General US Politics

[Crysta]

And furthermore, the way you said it was implying that you want Christian communities to be treated with utter disrespect at the very least.

How does saying "I don't think it's fair that they teach their flock to hate people like me" imply this at all? There wasn't even a suggestion on how to do go about doing this, much less a call to arms to disrespect Christian communities.

I keep getting the impression you're confronting every little post and trying to find an opening to soapbox on. WTF?

EDIT: imo @ everything else: if you act in an incredibly unethical manner just because you're supposedly afraid of being called racist then i think you have much worse psyche issues or you're just full of shit tbh

being reluctant to argue because of how you might be perceived is believeable... the rest not so much.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Crysta

[Autumn]

I'm having trouble understanding how you can claim there is a PC culture - and what does 'culture' mean in this context, anyway? It's been used so often as a buzzword that it has lost its meaning.

Ah, I see, I should have clarified.

I go by the wikipedia definition of PC culture

Political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct), commonly abbreviated to PC,^[1] is a term that, in modern usage, is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society. In the media, the term is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive

Where I think it's usually used in the sense of "not offending".

And culture as in "the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society."

While I have no problem with the most basic idea of political correctness. What I do have a problem with is if it goes too far.

And from what I understand, when it goes too far it's basically people avoiding being racist like the plague, so much that morality is sometimes compromised.

Such as the example of the grooming gangs. As well as smearing all asians to avoid saying "middle eastern" since they tend to get offended more easily (by offended I mean, react in really violent ways).

I guess a better example of this would be how for most Germans doing the Nazi saulte is a crime and they get arrested for it. But when the immigrants do it, and hold fascist rallies praising Hitler, the police turn a blind eye.

Or when rape scandals get covered up if they're immigrants, but not when they're Germans.

Or when the girls were afraid of coming forward about their rapes since the police would just call them racist.

Or that Norwegian politician that thought that deporting the guy that raped him to his home country would be cruel. Despite it not being a problem borne from the Norwegian people, and thus the Norwegian people have no obligation to have to pay for his food in prison etc.

While these might not be definitive proof, it does make excessive PC culture, a possibility to be considered.

In my opinion anyway.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Autumn

[Tryhard]

haters gonna hate

i think i'll put you in a culture later

pc master race culture, you got me.

all those filthy console apologists

but yeah, it was already pretty much said but I don't see how taking away welfare would help the poor at all lol. it hardly is humane to not give a fuck about the neediest in your country and the impression that they are just lazy is widely overstated

[Moblin Major General]

I wasn't ever taught to hate gay people. I was taught that the concept of homosexuality is wrong and ungodly. God wants you to reject the act, not the sinner. If a gay couple is chaste, I don't view that as sinful, because marriage under the law falls under "render unto Caesar." Christians, on the whole, are so judgmental as people want us to be, especially when one considers "the beam out of thine own eye."

[Autumn]

being reluctant to argue because of how you might be perceived is believeable... the rest not so much.

Yeah absolutely. I think any rational person would prefer being called racist over letting rapes go unpunished.

Though I'm mostly considering the idea that they might be completely irrational. Or perhaps they thought they could cover it up. Which is the case with Rotheram since the article said that the police said "everything is ok now and has been dealt with" or something to that effect, only for independent investigators to find that that is a bald faced lie. And with the Cologne incident coverup by the German police.

While I have no definitive proof, I do think this isn't a possibility to be completely waved away.

[Crysta]

I think in that case it was just an excuse to blame it on someone else. I didn't get the impression that the people thought the police force was at all competent, and there is clearly a very real push against it; I can't believe that popular opinion would suddenly go in favor of the rapists.

[Autumn]

I think in that case it was just an excuse to blame it on someone else. I didn't get the impression that the people thought the police force was at all competent, and there is clearly a very real push against it; I can't believe that popular opinion would suddenly go in favor of the rapists.

I don't think so too, which is why the alt right is gaining ground in Europe.

I reconsidered a bit, and I'll just withhold judgement regarding whether or not the police are too scared of being called racist to do their jobs. Since I lack proof.

But I think that people fear being called racist a bit too much, enough to make some victims of rape coming forward. Which is still cause enough to consider, along with the police being the ones to 1. Not to their jobs in arresting the rapists 2. Tell the girls they're being racist. That there could be a culture problem here. That specifically being the culture of second guessing crimes involving brown/black people, instead of putting them through the proper channels of due process.

Ultimately I'm wondering why the police are being this soft on the rapists. It could just be a one off case if them being cowards.

But I don't really see that as a possibility given how often and prevalent these coverups are. Like I mentioned how big of a coverup the cologne incident was.

Honestly I wouldn't put it past the authorities to just have lost their minds over this considering how Merkel in a fit of insanity opened the gates entirely to immigrants for a while with no background checks. And only stopped when the Germans lost their shit.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Autumn

[Tryhard]

Ah, I see, I should have clarified.

