US Presidential Election 2016

[zahidf]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope.

I'm simply recognising that people didn't only vote for him because he was racist.

zahidf wants everyone to believe that people only voted for his racism, and because they're racist themselves. It's bollocks, so i said it's bollocks.

People had to make a choice. If those people were repelled by Clinton - and i know plenty were - then Trump starts to become someone they might vote for instead.

As is clear, plenty of people who happily voted for Obama decided this time to vote for Trump - because of other aspects of him than his racism. Rightly or wrongly they felt a political outsider is a better thing than more of the same.

Last night Trump was explicitly asked what he wqas going to do about Muslims, and he found a way to duck the question - which suggests (along with other stuff, such as lauding Obama yesterday) he's not following thru on much of the bollocks he spoke, and his presidency won't be too much about what he campaigned on. He'll go for the 'sensible' and do-able stuff instead - trade deals, Obamacare, infrastructure spending, etc.

 

I can happily condem his supporters for the bollocks they bought into.

Just as I can happy condemn zahidf for talking just as much bollocks.

 

I have contempt for stupidity, no matter where it lies.

The stupidity here isn't from Trump, in case it's passed you by.

 

True, zahidf isn't a mealy mouthed apologist for bigots and racists, he's a bigot and racist. How have you missed it?

If someone says "all Musilims are terrorists", it's rightly condemned as not true.

Why do you think someone saying "all Trump voters are racists" or "all brexit voters are racists" should be given a free pass for doing the same wrong generalisation thing?

 

 

 

'He probably doesnt mean it' reassuring!

Is saying everyone who voted for the BNP is a racist me being a 'bigot' as well? Or those who voted for KKK leader david dukes for the senate? People are responsible for who they vote for. If they vote for someone who runs a bigoted campaign (regardless of whether they meant it or not) Then they are not someone i am going to respect.

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, zahidf said:

bernie sanders nails it

'To the degree that Donald Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.'

 

'If Donald Trump takes people's anger and turns it against Muslims, Hispanics, African Americans and women, we will be his worst nightmare.'

 

Decent article on Trump's rise

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

why no condemnation of Bernie for supporting racism, when everything about Trump is racist and it's impossible to accept the more-reasonable side of his words without wholely accepting his racism and so becoming one?

You're laughable, matey.

[zahidf]

What on earth are you talking about???

He is giving Trump one chance. Fine, but its pointless. I know you think the increase in racist attacks post brexit and now post trump are an acceptable price to pay to potentially alleviate the 'cultural anxiety' of certain people, but i dont.

 

 

Edited November 11, 2016 by zahidf

[pink_triangle]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

'He probably doesnt mean it' reassuring!

Is saying everyone who voted for the BNP is a racist me being a 'bigot' as well? Or those who voted for KKK leader david dukes for the senate? People are responsible for who they vote for. If they vote for someone who runs a bigoted campaign (regardless of whether they meant it or not) Then they are not someone i am going to respect.

I  think you can't look at the attributes of one candidate without looking at the attributes of their opponent. I believe if Obama had been allowed to stand for a third term, the same electorate would have voted him back comfortably. I also believe that other democrats of varying sex and ethnicity would have been supported over Trump by the same electorate.

If the Trump voters are all racist it would suggest they would all have voted the same regardless of candidate, I don't believe this to be true. Unfortunately it wasn't trump v a popular democrat. Most disliked both for particular reasons and had no choice but to vote for someone with bad attributes.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

'He probably doesnt mean it' reassuring!

It's not a guess, it's based on tangible facts that you refuse to see. :rolleyes:

The campaign was 15 months long. How many times did he say the racist stuff, and when?

How come you failed to notice it wasn't any part of his more recent words? Surely if he's only about racism as you say, he would have been racist continually?

 

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Is saying everyone who voted for the BNP is a racist me being a 'bigot' as well? Or those who voted for KKK leader david dukes for the senate?

Racism is their standard, the basis of all they say.

That wasn't the case with Trump.

I'm not trying to defend anything of what Trump said, I'm pointing out that it simply didn't happen in the way you wish to regard it.

 

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

People are responsible for who they vote for. If they vote for someone who runs a bigoted campaign (regardless of whether they meant it or not) Then they are not someone i am going to respect.

When the choices are a bigot or a warmonger, there's no 'safe' choice for anyone to make.

The choice becomes about which a person believes will work out for the better in spite of their flaws, not necessarily because of their flaws.

People are responsible for who they vote for, just as people are responsible for what they say. You've yet to make anything of your own racism in labelling others racist for doing what you disaprove of stand up.

 

[zahidf]

I missed the pro war part of Clinton's campaign. 

Anyway, ill just post 'I told you so' when the racist policies start coming through and the facist crackdowns start

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

What on earth has Bernie said which is racist???

Bernie clearly said he'll support the "racist" for what Bernie accepts are Trump's more-reasonable bits. You're the one who quoted Bernie's words.

So how come Bernie isn't a racist for doing nothing different to those who voted for Trump? The vast majority of those voted for Trump's more-reasonable bits, rather than Trump's racism.

