I asked for examples, care to give one? One that's worse than "if you don't vote for my guy (or gal) then your a racist, sexist, homophobe bigot." I have yet to see an example of the fear campaign that lead to so many voting for him.
Every speech he gave. I'll start with his first speech:
Mexico is sending us their rapists.
OK, now your turn. Show me a Trump speech without fear mongering.
Weekly reporting of immigrant crimes...another Trump classic
I asked for examples, care to give one? One that's worse than "if you don't vote for my guy (or gal) then your a racist, sexist, homophobe bigot." I have yet to see an example of the fear campaign that lead to so many voting for him.
Every speech he gave. I'll start with his first speech:
Mexico is sending us their rapists.
OK, now your turn. Show me a Trump speech without fear mongering.
Weekly reporting of immigrant crimes...another Trump classic
Woohoo, Trump's approval rating just hit 71%in Russia. Only 4% gave him a bad rating. Contrast that with 81% negatives for Obama. Oh, those goofy Russians.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I asked for examples, care to give one? One that's worse than "if you don't vote for my guy (or gal) then your a racist, sexist, homophobe bigot." I have yet to see an example of the fear campaign that lead to so many voting for him.
Every speech he gave. I'll start with his first speech:
Mexico is sending us their rapists.
OK, now your turn. Show me a Trump speech without fear mongering.
Point awarded.
I think it's game, set, match.
Really? Because I have yet to read a logical response to all of the hatred remarks that Hilary herself said about actual US citizens just because they oppose her. Or comparing a Trump win to Nazi Germany. Did you guys never read how horrible Nazi Germany won, so much that you think a single speech of Trump is worthy or equating the two? I'm going to argue with a brick wall now, I'll get more of a logical response from that than in here.
I asked for examples, care to give one? One that's worse than "if you don't vote for my guy (or gal) then your a racist, sexist, homophobe bigot." I have yet to see an example of the fear campaign that lead to so many voting for him.
Every speech he gave. I'll start with his first speech:
Mexico is sending us their rapists.
OK, now your turn. Show me a Trump speech without fear mongering.
Point awarded.
I think it's game, set, match.
Really? Because I have yet to read a logical response to all of the hatred remarks that Hilary herself said about actual US citizens just because they oppose her. Or comparing a Trump win to Nazi Germany. Did you guys never read how horrible Nazi Germany won, so much that you think a single speech of Trump is worthy or equating the two? I'm going to argue with a brick wall now, I'll get more of a logical response from that than in here.
Speeches of any leader are compared to past leaders. It's normal to do that. If you think there weren't overlapping themes and similar manipulation betweem trump's speeches and various authoritarians of the past, then you're in denial.
I asked for examples, care to give one? One that's worse than "if you don't vote for my guy (or gal) then your a racist, sexist, homophobe bigot." I have yet to see an example of the fear campaign that lead to so many voting for him.
Every speech he gave. I'll start with his first speech:
Mexico is sending us their rapists.
OK, now your turn. Show me a Trump speech without fear mongering.
Weekly reporting of immigrant crimes...another Trump classic
I asked for examples, care to give one? One that's worse than "if you don't vote for my guy (or gal) then your a racist, sexist, homophobe bigot." I have yet to see an example of the fear campaign that lead to so many voting for him.
Every speech he gave. I'll start with his first speech:
Mexico is sending us their rapists.
OK, now your turn. Show me a Trump speech without fear mongering.
Weekly reporting of immigrant crimes...another Trump classic
Bannon is such an asshole. "Asked if he was concerned that Mr. Spicer had lost credibility with the news media, Mr. Bannon chortled. “Are you kidding me?” he said. “We think that’s a badge of honor. ‘Questioning his integrity’ — are you kidding me? The media has zero integrity, zero intelligence, and no hard work.”
“You’re the opposition party,” Mr. Bannon said. “Not the Democratic Party. You’re the opposition party. The media’s the opposition party.”
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
HA. A 20% tax on imports from Mexico to pay for the wall. So American consumers pay for the wall and the GOP gets painted into a corner that they are no longer the party of free trade? Good luck with that.
I asked for examples, care to give one? One that's worse than "if you don't vote for my guy (or gal) then your a racist, sexist, homophobe bigot." I have yet to see an example of the fear campaign that lead to so many voting for him.