I go by the wikipedia definition of PC culture

Where I think it's usually used in the sense of "not offending".

And culture as in "the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society."[/size]

While I have no problem with the most basic idea of political correctness. What I do have a problem with is if it goes too far.

And from what I understand, when it goes too far it's basically people avoiding being racist like the plague, so much that morality is sometimes compromised.

Such as the example of the grooming gangs. As well as smearing all asians to avoid saying "middle eastern" since they tend to get offended more easily (by offended I mean, react in really violent ways).

I guess a better example of this would be how for most Germans doing the Nazi saulte is a crime and they get arrested for it. But when the immigrants do it, and hold fascist rallies praising Hitler, the police turn a blind eye.

Or when rape scandals get covered up if they're immigrants, but not when they're Germans.

Or when the girls were afraid of coming forward about their rapes since the police would just call them racist.

Or that Norwegian politician that thought that deporting the guy that raped him to his home country would be cruel. Despite it not being a problem borne from the Norwegian people, and thus the Norwegian people have no obligation to have to pay for his food in prison etc.

While these might not be definitive proof, it does make excessive PC culture, a possibility to be considered.

In my opinion anyway.

My problem is not what political correctness is but how can we say what a culture is? We mean the entire country or certain areas, or certain people? Are those examples really indicative of a widespread systematic problem, provably so? I would argue no, considering the majority of cases would still be that we shouldn't try and defend criminals who are convicted.

Pointing out when certain incidents happen is like me trying to say that a culture has a nature of white supremacy, considering I've seen white supremacists groups come up in news or articles like these just about as much, but alas I am not so knowledgeable about current affairs in places like Germany. Attempting to defend people because you don't wish to offend is different, but nonetheless. To be honest, it has even less grounds than claims that a culture is racist because at least then there is data about racial discrepancies, when here we really don't have studies into questioning how far people would go not to offend or however you would want to phrase it.

Norway is extremely light on punishment and rehabilitation in general compared to other countries (and quite effective, at that), so that last one honestly doesn't seem that strange.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Tryhard

[Crysta]

But I don't really see that as a possibility given how often and prevalent these coverups are. Like I mentioned how big of a coverup the cologne incident was.

They're covered-up because they don't want to lose their credibility, but they may also not wish to dedicate the resources (money + labor) needed to seriously remedy the problem, either. So instead of saying "yeah we're pricks" they say "baaaaw PC culture we're afraid of being called racists!"

There's a lot more going on, I'm sure, but I'm not familiar enough with the area or cases to really have a knowledgeable opinion on just why they're not focusing on the problem.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Crysta

[Autumn]

My problem is not what political correctness is but how can we say what a culture is? We mean the entire country or certain areas, or certain people? Are those examples really indicative of a widespread systematic problem, provably so? I would argue no, considering the majority of cases would still be that we shouldn't try and defend criminals who are convicted.

Pointing out when certain incidents happen is like me trying to say that a culture has a nature of white supremacy, considering I've seen white supremacists groups come up in news like these just about as much, but alas I am not so knowledgeable about current affairs in places like Germany.

Norway is extremely light on punishment and rehabilitation in general compared to other countries (and quite effective, at that), so that last one honestly doesn't seem that strange.

Well I consider an idea that causes a specific behavior contrary to the perceived norm, to be a culture. Say like aboriginal cultures are tiny (since most aboriginals died) but they're still cultures.

As for how systemic it is... Some corporations and universities have mandated quotas for males and females, or for specific colours of skin. Instead of something relevant like, poverty. I think that's systemic.

As for the police, I don't really know if this is systemic yet. Which is why I used it as an example on a discussion thread. I'd like people to prod holes where I didn't see any previously (and it worked, which is great). Atm, I am not 100% convinced it's because the police all joined some PC cult. But I also don't believe this attitude is just mere coincidence. And atm there are too many alternate explanations to really make any real solid judgement about the matter.

Maybe, I don't really know how ridiculous those countries get. But considering how the crime rate skyrocketed to the point where they're the capitals of rape of the western world. I... Don't really think it's that effective?

I still don't think that the Norwegian people should be burdened by the mistake of some other country if they could help it.

[Autumn]

They're covered-up because they don't want to lose their credibility, but they may also not wish to dedicate the resources (money + labor) needed to seriously remedy the problem, either. So instead of saying "yeah we're pricks" they say "baaaaw PC culture we're afraid of being called racists!"

There's a lot more going on, I'm sure, but I'm not familiar enough with the area or cases to really have a knowledgeable opinion on just why they're not focusing on the problem.

Hm. Yeah I guess it could be an issue with how police get rewarded or something.

