Election Discussion

[Rozalia]

I wouldn't be to hard on them.  When I was 16 I thought "fixing" the electoral college was somehow a big deal.  We all go through phases as our brains mature.

 

Roz is a Brit and a bloviating tryhard who finds the BNP way too left wing for his taste.  I doubt he will grow out of it but folks like him tend to move into their own unique orbit.

 

I was going to ignore it but as you named me directly I'll address it quickly. My contribution in this thread has been to address Solaire's scenario, nothing more. What conversation you or Harrison Richardson are having I've taken no part in. I know you're obsessed with the Roz but do calm down dear. 

[LordRahl2]

He was asking about you.  I answered.  HR is now good on the facts, thanks.  Scurry along - I will get to you later.

[Rozalia]

He was asking about you.  I answered.  HR is now good on the facts, thanks.  Scurry along - I will get to you later.

...

 

Don't have much time to debunk everything but OP starts by being a contrarian and not much else and then several posts dive into sophomoric analyzations of the American electorate

 

This is asking about me?

 

Also I have no interest in the discussion you two are having where you talk down to others, nor do I want to engage with you when you begin throwing your barbs at me. Me and Solaire had a nice talk and its concluded, I have no interest in whatever hatred you're going to see fit to unload in my direction later on as you promise.

[Harrison Richardson]

I would say you are completely incorrect in that. The Democrat country would immediately fracture as the "far left" such as Bernard's acolytes would immediately paint the right wing (the current so called moderates) as just being the Republicans in disguise. The Republican country would also fracture as the Alt-Right decries the establishment Conservatives as sellouts who have weakened America. 

 

I'd wager in fact that splitting the country in two such as in your scenario would in fact lead to the opposite of what you think it would. Currently those two groups I mentioned above have to maintain an alliance of sorts with their respective mainstream group. If the country is split in two and there no longer is a reason for an alliance then they will begin to tear each other apart. 

 

As for your prediction on what'll happen depending on the result. If Clinton wins then call outs will happen but any sort of militia mattering is very unlikely. If Trump wins then the riots will happen very likely (as they have been under Obama constantly) which will be Trump's first test and golden opportunity as crushing said riots and bringing an end to the likes of BLM's thuggery will win him 8 years. People tend to like those who bring law and order.

 

Yeah, this was a really stupid statement.  

 

First, you blame Obama for riots regarding police (that he has no oversight over) killing unarmed black men.  You also ignore that he has, at every step, tried to be a unifier and to de-escalate (Charleston Church service anyone?  Amazing Grace?).  I assume these were the riots you were referring to because they've been the most prominent.

 

You called BLM thugs, which is as racist as it is uninformed.

 

"People" don't like law and order, Republicans do.  All that's happening right now, if you take a sober look at the polling data, is Trump consolidating his GOP base and low-ish enthusiasm for Clinton.  That enthusiasm will harden as we get closer to November.  Trump hasn't made any dent towards getting to 270 -- he's just rebounded to where about any standard GOP-er would be running, which for him just happens to be an accomplishment instead of the expectation.  

[Rozalia]

Yeah, this was a really stupid statement.  

 

First, you blame Obama for riots regarding police (that he has no oversight over) killing unarmed black men.  You also ignore that he has, at every step, tried to be a unifier and to de-escalate (Charleston Church service anyone?  Amazing Grace?).  I assume these were the riots you were referring to because they've been the most prominent.

 

You called BLM thugs, which is as racist as it is uninformed.

 

"People" don't like law and order, Republicans do.  All that's happening right now, if you take a sober look at the polling data, is Trump consolidating his GOP base and low-ish enthusiasm for Clinton.  That enthusiasm will harden as we get closer to November.  Trump hasn't made any dent towards getting to 270 -- he's just rebounded to where about any standard GOP-er would be running, which for him just happens to be an accomplishment instead of the expectation.  

 

Never stated there I blamed Obama (though I'd say he has been very weak yes), merely said they've happened constantly under him which is true.

 

Calling BLM thugs is racist now? Calling members of an organisation thugs is racist. What do you call the people looting exactly, smashing up places? Peaceful protesters I'm guessing. Appear to be thugs to me regardless of what their skin colour may be. Equality that is.

 

First to preface, what I said there was in regards to after he becomes President him doing good on his claim of law and order and putting down the likes of BLM.

Anyway so what you're saying is people don't like law and order? You really think Trump putting an end to these near constant riots from the likes of BLM wouldn't be seen as a positive? 

[Thalmor]

You called BLM thugs, which is as racist as it is uninformed.

