The Importance of Donald Trump

I disagree.

Political correctness has not gotten rid of bigotry or disrespect. It has merely been used as a silencing tool for opposing view points. This is why so many people (like me) are against it.

In the world that political correctness describes, the ex-Mozilla CEO wouldn't have been bullied, personally attacked, and disrespected until he was forced to resign from his position.

The guy that killed Cecil the Lion wouldn't have been bullied until he was forced to close his practice.

In many cases, people are destroyed before any of the evidence has been evaluated. Justice is now who has the loudest voice and how fast they can get a hashtag army against you. The truth doesn't matter any longer.

I thought we were supposed to be about more respect, less bulling, and actually creating a better world for all. Instead, it's a better world for only the people with a very specific narrow view of the world.

"And stop being so damned disrespectful."

The problem is that many people can't even respectfully disagree any longer. Even here on HN, I respectfully disagree constantly, give many good thoughts and ideas, but like many places, it's no longer acceptable to have an open and honest conversation.

The other problem is that somebody will almost always take any opinion as 'disrespectful' and you can't please everyone.

This entire thread has comments that are disrespectful toward Trump and anyone that supports him. You really need to ask yourself why this is allowed on a forum like HN, but if you said the same exact thing against Obama or anyone on the other side, you would be silenced.

You can't be against bigotry, bullying and disrespect and then go ahead and do the same thing to people you don't personally like. It invalidates your entire argument and makes you look like a fool.

Political correctness is rotting the country from the inside and will only be the downfall of our freedom.

yours might be the most interesting comment of the discussion.

The counterexample here is Obama. Aside from his skin color, he's about as moderate and unexciting as you can get. My takeaway from the "change" bit was "Hey, I'm not associated in any way with GWB; hell, I don't look anything like him. and I sound reasonable and educated" Which, of course, after 8 years of GWB, sounded absolutely amazing. Nearly every vote for Obama in 2008 was actually a vote against GWB. My take is that the democrats could have run a literal empty suit and it would have won by a landslide.

You remember when they gave Obama the peace prize for not being GWB? The whole world was in love with him, not for what he was or what he did, but for who he wasn't.

Now, if I'm right, I think that if the republicans, say, ran Romney instead of McCain in 2008? they would have had a much better chance; not because McCain is fundamentally incompetent or unreasonable or anything like that, but because he smells a lot more like GWB than Romney does. I mean, from what I read, McCain is an actual war hero, and was heroic in ways that even a pacifist would admire, at great personal cost, and it's not right to compare him to a chicken hawk like GWB, but the truth of the matter is that, in the minds of most voters, the two are related.

Sure, I think Romney probably still would have lost, just because he was a republican and so was GWB, but he would have had a better shot at it than McCain did.

There was a lot of talk about disappointment with Obama, with big expectations that he never delivered on... but I think that was mostly made-up by his enemies. I mean, he wasn't amazing or anything, except compared to his predecessor, but he did a fine job of sounding reasonable and educated. He wasn't perfect, but he didn't massively screw anything up.

I think the fact that Obama won in 2012 supports my argument that most people see him as basically competent. Not bad. A reasonable moderate who did a moderately reasonable job.

Of course, you could also make a different argument about 2012 (and about the counterfactual run in 2008) Romney is not the sort that the republican base would get excited about. He's as centrist as Obama is. I can see myself voting for someone like Romney. (I'd take Obama over Romney, sure, but we could do worse than Romney as President. A lot worse.) And he's a Mormon... a religion that many Christians don't consider to be christian at all. You can make a very good argument, using your theory, that Romney lost because the GOP base wasn't excited and just stayed home.

Seems they have diluted/modified the rules:

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/is-your-child-a-us-citize...

"As with other areas of immigration and naturalization in this post-9/11 world, the guidelines change often. As such, these rules only apply to those children born on or after the effective date of the CCA."

I'm not even sure this applies to Obama, so again, the validity is questionable.

So anyways, we would just need to validate the rules with all presidents. Where can we currently view that these rulesets have been validated and view their corresponding documents? Does anyone know? This seems like a somewhat important question if someone wants to be called president.

Also, why did you bring up race? This validation process should be applied to every potential president regardless of race. Politely, get off your politically correct high horse.

The problem with critiquing political correctness is that there's no definite definition of what "PC" is. A lot of what's criticized as PC is merely leftist activism and liberal policies taken to extremes. Is multiculturalism and diversity PC? (and what exactly do those even mean in terms of specific policies?) Are sexual harassment lawsuits? Is affirmative action? Tort cases? The War on Christmas? The war against the War on Christmas? Is media censorship in favor of Israel, or media censorship in favor of Palestinians, PC? Public safety regulations (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmsV1TuESrc)?

Why is being anti-Trump considered pro-PC? What specific statements do you consider disrespectful? I'm sure there are equivalent criticisms of Obama on HN, at least in terms of civil liberties as it relates to hackers (anti-NSA surveillance, pro-Net Neutrality, anti-drone). They can be found.

How can something be even called "politically correct" when one lives in a society with multiple parties and political viewpoints?

Is online shame culture inherently PC? Why is Cecil the Lion considered PC, while the online (and other media) campaign against Planned Parenthood, or ACORN, not considered PC? All include using the internet to create viral outrage.

If you want to be against online shaming, sure be against it. If you're against excessive actions done in the name of leftist or liberal beliefs, then by all means be against them and be specific. I would be in favor of either of that. But don't try to call it under some nebulous bugaboo, a caricature.

> get off your politically correct high horse

Comments like this break the HN guidelines about civility. Obama's birth certificate surely also qualifies as a "classic flamewar topic", so you've broken the guidelines there too. We ban accounts that do that repeatedly, so please read and follow them when posting on this site.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html