Every speech he gave. I'll start with his first speech:
Mexico is sending us their rapists.
OK, now your turn. Show me a Trump speech without fear mongering.
Weekly reporting of immigrant crimes...another Trump classic
When I read that article on Bannon, I felt like he was Lester Bangs from Almost Famous. That's just what it seemed to me. Coincidentally, that role was played by Bannon's doppelgänger, Phillip Seymour Hoffman.
It is not clear whether the officials were forced out by the incoming Trump administration, but the changes shook up Washington — where Trump's approach to the foreign service had already raised eyebrows. “It’s the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and that’s incredibly difficult to replicate,” David Wade, who served as State Department chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry, told The Post.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Bannon is such an asshole. "Asked if he was concerned that Mr. Spicer had lost credibility with the news media, Mr. Bannon chortled. “Are you kidding me?” he said. “We think that’s a badge of honor. ‘Questioning his integrity’ — are you kidding me? The media has zero integrity, zero intelligence, and no hard work.”
“You’re the opposition party,” Mr. Bannon said. “Not the Democratic Party. You’re the opposition party. The media’s the opposition party.”
He's not working with a full deck. None of this inner circle is. Yikes. The patients have officially taken over the asylum. It's pretty fucked up man. I thought things were going to be bad, but so far things are going way worse than I imagined they would. I knew they'd be assholes, but I didn't quite realize these people would act like such loony-toons once they got into the White House and start rejecting all logical thought.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Sure he has bad temper many and throws tantrims like a 2-year-old, but it's a little far to claim one will lead to nuclear war. Trump said he wants to deport illegals (and have them re-enter legally). Clinton responded by saying if Trump wins then all illegals crowded in box trains as they are forced to leave. No one mentioned box trains but her, box trains would be a completely impractical way to massively deport people (which he wont by the way) so why would she do that? To associate Trump with Hitler and the Halocaust. That is some heavy BS and good use of fear tactics right there.
Wasn't a massive component of Trump's campaign centred around Hillary and her carelessness with matters regarding national security?
That's fear mongering... is it not?
Sure, I guess you could argue that. Personally I don't think so, but maybe to some it is. My point was for all the times "fear mongering" are referring to a campaign ran on fear are thrown out there referring to the right, the left is worse. I asked for examples where the right was worse, and the only responses I've seen are a) Trump said he is going to make America great again. Really? That's fear mongering to some? Name one candidate in the history of the world who ran on making things worse. b) Trump said Clinton is careless with national security. Well, that is a proven fact. Maybe others were careless too, but according to the left Russia has all her emails. I just don't see that as fear mongering since it is true.
But lets just assume it is, fine. How is that as bad as saying Trump will cause nuclear war, Trump will create the next Nazi Germany, Trump will deport people in box cars. Sorry, but that's a thousand times worse than any fear mongering example I've heard about the right. Here is the defense I've heard so far today. a) labeling an entire group isn't fear mongering because its true. Although, isn't that much more like Nazi Germany than anything Trump has actually done? I wouldn't call it that, because that is disrespectful for anyone who lived through it or fought to end it. b) I never heard Hilary claim Trump was going to cause nuclear war, so next. Well it was an add than ran for weeks, and she even said it herself at rallies. She is invoking the fear of nuclear war to get votes! c) compares Trump to Nazi Germany, Hitler and the Holocaust Only defense I heard to this was to point out my typo.
I was calling it out because I think it's total BS to throw that word around given the circumstances. And so many on the right are frustrated with the extremes of the left. You didn't vote for Hilary then your a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot. But heaven forbid we use the phrase "Islamic terrorist." Its this sort of extremism that the left is so blind to that gave Trump the edge on this election, while at the same time making all sorts of accusations about anyone who doesn't agree with them.
mace,
First, I'm never in favour of the embellishment or sensationalization of an idea, but I do understand why politicians do it: the American population, by and large, has admitted that they are participants in democracy not to be informed, but to be entertained. Until this changes, politicians will deliver their grandest performances, and they will be nothing more or less than actors.