 

So calling for the death of police officers, rioting, blocking roads, beating people up because their white (as what happened in Milwaukee and Charlotte), and burning down buildings doesn't make people thugs?

 

Also, calling someone 'racist' doesn't mean shit. That's just an easy way to try to shut down people for having differing views.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Don't have much time to debunk everything but OP starts by being a contrarian and not much else and then several posts dive into sophomoric analyzations of the American electorate

How and/or where am I opposing the popular consensus/opinion? Virtually everyone I know, except a handful online of hardened party lemmings, pretty much hate this election and would rather eat a sandwich or get a drink than vote.

[Harrison Richardson]

Never stated there I blamed Obama (though I'd say he has been very weak yes), merely said they've happened constantly under him which is true.

 

Calling BLM thugs is racist now? Calling members of an organisation thugs is racist. What do you call the people looting exactly, smashing up places? Peaceful protesters I'm guessing. Appear to be thugs to me regardless of what their skin colour may be. Equality that is.

 

First to preface, what I said there was in regards to after he becomes President him doing good on his claim of law and order and putting down the likes of BLM.

Anyway so what you're saying is people don't like law and order? You really think Trump putting an end to these near constant riots from the likes of BLM wouldn't be seen as a positive? 

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/04/30/403362626/the-racially-charged-meaning-behind-the-word-thug

 

Also, assuming that BLM as a movement desires to cause violence is ridiculous.  The people looting stores aren't BLM -- they're criminals using a pretext to do what they always wanted to do.  BLM is a decentralized movement with no leaders, so it's pretty difficult to "blame" it for anything.  You should (rightly) blame the individuals.  I'm sure you'll all shit on this for being HuffPo, but: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-lives-matter-violence-cops_us_55e77d82e4b0c818f61a9de8

 

No, people besides those whom already support him would not like if he "shut down" BLM because people generally like the idea of a movement like BLM: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/08/how-americans-view-the-black-lives-matter-movement/.  In my line of work, 42-25 split on an issue (how much Independents support vs oppose BLM) is good enough to win an election.

 

 

So calling for the death of police officers, rioting, blocking roads, beating people up because their white (as what happened in Milwaukee and Charlotte), and burning down buildings doesn't make people thugs?

 

Also, calling someone 'racist' doesn't mean shit. That's just an easy way to try to shut down people for having differing views.

 

If you got tired of reading the NPR piece, here's another: https://mic.com/articles/99182/7-racially-coded-phrases-that-everyone-needs-to-stop-saying-about-black-people

 

 

How and/or where am I opposing the popular consensus/opinion? Virtually everyone I know, except a handful online of hardened party lemmings, pretty much hate this election and would rather eat a sandwich or get a drink than vote.

 

Well, for one example, you make a blanket statement for us all about Hillary's supposed ethics and beliefs.  It's nice and easy to be against everything (as you are in OP), which is the definition of contrarian, namely: opposing or rejecting popular opinion; going against current practice.

[Doktor Avalanche]

 

Well, for one example, you make a blanket statement for us all about Hillary's supposed ethics and beliefs.  It's nice and easy to be against everything (as you are in OP), which is the definition of contrarian, namely: opposing or rejecting popular opinion; going against current practice.

Odd, because the popular opinion is everyone sucks. I tend to agree with that "nice and easy" opinion. I do not see it as a contrarian post. Cynical but not contrarian.

And that blanket statement about Hillary is my opinion, though it may not be yours.

[Rozalia]

http://www.npr.org/2015/04/30/403362626/the-racially-charged-meaning-behind-the-word-thug

 

Also, assuming that BLM as a movement desires to cause violence is ridiculous.  The people looting stores aren't BLM -- they're criminals using a pretext to do what they always wanted to do.  BLM is a decentralized movement with no leaders, so it's pretty difficult to "blame" it for anything.  You should (rightly) blame the individuals.  I'm sure you'll all shit on this for being HuffPo, but: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-lives-matter-violence-cops_us_55e77d82e4b0c818f61a9de8

 

No, people besides those whom already support him would not like if he "shut down" BLM because people generally like the idea of a movement like BLM: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/08/how-americans-view-the-black-lives-matter-movement/.  In my line of work, 42-25 split on an issue (how much Independents support vs oppose BLM) is good enough to win an election.

 

Oh come now what a load of cobblers. So black people should now be immune from the word thug because it is suddenly "racially charged", give me a break. What should I call them instead? Villains? Ruffians? Criminals? Will those suddenly become "racially charged" too if used enough? 

