, Christian conservatism, socialism, and progressivism, all of which believe in spreading their ideology to the rest of the world, if need be by force. Some of that has spilled over into the US. Hillary Clinton holds such beliefs strongly, which is one of the reasons I find her unacceptable.
Don't kid yourself: the British Empire was itself one of the most vile and destructive forces in all of human history.
Well, I suppose the world can breathe a sigh of relief that Brits are now reduced to political misdirection and lies in foreign elections; it's far less violent and destructive than you folks used to be.
Well, whether you like it or not, what you call "low information voters" decide elections, and apparently the Democrats are too incompetent to craft a message that reaches us. Because I sure as hell would never vote for a candidate like Hillary Clinton.
Because you posted it a while back. Oxford computer vision, real-time tracking, no?
Basic logic is actually part of engineering and computer science. Of course, classical logic and philosophy is part of a liberal arts education, obviously something you didn't receive.
You must be fucking kidding.
You're right: even more than the escapades of their royals, Brits are concerned with US politics. It must suck having fallen from the "empire where the sun never sets" to a Bismarck-style continental welfare state.
Well, I knew an Oxford education isn't what it used to be, but you'd think they'd still teach the difference between universal and existential quantifiers.
I'm sure that's true for a Brit like you, whose primary concern is whatever gay escapades the minor British nobility is up to. For informed American voters, however, Wikileaks has provided useful information.
He is a total weasel. He also has provided important, accurate, and relevant information to Americans.
It looks like Trump is going to win 305 to 233. That's not winning "by a whisker", it's what Kennedy got elected on, and not much worse than Obama.
(If you discount electoral college votes due to illegal immigrants, it's actually more like 309 to 229.)
The discussion is about the federal government and federal spending.
Federal tax dollars should be used neither for funding abortions nor for funding drug treatment programs. Both of those ought to be state and/or local issues.
Furthermore, the only reason we need these programs is the ill-conceived federal war on drugs.
Neither does it mean promoting the welfare of poor people, or immigrants, or Christians, or lesbians, or any other group. What the "general welfare" clause and oath refers to is that, within the already very limited original Constitutional powers of the federal government, it is further restricted to only acting in ways that clearly and directly benefit all people. That means spending money mainly on defense and interstate commerce. It does not mean massive taxation followed by massive subsidies to Democratic constituencies.
That claim is utterly stupid; sea level rise is so slow even under worst case scenarios, that people adapt by migrating. You can try to argue that this is a bad thing or that it is "costly" (for whom?), but the idea that people "drown" because of it is ludicrous.
Yeah, we clearly should staff the EPA with large Democratic donors or their political minions so that they then have the power to funnel large amounts of money into failing green energy ventures and hassle opponents of the Democrats. Knowledge is indeed power!
I am firmly pro-choice myself and do not consider a fetus to be a person. However, I respect that other people have other beliefs. Trump's stated position on abortion that women should pay for their own abortions and contraception, and that late abortions should be limited. Sorry, but this doesn't "enslave" women: non-medical abortions after 24 weeks are already extremely rare.
What Democrats and progressives fail to understand is that compromise is a necessary part of politics. The rigid and leftist positions of Democrats and Hillary on issues such as abortion, religious freedom, and big government programs is what cost them the election. And Trump's obviously rude and loudmouth demeanor was canceled out by Democrats' insults hurled against white males, the less educated, and successful professionals. Who would have thought that calling people "racists", telling them that you are going to shut down the companies they work for, and telling them that they didn't deserve what they earned would induce them not to vote for you? Obviously, Hillary and her highly paid campaign consultants were too stupid to figure that one out.
Good grief, can't you even read English? From your link: "a term used to describe a prejudiced or closed-minded person, especially...". You're simply prejudiced and closed minded in the general sense--in your political beliefs--not in the special sense. This happens quite often in languages, words have multiple meanings.
You are again simply trying to change the subject. We were talking about immigration. You accused Trump of xenophobia based on his immigration positions, when his actual immigration positions are moderate and mainstream by world standards. On the other hand, Hillary's positions are a random collection of incoherent promises to special interest groups and beyond the pale. In addition, it's ridiculous to compare an official campaign site with an NBC political piece.