Like say if the security of your job depends on how low the reported figures are, then discouraging reporting would be quite an effective tactic. Though it's evil and sick.

[Tryhard]

Maybe, I don't really know how ridiculous those countries get. But considering how the crime rate skyrocketed to the point where they're the capitals of rape of the western world. I... Don't really think it's that effective?

I still don't think that the Norwegian people should be burdened by the mistake of some other country if they could help it.

I believe you're thinking of Sweden, but Norway has the lowest reoffending rates in the world I believe (as in lowest amount of criminals repeating criminal activities after they get out of prison). They are pretty proud of their rehabilitation system, but you may be right when you say that.

Edit: And I don't know, things like this seem kinda... anti-PC:

http://jezebel.com/norway-is-teaching-male-immigrants-how-to-treat-women-1749075392

Edited August 24, 2016 by Tryhard

[Autumn]

I believe you're thinking of Sweden, but Norway has the lowest reoffending rates in the world I believe (as in lowest amount of criminals repeating criminal activities after they get out of prison).

Whoops. Nevermind then.

But they do the same kinda thing about the migrants. That is, not deporting them. (idk how it is now though since there was an uproar)

Edited August 24, 2016 by Autumn

[Crysta]

Reading the pdf now and after I read the preface and half of chapter 1 I have concluded this is an essay about other studies rather than an actual study within itself.

Unless that's what scientific studies are supposed to be... then I guess it passes in spades lol.

[Phoenix Wright]

~education bit~

i admire the effort you put into this post but my question was not answered. to start, is education the only criteria on the quality of life from 25 years ago to now? what's more, you haven't argued that things got worse if we compare education from 1991 to now, just that it has increased and stagnated. i would hardly call that worse off. you see what i'm saying?

An interesting point (has nothing to do with my comments before) is how the Native American population generally lives in more poverty than Blacks. But then again, they don't make up about 15% of the total population. Again, nothing to do with my original point but definitely interesting to note. Those charts are around page 44 or so.

unfortunately, the united states has long ignored or rejected the plight of the indians.

Page 57 has another interesting chart; The projected percentage of elementary public school education through the next 10 years. Aside from the deep South outliar, check out the states that are slated to decrease. That includes Illinois and New York. That means that cities like Chicago and NYC have education on the down.

it's not clear to me why i should care. what does a projected lower enrollment or higher enrollment mean?

i'm pretty wary of the model anyhow. usually folks in these fields don't have much to work on in the ways of theory...

Page 79 shows that black enrollment in public school is decreasing, either at a steady rate or a significant one in about 2010. That's not necessarily bad but I don't think that drop-off is because they're suddenly getting into private schools.

in my pdf browser in firefox, pg 79 is about ungraduate education. in the document itself, it's a figure on the victimization of students at and away from school, ages 12-18. please clarify/clear up these issues?

Page 89 starts the good stuff. More and more kids live in increasing poverty. These are numbers measured after 8 years of Bush and 4 years of Obama. Again, Bush might have fucked it up for us Conservatives but Obama wasn't making the situation any better. In fact, I'd love to see 2016 results.

this is due to a multitude of reasons probably having very little to do with the power the presidency has. i blame congress, personally. how do you know obama hasn't made the situation better or worse if there doesn't exist data readily available on the topic? it seems like you're biased walking in the door.

Page 118 shows that reading education has barely budged for blacks, starting with Clinton's administration. In 22 years (on a scale of up to 500), black reading comprehension at Grade 8 has risen only by 13 points. That's 2.5%.

that's a significant increase. sure, we could and should do better, but i mean come on are you just going to overplay faults and downplay good things the left has done? there's no utility in that.

If blacks complain about their schooling now, it isn't significantly better than it was 22 years ago under Clinton.

education in this country is shit in general; we all have the right and very much should be complaining. but, it's nice to know things are getting better.

i'm not sure i trust you personally to know how things should go over a period of 22 years. you aren't an expert by any means in the field of education.

Page 163 has attrition rates. Notice that the black attrition rate between 1992 and 2000 are virtually the same (13% and under Clinton). George W. Bush brought that down to under 10%. Sure, the rates dropped under Obama but Bush laid the groundwork.

this is just odd. bush laid the groundwork for our massive debt but i'm willing to bet you blame that on the left.

Page 170 shows how terrible Clinton really was for education and that Bush was far and away better. I won't even spoil it; go look for yourself.

same problem as described above. what page/figure should i be looking at? i'm just seeing a figure of the total cost of college (document 170), or enrollment in college which has increased across the board (browser pg 170).

When Trump tells the Black community that the Democrats have failed them, he's not blowing smoke. Even George W. Bush did more good for education than both Clinton and Obama.

this is very much debatable.