 

They've invigorated people to riot and do so again and again, which they know what will happen and do so anyway. Why don't they just stop doing what provokes these riots? Are they as you say so incompetent they cannot? Then they should disband if they can't even do such a basic thing.

 

Well we're not going to agree as you believe in vastly different opinions. My prediction is Trump will support the police, crush BLM, and stop the riots constantly happening. In 4 years he merely needs to point to that as evidence of being the candidate for law, order, and safety. 

[LordRahl2]

Yes. That was about you.

 

No, I have no hatred toward you. I simply report who you are if people inquire, as I did here.

 

Does who you are distress you in some way?

[Rozalia]

Yes. That was about you.

 

No, I have no hatred toward you. I simply report who you are if people inquire, as I did here.

 

Does who you are distress you in some way?

 

There was no such "inquiring" going on. I was not referenced nor was what I had talked about briefly with Solaire. You just saw someone else you could cry about mean old Roz to and on you went.

 

Now according to you I'm crazy and some sort of Nazi going by the two random comments you decided to regurgitate on here, of course I'll say thats nonsense. As telling you to stop with this obsessive harassment of yours that has gone on for months now isn't working I'm just going to put you on ignore full time until Trump banishes you from here. Oh and yes I did have you briefly on ignore so I could post stuff in the Trump thread in peace, I then took you off, and now you're back on it until the election. 

[LordRahl2]

You still cannot read I see. Or you are just lying again. He clearly asked about you. I answered.

 

You can run away from debates, as you always do, I expected nothing else. However, I never called you a Nazi. I defined you precisely as you have presented yourself here on this forum. That you dislike? what you see says everything about you and nothing about me.

 

Your precious candidate also flees from actual open and honest debates. He either lacks the raw inteligence to keep up in them or knows that his underlying views cannot withstand the light of day.

 

You and he both fleeing is expected.

[Donald Trump]

Hillary is probbaly a lesbian or something. I don't know why anybody would support her.

 

Hillary for prison. 

[Big Brother]

Hillary is probbaly a lesbian or something. I don't know why anybody would support her.

 

Hillary for prison. 

 

I for one, wholeheartedly support lesbians. They're very entertaining.

[Thalmor]

I for one, wholeheartedly support lesbians. They're very entertaining.

 

Girl-on-girl action is just hot.

[Harrison Richardson]

Oh come now what a load of cobblers. So black people should now be immune from the word thug because it is suddenly "racially charged", give me a break. What should I call them instead? Villains? Ruffians? Criminals? Will those suddenly become "racially charged" too if used enough? 

 

They've invigorated people to riot and do so again and again, which they know what will happen and do so anyway. Why don't they just stop doing what provokes these riots? Are they as you say so incompetent they cannot? Then they should disband if they can't even do such a basic thing.

 

Well we're not going to agree as you believe in vastly different opinions. My prediction is Trump will support the police, crush BLM, and stop the riots constantly happening. In 4 years he merely needs to point to that as evidence of being the candidate for law, order, and safety. 

 

You should call them criminals if you think they're criminals.  The point is that no one calls white criminals thugs -- but people are ready and willing to call black people, criminals or not, thugs.  It's a racially charged word.  NPR is about as unbiased a source as someone can find and, even further, they're quoting an Ivy League English Professor.  Here's a quote for you: Well, the truth is that thug today is a nominally polite way of using the N-word. Many people suspect it, and they are correct. When somebody talks about thugs ruining a place, it is almost impossible today that they are referring to somebody with blond hair. 

 

Who is "they" that have caused riots?  BLM leaders certainly disavow them, as considerable evidence shows.  Am I to blame if I advocate for a political candidate winning an election but then some Democrats go and riot at a Republican's house?  Unless I told them to do so, not really.

 

You seem to have a very juvenile understanding of how all of this is working -- but that is okay.  You get a voice too.  Thanks for joining the discussion.

[Spite]

It could be a transatlantic thing, thug isn't used for black people here in Britain, in fact it brings to mind the kind of skinhead far right types who share Roz's views rather than the people they have views about (black and asian people)

[Donald Trump]

Girl-on-girl action is just hot.

You get the kicks off Clinton doing it? 

 

I for one, wholeheartedly support lesbians. They're very entertaining.

I mean it's obvious isn't it. How are Hillary and Bill still together even though Bill is known for sleeping around? He's a very bad person and it's most likely they never are really together, likely Hillary likes woman as well else would she be so interested in gay marriage? 

