691–700 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And they decide that based on emotions No it could not. What you just said defies reason.
I am saying what you just quoted is not always the case. To say "and they decide that based on emotions" is entirely unfounded. Plenty of people do, sure, but plenty do not. As an aside, I should note that weighing ones' emotions in a decision is not an inherently irrational process.
Peter Thiel's "Mein Kampf" excludes women and minorities, who he feels have "damaged" democracy: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
You're just posting bullshit lies about Thiel everywhere you can. He said it pretty explicitly: > It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better. He also points out that the "most intense reaction" was to the factual…
One of the main reasons the Democrats lost is because white women voted more than expected for Trump, much in contrast to Thiels views.
There's nothing supporting that Clinton made more factually incorrect statements than Trump, in fact the opposite is true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Lots of individuals who Trump "owes" through either money or support they provided to him; pure cronyism." Trump is the most 'free' President in modern history. He 'owes' the least, to the fewest people. This is one thing even the center-left press were talking about. As for Thiel - $1M might seem like a lot - but Trump doesn't really 'owe' Thiel anything, because Thiel doesn't have direct future influence etc., and…
Why exactly am I meant to be comforted by the fact that the craven opportunists --- the lowest of the low of the Republican party, discredited outsiders like Newt Gingrich and John Bolton --- are getting the most important positions in the United States government for kowtowing to Trump? There are important thinkers in the Republican Party. People with ideas and a moral core, people who have given years of service to…
Has he actually announced this yet or you just assuming?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We would never try to ban any use of language. Its more like advice. We say: "Stop calling everything racist and sexist that is not racist or sexist because you are missing the real underlying issues. We want everyone to be happy just like you do, but we think your method is flawed." Then we win the election because you missed the point. This is why you will find such exuberant Trump supporters. There are many tears…
Muslims often say: "Stop calling all of us terrorists and stop saying Islam encourages terrorism because you are missing the real underlying issues. We want everyone to be happy just like you do, but we think your understanding of terrorism is flawed." Can you recognize the parallel between your statement and the one I've paraphrased above?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I promise not to argue against you, and certainly not to slur you. Please argue! And thank you for not slurring :) > Would you be willing to articulate your argument for Trump here? I supported Obama. I always considered myself a liberal. I support gay marriage, I support gun control. I support universal health care. I support decent welfare and a safety net. As a programmer, the formative moment for my Trump suppo…
I think you're right about the need for debate around how identity politics can be better expressed and that is a debate that seems to have been slightly suppressed on the left. I would say two things about why I don't think this is a good reason to support Trump: 1. The situation you describe is fundamentally about freedom of speech vs the right not be be offended. Trump is not an advocate of freedom of speech and d…
Do you not think that the elections showed that identity politics do NOT matter, instead national politics matter more?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes this is what everyone missed. If you watched South Park over the past 3 seasons, or watched Milo Yiannopolous' videos on YouTube, there is a battle going on against the progressive movement. Its about freedom of speech. But the liberals failed to see this, because they were too busy labelling everyone misogynist and racist.
Yes, the rising up of embittered masculinity is a hell of a sight.
Relevant column: "I don't see a moral obligation for anyone to serve in a Trump administration. But people who opposed Donald Trump, on both the left and right, should commit right now to one thing: We will not tar good people for joining the Trump administration. Their motives will not be questioned, and if things do turn out as some of his critics fear, the people in his foreign and domestic policy apparatus will n…
>He has built no ideological framework for future policies Sounds like a positive thing
Obama made a push to conserve the rapid "manifest destiny" of China into the pacific. I can only imagine how Trump will shirk at any sign of conflict, much like he failed to condem the well-documented wrongdoings of his most xenophobic supporters. We can only hope that good people with a foreign polic background will understand how unprepared Trump is for foreign policy relations and will volunteer their service for the betterment of the country.
[1]: WSJ November 10th, 2016 China's World: In Trump Win, China Hopes for U.S Retreat by Andrew Browne
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why exactly am I meant to be comforted by the fact that the craven opportunists --- the lowest of the low of the Republican party, discredited outsiders like Newt Gingrich and John Bolton --- are getting the most important positions in the United States government for kowtowing to Trump? There are important thinkers in the Republican Party. People with ideas and a moral core, people who have given years of service to…
No - what I said was the Trump can pick who he wants. That's it. Also - Gingrich and Bolton are not 'discredited' - you just don't agree with them. I too, would prefer Gates, but Gingrich is probably who Trump's base would rather have and frankly, maybe it's more authentic that way.
From Wikipedia:
"In 1990, after consulting focus groups[38] with the help of pollster Frank Luntz,[39] GOPAC distributed a memo with a cover letter signed by Gingrich titled "Language, a Key Mechanism of Control", that encouraged Republicans to "speak like Newt" and contained lists of "contrasting words"—words with negative connotations such as "radical", "sick," and "traitors"—and "optimistic positive governing words" such as "opportunity", "courage", and "principled", that Gingrich recommended for use in describing Democrats and Republicans, respectively.[38]"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He thinks women shouldn't be able to vote. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/peter-thiel-women-democr...
I looked at your article and it seems he's just saying that when women were enfranchised, the type of democracy we had became less supportive of libertarianism. I have no idea whether that's true or not, but misquoting him is not contributing to an intelligent dialogue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you were willing to potentially sacrifice women's rights, minorities rights, lgbt+ rights, the environment, business regulations, and whatever else conservative Trump appointments might do? You see how here you are saying that I am in favour of sacrificing womens, minorities, lgbt, etc. rights. You see how it is basically saying: You are are a sexist, misogynist, racist? Why don't you ask me what I think about thos…
> You see how it is basically saying: You are are a sexist, misogynist, racist? Oh cry me a river. It's starting to look like your only debating tactic is "stop oppressing me". You said it yourself that you voted for quoting "a racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe" because "One side is for freedom of speech, the other side is for controlling what you can say." How is floodyberrys post not a fair representation of yo…