Saying that an entire nation is racist is obviously a statistical statement, and one that is well supported by data and experience. Furthermore, my experience in Japan was quite good; since the Japanese are usually polite and welcoming to guests and visitors, as long as they stay within their proper social role.
Ah, so your primary way of classifying people is by sexual orientation, race, and gender. Sorry to have to tell you this, but it's a myth that being a straight white male gives you special powers; statistically, it gives you obesity and bad hair. Enjoy!
You are confusing me with a Trump supporter.
You are patronizing, you categorize people by their race, and you make excuses for a dishonest, corrupt, homophobic presidential candidate while demonizing her opponent. You have made it quite clear what kind of person you are.
No, but accusing him of "conspir[ing] with foreign governments to defraud the American public" is, given what we actually know.
I did not vote for Hillary because it is clear that whatever she promises or says in her campaign bears no known relationship to what she actually intends to do. We know that both from her past behavior and from her leaked E-mails. In fact, I'm not even sure that she intends to do anything because she doesn't have any kind of coherent agenda or vision; all she does is have carefully crafted messages to special interest groups.
Unless you have actually gone through and changed your citizenship, you haven't lived "as an immigrant", you have merely worked as a temporary guest worker in a foreign country. Furthermore, limits on immigration (whether illegal or legal) are not xenophobic; all other advanced nations have them. Countries generally require valuable skills, cultural compatibility, and a blemish-free record for immigration. Trump's position on immigration is in no way xenophobic or unusual; Hillary's positions don't amount to much of a policy, just a set of carefully crafted messages attempting to maximize support from a particular demographic.
Well, I suppose if Japanese is your native language, it is no wonder that you have such queer notions about identity and racism; Japan is one of the most xenophobic and racist countries I have ever spent time in.
Which demographic would that be? Democrats just lost the House, the Senate, the presidency, and with that, the supreme court, so don't hold your breath.
You accuse people of racism, xenophobia, and fraud for the flimsiest of reasons and express your disapproval and condemnation. Well, I'm accusing you of being a progressive and a Democrat; you certainly sound like one. And while you obviously don't understand why that offends people, I think it's important to make it crystal clear to you that it does. Perhaps that will induce people like you to reflect a bit on what you're saying and advocating, because obviously reason isn't getting through to you.
We were talking about how "Trump treated Obama", and I pointed out that Trump treated Obama like Hillary treated Obama.
I'm not "defending" Trump; the elections are over. I'm explaining to you why the messages Democratic strategists concocted didn't work.
"bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." That pretty much describes you: you are utterly intolerant of anybody who doesn't toe the progressive party line.
See "bigot" above. You have no idea how much time I have invested in finding out about this or past elections.
Clinton's support is rooted in her advocacy of economic redistribution in areas like healthcare, education, welfare, etc.; that is, people support her because they expect monetary benefits and expect others to be taxed to pay for them. "Selfish pricks" describes that pretty well.
See "bigot" above.
Like the Democratic strategists, you think you can divide voters into blocs and then push their buttons at will. Yes, I'm a gay man and I'm happy that we have gay marriage. No, I'm not a one issue voter. And, no, I don't believe for a moment that Hillary gives a fuck about whether the justices she appoints support gay marriage or not. She will throw gays and lesbians under the bus if it advances her political interests, like she has always done.
Trump is president because of people like you, people who made the Democratic party such a bigoted and corrupt place that even gay immigrants like me left in disgust. Democrats won't come back until they kick people like you out.
I didn't say she "started" it. I said "[Trump] treated Obama pretty much like Hillary Clinton treated Obama".
Which part of "I didn't find either Trump or Hillary to be an acceptable choice in this election." did you not understand?
I haven't "defended" Trump, I called him an "inexperienced, rude loudmouth".
Trump can't disappoint me because I don't expect anything of him.
But I will never be "united" with bigoted, ignorant, selfish pricks like you. Fortunately, as you point out, you make up less than 18% of the population.