Next, Make America Great Again on its own is a noble pursuit, but rather than focus on what greatness looks like, Trump instead talked about the abolishment of today-state. This definition of today-state included epidemics of corrupt politicians who will not speak for you, joblessness through a malicious China, an influx of rapists from Mexico, terrorists from Muslim nations, gun violence from inner city residents, attacks on national pride through poor trade deals, nuclear warfare from Iran (and the perception that they are not being watched), abandonment of principled efforts to unequivocally and unilaterally support Israel. Were those not fear-mongering tactics? Some of these issues exist, but when the scale of an issue is inflated so greatly, the only reason I can think of is to induce fear of the trajectory of a Trump-free United States. For example, a simple cost-benefit analysis would suggest that raising regulations on car safety requirements or mandating grippy shower floors (yes, I shit you not) would yield fewer casualties at a lower cost in America than extreme vetting of Middle East-originated humans in America, and with no increase in divisive social rhetoric.
On Clinton: the thing about mistakes, is that people have opportunities to learn. Do you think any Clinton would ever again negate security in his or her dealings? I doubt it. It's only the unintelligent and/or arrogant who will repeat the same mistakes again and again without reflection on how to learn from mistakes. I have no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was either.
On "Islamic terrorists": frankly, I don't really care, any reasonable person shouldn't care, and we shouldn't be pandering to the person who does. I've said it here as well, but call them the Parade of Bombing Teddy Bears if you want - we're still zero steps closer to resolving the perceived problem. The fixation on a name is an attempt at misdirection from both pacifists and interventionists alike.
On comparisons to Nazi Germany - applying censorship, judging human worth by place of origin and/or by religious affiliation, discrediting dissidents, diminishing checks and balances, and broadcasting conclusions based on skewed versions of reality are all welcome methods of thought control employed by most authoritarian regimes. It is inevitable that Trump would be compared to history's most well-known authoritarian dictator when he exhibits the same methods of control.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Bannon is such an asshole. "Asked if he was concerned that Mr. Spicer had lost credibility with the news media, Mr. Bannon chortled. “Are you kidding me?” he said. “We think that’s a badge of honor. ‘Questioning his integrity’ — are you kidding me? The media has zero integrity, zero intelligence, and no hard work.”
“You’re the opposition party,” Mr. Bannon said. “Not the Democratic Party. You’re the opposition party. The media’s the opposition party.”
He's not working with a full deck. None of this inner circle is. Yikes. The patients have officially taken over the asylum. It's pretty fucked up man. I thought things were going to be bad, but so far things are going way worse than I imagined they would. I knew they'd be assholes, but I didn't quite realize these people would act like such loony-toons once they got into the White House and start rejecting all logical thought.
I guess in hindsight there's no reason to believe they'd utilize or broadcast logical thought. Public perception of Trump would be greatly diminished if high-ranking personnel hand-picked by Trump spoke words which contradicted the man himself. I would be greatly surprised if Trump's staff amount to anything more or less than an extension of Trump.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The clock has only been closer to midnight once, in 1953 when it was 2 minutes before midnight. It is now at 2 1/2 minutes to midnight. I know Trump doesn't like to be 2nd at anything, so I'm sure he'll try get it to 1 1/2 minutes soon.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Sure he has bad temper many and throws tantrims like a 2-year-old, but it's a little far to claim one will lead to nuclear war. Trump said he wants to deport illegals (and have them re-enter legally). Clinton responded by saying if Trump wins then all illegals crowded in box trains as they are forced to leave. No one mentioned box trains but her, box trains would be a completely impractical way to massively deport people (which he wont by the way) so why would she do that? To associate Trump with Hitler and the Halocaust. That is some heavy BS and good use of fear tactics right there.
Wasn't a massive component of Trump's campaign centred around Hillary and her carelessness with matters regarding national security?
That's fear mongering... is it not?
Sure, I guess you could argue that. Personally I don't think so, but maybe to some it is. My point was for all the times "fear mongering" are referring to a campaign ran on fear are thrown out there referring to the right, the left is worse. I asked for examples where the right was worse, and the only responses I've seen are a) Trump said he is going to make America great again. Really? That's fear mongering to some? Name one candidate in the history of the world who ran on making things worse. b) Trump said Clinton is careless with national security. Well, that is a proven fact. Maybe others were careless too, but according to the left Russia has all her emails. I just don't see that as fear mongering since it is true.