If it's impossible to accept anything of the more-reasonable bits without being a racist - which is what you've spent 2 days posting - then that applies to Bernie (and Corbyn too, from Corbyn's statement on Trump) exactly as it does the Trump voters.

Either all people who accept anything of Trump are racist as you've been saying - and so Bernie is also a racist - or there's more than just-a-little-bit wrong with everything you've posted.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I missed the pro war part of Clinton's campaign. 

Facts play no part?

You've spent 2 days arguing that the fact of Trump's racism is the whole fact of Trump.

How come the fact of Clinton having personally bombed eight countries - plus added threats of war with Russia - isn't a fact about Clinton?

 

Quote

Anyway, ill just post 'I told you so' when the racist policies start coming through and the facist crackdowns start

If your fantasies come true I'll hold my hands up and admit you were right.

How long does Trump have of doing nothing of what you say he'll do before you'll admit to talking a crock of shit yourself?

Edited November 11, 2016 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I missed the pro war part of Clinton's campaign. 

Anyway, ill just post 'I told you so' when the racist policies start coming through and the facist crackdowns start

People aren't just judged on a campaign. Clinton has generally been considered hawkish in terms of foreign policy. Voting record, links with Saudi Arabia etc.

[russycarps]

14 hours ago, zahidf said:

bernie sanders nails it

'To the degree that Donald Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.'

 

'If Donald Trump takes people's anger and turns it against Muslims, Hispanics, African Americans and women, we will be his worst nightmare.'

 

Decent article on Trump's rise

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

That's a great article and I was nodding along sagely to it. 

But the facts of the election suggest it isnt as spot on as it thinks. The facts are that more poor people voted for hillary while donald secured the wealthy white vote. That article only paints a small part of the picture.

 

[zahidf]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

People aren't just judged on a campaign. Clinton has generally been considered hawkish in terms of foreign policy. Voting record, links with Saudi Arabia etc.

fair enough. Im judging Trump by his years of bigotry and misogyny then.

anyway ill see what happens in the coming months.

[pink_triangle]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

fair enough. Im judging Trump by his years of bigotry and misogyny then.

anyway ill see what happens in the coming months.

Of course both were judged on their past and people had to make a choice what bad attributes they were willing to tolerate. What we all hope is democrats find a stronger candidate for 2020 that can stop the campaign becoming a battle of the least worst.

In reality for all the analysis democrats need to only turn one republican out of every 100 voters which shows how small the margins are. 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Im judging Trump by his years of bigotry and misogyny then.

so just on four sentences in a whole lifetime, and where two of them had nothing to do with political campaigning and are over a decade old and would have been less damning at the time they were said.
(just to be clear, I'm not defending wrong comments, I'm pointing out they were said at a time of a different culture to now).

How about a sentence from 1999, where he said he was to the left of the Republicans? No?

So all of Trump is defined by 4 sentences, and there's nothing else about him.

I guess you're similarly defined by your claims that everyone who doesn't do what you say is a racist, and therefore are defined as wrong for everything of your existence too.

So by your own logic, why not just do one, wrong c**t?

Edited November 11, 2016 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

so just on four sentences in a whole lifetime, and where two of them had nothing to do with political campaigning and are over a decade old and would have been less damning at the time they were said.
(just to be clear, I'm not defending wrong comments, I'm pointing out they were said at a time of a different culture to now).

How about a sentence from 1999, where he said he was to the left of the Republicans? No?

So all of Trump is defined by 4 sentences, and there's nothing else about him.

I guess you're similarly defined by your claims that everyone who doesn't do what you say is a racist, and therefore are defined as wrong for everything of your existence too.

So by your own logic, why not just do one, wrong c**t?

Again, what???

 

You know for 8 years he was spouting about birtherism right? A lot. In public. 

And his history of misogyny is a lot more than 4 sentences.

So you can do one.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Again, what???

 

You know for 8 years he was spouting about birtherism right? A lot. In public. 

And his history of misogyny is a lot more than 4 sentences.

So you can do one.

the man's a dick. Who knew?

That doesn't stop people reasonably concluding he's less of a dick than Clinton on a different basis to the one you insist as the only possibility.

 

Edited November 11, 2016 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

Out of interest Zahidf do you think all republican politicians are the same? If he tries to legislate as you suggest, don't you think some will stop him?

[The Nal]

6 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Out of interest Zahidf do you think all republican politicians are the same? If he tries to legislate as you suggest, don't you think some will stop him?

Seems he has a Republicans = Bad, Democrats = Good view of it all. Which is silly. No grey area whatsoever. 

For the record, Bill Clinton (then 50) stuck cigar holders up a 22 year old interns vagina and jizzed all over her, in the White House, on the job so to speak. While Hillary was there. Good guy though right. A hero. 

Edited November 11, 2016 by The Nal

[LJS]

49 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Bernie clearly said he'll support the "racist" for what Bernie accepts are Trump's more-reasonable bits.

Tosh! the time for support is over. the fact is Trump has won. should Bernie & other democrats storm off in a huff & refuse to co-operate with anything he does?