Oh, you mean he treated Obama pretty much like Hillary Clinton treated Obama? You mean one of the many non-issues that the Democratic propaganda machine uses to demonize opponents, first by implying (with plausible deniability) that Obama was foreign, then blaming Republicans for the whole thing?
In any case, you don't seem to understand what the "birther" controversy was about. It wasn't about Obama's actual citizenship (which was a simple legal matter), it was about Obama's foreign vision for America was foreign, that of a European social welfare state and critical race theory. He articulated that in 2012 in "The Life of Julia", something so offensive to people that even MSNBC ripped it apart and Obama has now removed it from his website.
People were tired of the racism, divisiveness, and bigotry spread by Obama and Clinton; and they were tired of their foreign wars, constitutional violations, and crony capitalism. They were tired of politicians that believed it was justified to lie to the American people in order to implement policies Americans reject. They were tired of the broken promises. That's why so many voters voted for an inexperienced, rude loudmouth over a bigoted, racist, corrupt liar.
It will probably be impossible to ever convince people like you that your ideas are hurting people; but what the rest of us can do with the 18% of the population that voted for Clinton is to communicate to them in no uncertain terms that we find their bigoted, racist, and selfish views deplorable, and that they shouldn't fool themselves into believing that they have the moral high ground.
I used to be a registered Democrat and I voted for Obama in 2008. I didn't find either Trump or Hillary to be an acceptable choice in this election.
I could never have voted for Hillary, if not for any other reason than because of her long standing opposition to gay marriage and her subsequent lies about it. But, hey, what's a little homophobia and lying to you, as long as you get free stuff and can wallow in your self-righteousness, right?
Yes, and that private segregation was mandated by law. Jim Crow laws required private businesses to have separate waiting rooms, separate lunch counters, separate toilets, etc. Here is just one example from Alabama:
That is in addition to the massive discrimination progressives (e.g. Wilson) imposed on government itself. It is government mandates that allowed racists to stay in business back then by making racism and segregation universal. And post-civil-rights, government mandates still allow racists to stay in business, this time not by mandating discrimination but by hiding it.
Sorry, economics doesn't work that way. In the end, your carbon tax is simply going to turn into a massive crony capitalist project that enriches a bunch of special interests, fails to compensate anyone for damages, encourages the use of inefficient technologies, slows economic growth, and delays the transition to a low carbon economy. The net result is going to be more carbon in the air, not less, and less economic power to be able to deal with climate change.
I'm just glad that we are getting a four year reprieve from progressives and their racism, environmental destruction, and economic failures.
We have already established that that is false, with half a dozen German laws criminalizing various forms of speech.
What is "idiotic" is that you don't understand the fundamental difference between a country that can throw you in jail just for insulting someone vs a country that cannot do that.
The German government massively subsidizes and supports certain politically connected and favored religions while denouncing others. As a German tax payer, you are even required to declare your religion to the government. That is not "freedom of religion". In fact, many of those laws were established during the Nazi era, which makes the whole thing even worse. And the fact that you ignorantly try to defend this crap shows how little Germans have learned, and how much of the old Nazi structures survive in Germany.
Huh? How did he treat him?
Knock yourself out.
I completely agree. All of Hillary's promises are carefully calculated to increase her power and wealth, and she plans that for the long term. Trump is too much of an idiot to be a fraud on Hillary's scale.
Evil demagogues like you are what has caused registered Democrats like me to leave the party in disgust. If you want people like Trump to keep winning election after election, you just keep up that shit.
That is shocking and disgusting! #NeverTrump!!!
What "fraud" are you talking about?
Hillary has accused the Russians of helping leak her and Podesta's emails to the public. There is little evidence of that, but even if it were true, how does leaking emails amount to "fraud"?
By "the other candidates", you mean Hillary? No, she was "reached out to" by her billionaire friends, and nice, generous regimes like Saudi Arabia.
Congrats idiots in the Democratic party. Trump's election is your fault: you put up a corrupt, dishonest, incompetent loser as a presidential candidate. Don't complain that voters turned away in disgust.