But lets just assume it is, fine. How is that as bad as saying Trump will cause nuclear war, Trump will create the next Nazi Germany, Trump will deport people in box cars. Sorry, but that's a thousand times worse than any fear mongering example I've heard about the right. Here is the defense I've heard so far today. a) labeling an entire group isn't fear mongering because its true. Although, isn't that much more like Nazi Germany than anything Trump has actually done? I wouldn't call it that, because that is disrespectful for anyone who lived through it or fought to end it. b) I never heard Hilary claim Trump was going to cause nuclear war, so next. Well it was an add than ran for weeks, and she even said it herself at rallies. She is invoking the fear of nuclear war to get votes! c) compares Trump to Nazi Germany, Hitler and the Holocaust Only defense I heard to this was to point out my typo.
I was calling it out because I think it's total BS to throw that word around given the circumstances. And so many on the right are frustrated with the extremes of the left. You didn't vote for Hilary then your a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot. But heaven forbid we use the phrase "Islamic terrorist." Its this sort of extremism that the left is so blind to that gave Trump the edge on this election, while at the same time making all sorts of accusations about anyone who doesn't agree with them.
mace,
First, I'm never in favour of the embellishment or sensationalization of an idea, but I do understand why politicians do it: the American population, by and large, has admitted that they are participants in democracy not to be informed, but to be entertained. Until this changes, politicians will deliver their grandest performances, and they will be nothing more or less than actors.
Next, Make America Great Again on its own is a noble pursuit, but rather than focus on what greatness looks like, Trump instead talked about the abolishment of today-state. This definition of today-state included epidemics of corrupt politicians who will not speak for you, joblessness through a malicious China, an influx of rapists from Mexico, terrorists from Muslim nations, gun violence from inner city residents, attacks on national pride through poor trade deals, nuclear warfare from Iran (and the perception that they are not being watched), abandonment of principled efforts to unequivocally and unilaterally support Israel. Were those not fear-mongering tactics? Some of these issues exist, but when the scale of an issue is inflated so greatly, the only reason I can think of is to induce fear of the trajectory of a Trump-free United States. For example, a simple cost-benefit analysis would suggest that raising regulations on car safety requirements or mandating grippy shower floors (yes, I shit you not) would yield fewer casualties at a lower cost in America than extreme vetting of Middle East-originated humans in America, and with no increase in divisive social rhetoric.
On Clinton: the thing about mistakes, is that people have opportunities to learn. Do you think any Clinton would ever again negate security in his or her dealings? I doubt it. It's only the unintelligent and/or arrogant who will repeat the same mistakes again and again without reflection on how to learn from mistakes. I have no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was either.
On "Islamic terrorists": frankly, I don't really care, any reasonable person shouldn't care, and we shouldn't be pandering to the person who does. I've said it here as well, but call them the Parade of Bombing Teddy Bears if you want - we're still zero steps closer to resolving the perceived problem. The fixation on a name is an attempt at misdirection from both pacifists and interventionists alike.
On comparisons to Nazi Germany - applying censorship, judging human worth by place of origin and/or by religious affiliation, discrediting dissidents, diminishing checks and balances, and broadcasting conclusions based on skewed versions of reality are all welcome methods of thought control employed by most authoritarian regimes. It is inevitable that Trump would be compared to history's most well-known authoritarian dictator when he exhibits the same methods of control.
I asked for examples, care to give one? One that's worse than "if you don't vote for my guy (or gal) then your a racist, sexist, homophobe bigot." I have yet to see an example of the fear campaign that lead to so many voting for him.
Every speech he gave. I'll start with his first speech:
Mexico is sending us their rapists.
OK, now your turn. Show me a Trump speech without fear mongering.
Point awarded.
I think it's game, set, match.
Really? Because I have yet to read a logical response to all of the hatred remarks that Hilary herself said about actual US citizens just because they oppose her. Or comparing a Trump win to Nazi Germany. Did you guys never read how horrible Nazi Germany won, so much that you think a single speech of Trump is worthy or equating the two? I'm going to argue with a brick wall now, I'll get more of a logical response from that than in here.
Speeches of any leader are compared to past leaders. It's normal to do that. If you think there weren't overlapping themes and similar manipulation betweem trump's speeches and various authoritarians of the past, then you're in denial.