49 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You're the one who quoted Bernie's words.

So how come Bernie isn't a racist for doing nothing different to those who voted for Trump? The vast majority of those voted for Trump's more-reasonable bits, rather than Trump's racism.

Did they? do you know that? And even if they did, they made that decision when there was a choice as to who would be president. That choice has been made.

49 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If it's impossible to accept anything of the more-reasonable bits without being a racist - which is what you've spent 2 days posting - then that applies to Bernie (and Corbyn too, from Corbyn's statement on Trump) exactly as it does the Trump voters.

You just don't get it. It is no longer a binary choice for those in government. surely Bernie is only doing what opposition politicians the world over do. Supporting the measures they believe are right whilst opposing what they see as unacceptable?

49 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Either all people who accept anything of Trump are racist as you've been saying - and so Bernie is also a racist - or there's more than just-a-little-bit wrong with everything you've posted.

Tosh.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, LJS said:

Tosh! the time for support is over. the fact is Trump has won. should Bernie & other democrats storm off in a huff & refuse to co-operate with anything he does?

I was pointing out that even the righteous Bernie doesn't hold to the bollocks zahidf is spouting. 

According to zahidf, anyone who gets involved with anything of Trump is a racist. It's not possible to accept any part of Trump without fully buying into the racism.

Bernie quite rightly recognises there were some positive parts to what Trump offered, and there's not just racism to Trump.

As did the electorate who voted for Trump.

WTF are you finding so difficult to understand about me saying zahidf is talking big big bollocks when he says you can only support anything of Trump if you're a racist?

Nothing at all by the look of it, as you're now also a racist in zahidf's view, because you're also able to recognise there was more that Trump offered than racism.

[LJS]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I was pointing out that even the righteous Bernie doesn't hold to the bollocks zahidf is spouting. 

According to zahidf, anyone who gets involved with anything of Trump is a racist. It's not possible to accept any part of Trump without fully buying into the racism.

Bernie quite rightly recognises there were some positive parts to what Trump offered, and there's not just racism to Trump.

As did the electorate who voted for Trump.

WTF are you finding so difficult to understand about me saying zahidf is talking big big bollocks when he says you can only support anything of Trump if you're a racist?

Nothing at all by the look of it, as you're now also a racist in zahidf's view, because you're also able to recognise there was more that Trump offered than racism.

Are you being deliberately stupid?There is a world of difference between voting for Trump, when your vote plays a part in putting him in power, and supporting or opposing individual measures once he has become president. 

I understand your desperation to smear zahidf and portray him as being as bad as Trump, but sadly your desperation is causing you to abandon logic.

Edited November 11, 2016 by LJS

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

Did they? do you know that? And even if they did, they made that decision when there was a choice as to who would be president.

I know with certainty that some who happily voted for Obama voted for Trump. Has that passed you by in its entirity?

There was a choice, yep. Trump was flawed and Clinton was flawed. People had to decide over the flaws and the positives.

Unfortunately for the result i'd have preferred, Clinton didn't really offer any positives, so for her there were only repellents. On that basis I'm really not much surprised that Trump beat her. 

[eFestivals]

32 minutes ago, LJS said:

You just don't get it. It is no longer a binary choice for those in government

There was a binary choice of candidates.

There was NOT a binary choice of policy, of (just) "racism" and "not racism",

There was also a binary choice (in what was said) of jobs or no jobs, of investment or no investment, of war and not war, of not corrupt and corrupt, and of something different or more of the same.

In Scotland, you have a binary choice of indy or not indy, but it also comes with poverty or not poverty. I take it you're voting for poverty by your own idiot logic.

Edited November 11, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I know with certainty that some who happily voted for Obama voted for Trump. Has that passed you by in its entirity?

There was a choice, yep. Trump was flawed and Clinton was flawed. People had to decide over the flaws and the positives.

Unfortunately for the result i'd have preferred, Clinton didn't really offer any positives, so for her there were only repellents. On that basis I'm really not much surprised that Trump beat her. 

Personally, I find the notion that both candidates we're somehow equally flawed bizarre. I find it hard to believe that you think it either.

Voters, of course have the right to make their choice. The rest of us have the right to pass an opinion on these voters & how they made their choices, a right you yourself have exercised when it suits you. 

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

There was a binary choice of candidates.

There was NOT a binary choice of policy, of (just) "racism" and "not racism",

There was also a binary choice (in what was said) of jobs or no jobs, of investment or no investment, of war and not war, of not corrupt and corrupt, and of something different or more of the same.

Which candidate was campaigning for no investment, no jobs, war & corruption? I must have missed that.

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

In Scotland, you have a binary choice of indy or not indy, but it also comes with poverty or not poverty. I take it you're voting for poverty by your own idiot logic.

Well, you've accused me of it often enough....

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

Are you being deliberately stupid?There is a world of difference between voting for Trump, when your vote plays a part in putting him in power, and supporting or opposing individual measures once he has become president. 

So people are only allowed to recognise the positive parts of Trump's campaign AFTER he's elected....?

That's the deliberately stupid. A denial of fact. It's your only weapon.