[LordRahl2]

It could be a transatlantic thing, thug isn't used for black people here in Britain, in fact it brings to mind the kind of skinhead far right types who share Roz's views rather than the people they have views about (black and asian people)

 

I could sorta buy that if it was a one time occurrence, Spite.  For example, he also requested, contextually within a conversation about immigrants, that the "cuckold be deported".  To the generic American that is a clear reference to Mexicans as "cuckolds".

 

So the language/cultural differences that we share with our friends across the pond may account for some miscommunication.  However, this is repetitive and appears intentional.  If it is unintentional then that language is coming from somewhere - probably far right wing US websites and the like.  The hatred and vitriol in those places is intense and if that is where Roz is absorbing his linguistic pattern from then what else is he getting from those sites?

[Rozalia]

It could be a transatlantic thing, thug isn't used for black people here in Britain, in fact it brings to mind the kind of skinhead far right types who share Roz's views rather than the people they have views about (black and asian people)

 

It's used for everybody.

 

You sure you want to start that nonsense up again? Last time you did that was before Brexit where you found out (as I had told you many times) that labeling everyone who doesn't subscribe to your bankrupt ideology racist has lost so much of it's bite, a revelation that made you quit this part of the forum for months. Poor Red Tory. Beaten by the right wing with Brexit and cannot now even beat a long time dead left wing (lol at the Red Tory coup). So say what you want but Nationalism is winning in a lot of places while your ideology only knows how to lose. Sad!

 

You should call them criminals if you think they're criminals.  The point is that no one calls white criminals thugs -- but people are ready and willing to call black people, criminals or not, thugs.  It's a racially charged word.  NPR is about as unbiased a source as someone can find and, even further, they're quoting an Ivy League English Professor.  Here's a quote for you: Well, the truth is that thug today is a nominally polite way of using the N-word. Many people suspect it, and they are correct. When somebody talks about thugs ruining a place, it is almost impossible today that they are referring to somebody with blond hair. 

 

Who is "they" that have caused riots?  BLM leaders certainly disavow them, as considerable evidence shows.  Am I to blame if I advocate for a political candidate winning an election but then some Democrats go and riot at a Republican's house?  Unless I told them to do so, not really.

 

You seem to have a very juvenile understanding of how all of this is working -- but that is okay.  You get a voice too.  Thanks for joining the discussion.

 

Calling black people criminals you say, yet we know thats something your lot don't like either. There is no end to this as using another term just means your type just "racially charges" that down the line so yeah I'll keep using the word thug to describe thugs. Oh and I don't care how educated that person is, a fool is a fool.

 

I thought they didn't have leaders? Do they or don't they? Why can they not stop the violence? Why can't they act like the good protest groups?

 

Considering you support a organisation that causes constant riots I can see how you might think law and order is unimportant to people, but you'll find it's significant in it's importance to ordinary people.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Rozalia

[LordRahl2]

I wonder if Roz even begins to understand the cognitive dissonance in calling for international nationalism.

 

Oh and I don't care how educated that person is, an fool is a fool.

 

Classic.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Are a fools an fools too? Or is that a one way relationship?

[Caecus]

Super excited for tonight. 

[Harrison Richardson]

It's used for everybody.

 

You sure you want to start that nonsense up again? Last time you did that was before Brexit where you found out (as I had told you many times) that labeling everyone who doesn't subscribe to your bankrupt ideology racist has lost so much of it's bite, a revelation that made you quit this part of the forum for months. Poor Red Tory. Beaten by the right wing with Brexit and cannot now even beat a long time dead left wing (lol at the Red Tory coup). So say what you want but Nationalism is winning in a lot of places while your ideology only knows how to lose. Sad!

 

 

Calling black people criminals you say, yet we know thats something your lot don't like either. There is no end to this as using another term just means your type just "racially charges" that down the line so yeah I'll keep using the word thug to describe thugs. Oh and I don't care how educated that person is, a fool is a fool.

 

I thought they didn't have leaders? Do they or don't they? Why can they not stop the violence? Why can't they act like the good protest groups?

 

Considering you support a organisation that causes constant riots I can see how you might think law and order is unimportant to people, but you'll find it's significant in it's importance to ordinary people.

 

You can argue against tenured professors if you want, but I'll let you do it alone.  You've lost this argument, no use continuing it.

 

BLM has people whose voices carry weight within it -- you could call them "leaders," per se, but they don't carry the structural powers or anything like that.  They have disavowed violence.

 

I didn't say whether or not I supported law and order -- merely that BLM has national popularity and that shutting it down wouldn't help Trump's standing in the polls (which, by the way, is a racially charged argument in and of itself.  We wouldn't be discussing it like this if white people were in the streets arguing for their rights).