Sure he has bad temper many and throws tantrims like a 2-year-old, but it's a little far to claim one will lead to nuclear war. Trump said he wants to deport illegals (and have them re-enter legally). Clinton responded by saying if Trump wins then all illegals crowded in box trains as they are forced to leave. No one mentioned box trains but her, box trains would be a completely impractical way to massively deport people (which he wont by the way) so why would she do that? To associate Trump with Hitler and the Halocaust. That is some heavy BS and good use of fear tactics right there.
Wasn't a massive component of Trump's campaign centred around Hillary and her carelessness with matters regarding national security?
That's fear mongering... is it not?
Sure, I guess you could argue that. Personally I don't think so, but maybe to some it is. My point was for all the times "fear mongering" are referring to a campaign ran on fear are thrown out there referring to the right, the left is worse. I asked for examples where the right was worse, and the only responses I've seen are a) Trump said he is going to make America great again. Really? That's fear mongering to some? Name one candidate in the history of the world who ran on making things worse. b) Trump said Clinton is careless with national security. Well, that is a proven fact. Maybe others were careless too, but according to the left Russia has all her emails. I just don't see that as fear mongering since it is true.
But lets just assume it is, fine. How is that as bad as saying Trump will cause nuclear war, Trump will create the next Nazi Germany, Trump will deport people in box cars. Sorry, but that's a thousand times worse than any fear mongering example I've heard about the right. Here is the defense I've heard so far today. a) labeling an entire group isn't fear mongering because its true. Although, isn't that much more like Nazi Germany than anything Trump has actually done? I wouldn't call it that, because that is disrespectful for anyone who lived through it or fought to end it. b) I never heard Hilary claim Trump was going to cause nuclear war, so next. Well it was an add than ran for weeks, and she even said it herself at rallies. She is invoking the fear of nuclear war to get votes! c) compares Trump to Nazi Germany, Hitler and the Holocaust Only defense I heard to this was to point out my typo.
I was calling it out because I think it's total BS to throw that word around given the circumstances. And so many on the right are frustrated with the extremes of the left. You didn't vote for Hilary then your a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot. But heaven forbid we use the phrase "Islamic terrorist." Its this sort of extremism that the left is so blind to that gave Trump the edge on this election, while at the same time making all sorts of accusations about anyone who doesn't agree with them.
mace,
First, I'm never in favour of the embellishment or sensationalization of an idea, but I do understand why politicians do it: the American population, by and large, has admitted that they are participants in democracy not to be informed, but to be entertained. Until this changes, politicians will deliver their grandest performances, and they will be nothing more or less than actors.
Next, Make America Great Again on its own is a noble pursuit, but rather than focus on what greatness looks like, Trump instead talked about the abolishment of today-state. This definition of today-state included epidemics of corrupt politicians who will not speak for you, joblessness through a malicious China, an influx of rapists from Mexico, terrorists from Muslim nations, gun violence from inner city residents, attacks on national pride through poor trade deals, nuclear warfare from Iran (and the perception that they are not being watched), abandonment of principled efforts to unequivocally and unilaterally support Israel. Were those not fear-mongering tactics? Some of these issues exist, but when the scale of an issue is inflated so greatly, the only reason I can think of is to induce fear of the trajectory of a Trump-free United States. For example, a simple cost-benefit analysis would suggest that raising regulations on car safety requirements or mandating grippy shower floors (yes, I shit you not) would yield fewer casualties at a lower cost in America than extreme vetting of Middle East-originated humans in America, and with no increase in divisive social rhetoric.
On Clinton: the thing about mistakes, is that people have opportunities to learn. Do you think any Clinton would ever again negate security in his or her dealings? I doubt it. It's only the unintelligent and/or arrogant who will repeat the same mistakes again and again without reflection on how to learn from mistakes. I have no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was either.
On "Islamic terrorists": frankly, I don't really care, any reasonable person shouldn't care, and we shouldn't be pandering to the person who does. I've said it here as well, but call them the Parade of Bombing Teddy Bears if you want - we're still zero steps closer to resolving the perceived problem. The fixation on a name is an attempt at misdirection from both pacifists and interventionists alike.
On comparisons to Nazi Germany - applying censorship, judging human worth by place of origin and/or by religious affiliation, discrediting dissidents, diminishing checks and balances, and broadcasting conclusions based on skewed versions of reality are all welcome methods of thought control employed by most authoritarian regimes. It is inevitable that Trump would be compared to history's most well-known authoritarian dictator when he exhibits the same methods of control.
Would those of you who get oh so offended when people draw these apt parallels between Trump and Hitler feel better if we used Mussolini or Kim Jong-Il, Putin, or maybe Goebbels? Is it just the Hitler reference in particular that causes the knee-jerk rejection of the logical comparisons?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Would those of you who get oh so offended when people draw these apt parallels between Trump and Hitler feel better if we used Mussolini or Kim Jong-Il, Putin, or maybe Goebbels? Is it just the Hitler reference in particular that causes the knee-jerk rejection of the logical comparisons?
Sure he has bad temper many and throws tantrims like a 2-year-old, but it's a little far to claim one will lead to nuclear war. Trump said he wants to deport illegals (and have them re-enter legally). Clinton responded by saying if Trump wins then all illegals crowded in box trains as they are forced to leave. No one mentioned box trains but her, box trains would be a completely impractical way to massively deport people (which he wont by the way) so why would she do that? To associate Trump with Hitler and the Halocaust. That is some heavy BS and good use of fear tactics right there.
Wasn't a massive component of Trump's campaign centred around Hillary and her carelessness with matters regarding national security?
That's fear mongering... is it not?
Sure, I guess you could argue that. Personally I don't think so, but maybe to some it is. My point was for all the times "fear mongering" are referring to a campaign ran on fear are thrown out there referring to the right, the left is worse. I asked for examples where the right was worse, and the only responses I've seen are a) Trump said he is going to make America great again. Really? That's fear mongering to some? Name one candidate in the history of the world who ran on making things worse. b) Trump said Clinton is careless with national security. Well, that is a proven fact. Maybe others were careless too, but according to the left Russia has all her emails. I just don't see that as fear mongering since it is true.
But lets just assume it is, fine. How is that as bad as saying Trump will cause nuclear war, Trump will create the next Nazi Germany, Trump will deport people in box cars. Sorry, but that's a thousand times worse than any fear mongering example I've heard about the right. Here is the defense I've heard so far today. a) labeling an entire group isn't fear mongering because its true. Although, isn't that much more like Nazi Germany than anything Trump has actually done? I wouldn't call it that, because that is disrespectful for anyone who lived through it or fought to end it. b) I never heard Hilary claim Trump was going to cause nuclear war, so next. Well it was an add than ran for weeks, and she even said it herself at rallies. She is invoking the fear of nuclear war to get votes! c) compares Trump to Nazi Germany, Hitler and the Holocaust Only defense I heard to this was to point out my typo.
I was calling it out because I think it's total BS to throw that word around given the circumstances. And so many on the right are frustrated with the extremes of the left. You didn't vote for Hilary then your a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot. But heaven forbid we use the phrase "Islamic terrorist." Its this sort of extremism that the left is so blind to that gave Trump the edge on this election, while at the same time making all sorts of accusations about anyone who doesn't agree with them.
mace,
First, I'm never in favour of the embellishment or sensationalization of an idea, but I do understand why politicians do it: the American population, by and large, has admitted that they are participants in democracy not to be informed, but to be entertained. Until this changes, politicians will deliver their grandest performances, and they will be nothing more or less than actors.
Next, Make America Great Again on its own is a noble pursuit, but rather than focus on what greatness looks like, Trump instead talked about the abolishment of today-state. This definition of today-state included epidemics of corrupt politicians who will not speak for you, joblessness through a malicious China, an influx of rapists from Mexico, terrorists from Muslim nations, gun violence from inner city residents, attacks on national pride through poor trade deals, nuclear warfare from Iran (and the perception that they are not being watched), abandonment of principled efforts to unequivocally and unilaterally support Israel. Were those not fear-mongering tactics? Some of these issues exist, but when the scale of an issue is inflated so greatly, the only reason I can think of is to induce fear of the trajectory of a Trump-free United States. For example, a simple cost-benefit analysis would suggest that raising regulations on car safety requirements or mandating grippy shower floors (yes, I shit you not) would yield fewer casualties at a lower cost in America than extreme vetting of Middle East-originated humans in America, and with no increase in divisive social rhetoric.
On Clinton: the thing about mistakes, is that people have opportunities to learn. Do you think any Clinton would ever again negate security in his or her dealings? I doubt it. It's only the unintelligent and/or arrogant who will repeat the same mistakes again and again without reflection on how to learn from mistakes. I have no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was either.
On "Islamic terrorists": frankly, I don't really care, any reasonable person shouldn't care, and we shouldn't be pandering to the person who does. I've said it here as well, but call them the Parade of Bombing Teddy Bears if you want - we're still zero steps closer to resolving the perceived problem. The fixation on a name is an attempt at misdirection from both pacifists and interventionists alike.
On comparisons to Nazi Germany - applying censorship, judging human worth by place of origin and/or by religious affiliation, discrediting dissidents, diminishing checks and balances, and broadcasting conclusions based on skewed versions of reality are all welcome methods of thought control employed by most authoritarian regimes. It is inevitable that Trump would be compared to history's most well-known authoritarian dictator when he exhibits the same methods of control.
I'm picturing 2 Trump voters having this conversation.
Yes, maybe someday there will be 2 Trump voters who are capable of that, lol. I have my doubts, given everything they had to go on but still made that decision, but you never know.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
I'm going to argue with a brick wall now, I'll get more of a logical response from that than in here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/business/media/stephen-bannon-trump-news-media.html
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
"Asked if he was concerned that Mr. Spicer had lost credibility with the news media, Mr. Bannon chortled. “Are you kidding me?” he said. “We think that’s a badge of honor. ‘Questioning his integrity’ — are you kidding me? The media has zero integrity, zero intelligence, and no hard work.”
“You’re the opposition party,” Mr. Bannon said. “Not the Democratic Party. You’re the opposition party. The media’s the opposition party.”
Here's 4 pages of interesting. Click on image to advance pages.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
It's pretty fucked up man. I thought things were going to be bad, but so far things are going way worse than I imagined they would. I knew they'd be assholes, but I didn't quite realize these people would act like such loony-toons once they got into the White House and start rejecting all logical thought.
First, I'm never in favour of the embellishment or sensationalization of an idea, but I do understand why politicians do it: the American population, by and large, has admitted that they are participants in democracy not to be informed, but to be entertained. Until this changes, politicians will deliver their grandest performances, and they will be nothing more or less than actors.
Next, Make America Great Again on its own is a noble pursuit, but rather than focus on what greatness looks like, Trump instead talked about the abolishment of today-state. This definition of today-state included epidemics of corrupt politicians who will not speak for you, joblessness through a malicious China, an influx of rapists from Mexico, terrorists from Muslim nations, gun violence from inner city residents, attacks on national pride through poor trade deals, nuclear warfare from Iran (and the perception that they are not being watched), abandonment of principled efforts to unequivocally and unilaterally support Israel. Were those not fear-mongering tactics? Some of these issues exist, but when the scale of an issue is inflated so greatly, the only reason I can think of is to induce fear of the trajectory of a Trump-free United States. For example, a simple cost-benefit analysis would suggest that raising regulations on car safety requirements or mandating grippy shower floors (yes, I shit you not) would yield fewer casualties at a lower cost in America than extreme vetting of Middle East-originated humans in America, and with no increase in divisive social rhetoric.
On Clinton: the thing about mistakes, is that people have opportunities to learn. Do you think any Clinton would ever again negate security in his or her dealings? I doubt it. It's only the unintelligent and/or arrogant who will repeat the same mistakes again and again without reflection on how to learn from mistakes. I have no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was either.
On "Islamic terrorists": frankly, I don't really care, any reasonable person shouldn't care, and we shouldn't be pandering to the person who does. I've said it here as well, but call them the Parade of Bombing Teddy Bears if you want - we're still zero steps closer to resolving the perceived problem. The fixation on a name is an attempt at misdirection from both pacifists and interventionists alike.
On comparisons to Nazi Germany - applying censorship, judging human worth by place of origin and/or by religious affiliation, discrediting dissidents, diminishing checks and balances, and broadcasting conclusions based on skewed versions of reality are all welcome methods of thought control employed by most authoritarian regimes. It is inevitable that Trump would be compared to history's most well-known authoritarian dictator when he exhibits the same methods of control.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/symbolic-doomsday-clock-moves-closer-to-midnight/ar-AAmhcYy?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/it-turns-out-trump-son-in-law-jared-kushner-is-also-registered-to-vote-in-two-states/ar-AAmhpvk?ocid=iehp
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
www.headstonesband.com
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com