Thank you for making me fact check that statement, Phoenix. You may have just convinced me to reverse my opinion on No Child Left Behind (that maybe it wasn't a steaming pile of crap). So thank you very much.

indeed, it may not have been as bad as i thought either. however, a significant change to education in this country must start with common core implementation.

Again, wasn't Bush villified by the media for NOT going to New Orleans immediately?

completely different situation...

1) Welfare makes people dependent on welfare. There's no incentive to escape.

believe it or not people like being self-reliant. i think there should be changes made to welfare but on the whole it is beneficial.

2) Affirmative Action and other programs like it are inherently racist in today's society because they say that even 46 years after the law was signed into effect, blacks still require a lower standard to compete with everyone else.

it's not about lower standards, it's about lost opportunity. that said, i would go more for a economically based affirmative action over racially-based. unfortunately most poor people happen to also be minorities. though, it's also very difficult for poor whites. these difficulties to make it to college are for a host of reasons.

I feel like conservatives are fighting a war over possession for our souls. We have the left on one side who want to crucify us and the alt-right on the other who claim that we're traitors to our own kind when they hijacked the party.

i don't understand why you make it out to be soooo hard to be a conservative. this nation is conservative. maybe it's because you don't live here afaik.

Are people not entitled to freedom of religion? If Christian doctrines teach that homosexuality is immoral, why are your feelings valued more than their freedoms on which the USA was based? They're not trying to have you burned at the stake. They just think that it's wrong for two dudes to sleep with each other because it goes against their teachings.

well, if they try to get something passed because of their faith, that's a problem.

on your point of pandering to the minority, you seem to have forgotten one of the quintessential philosophies of our government: the ability to fight the tyranny of the majority. the senate exists simply so that small states could be equal to big states. indeed, even if 0.0001% of this population had rights that were deserved but not given, they have the power to catalyze change.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[tuvarkz]

Pointing out when certain incidents happen is like me trying to say that a culture has a nature of white supremacy, considering I've seen white supremacists groups come up in news or articles like these just about as much, but alas I am not so knowledgeable about current affairs in places like Germany. Attempting to defend people because you don't wish to offend is different, but nonetheless. To be honest, it has even less grounds than claims that a culture is racist because at least then there is data about racial discrepancies, when here we really don't have studies into questioning how far people would go not to offend or however you would want to phrase it.

Germany can't seem to avoid becoming authoritatian one way or the other, as people are getting arrested over perceived 'hate speech' or far-right comments over the Internet.

[eclipse]

yeah, all of them are either homophobic or transphobic, and those are the only actual issues I care about in society

I'm actually lowkey with any candidate as long as they have rainbow flags attached to their presidency while I would much rather "crucify" any that don't. I also have a problem with racism, but I don't really think that racism is as widespread outside of the Bible Belt and thus wouldn't be that significant an issue.

obviously there's economic issues but those aren't important to me

. . .THAT'S what you care about? Not things like "hey where's all of our taxes going?" and "how can the education system be improved?" and "let's stop making a giant mess of our planet"?

I don't see that on the left. Anyone who couldn't stand Hillary in the primaries has now just thrown in the towel and begun to defend her whole-heartedly with regards to her corruption. That doesn't happen with us. We call our candidates out if we don't like their stances (not Fox News or Breitbart but smaller sources).

I still refuse to support Hillary. Then again, I consider myself a moderate.

Yes, and most Christians still haven't repented enough for what has been done to communities like the LGBT community. You can be a good person, but I know many people in my local area that aren't so magnanimous.

No. This is wrong.

Not because of the repentance this, but this attitude of "well you didn't do enough in MY opinion". They don't need your approval.

---

Anyway, I got a PM asking "so how does this relate to the election?" Gotta agree with that person, so if y'all want to talk about the more general things (PC culture, left vs. right, other stuff that has nothing to do with the race), feel free to make your own topic.

EDIT: Oh, right, the mini-guide on how to avoid the dreaded double-post warning (I've handed out way too many today):

1. Read through the entire topic before clicking Post.

2. Afraid you missed a quote or two? Click Preview Post. You'll see the last ten posts, and if you see something you want to respond to, do so before posting for good.

3. Need to quote multiple people? MultiQuote.

4. Need to add a quote to a post you already made? Open the quote in a new tab, click the button above the bold button, copy everything, go back to the post you want to edit, paste the quote. You can click the button above the bold button again to get the fancy formatting back.

5. The Edit button is your friend. Seriously.

Edited August 24, 2016 by eclipse

[ping]

€: this would be a further derail, so I should probably just delete this.

Edited August 24, 2016 by ping

[Time the Crestfallen]

Germany can't seem to avoid becoming authoritatian one way or the other, as people are getting arrested over perceived 'hate speech' or far-right comments over the Internet.

Nazi material and anti-Semitism is 'percieved' hate speech? I wonder what you think actual hate speech is if this doesn't count.

Anyway, Germany does have laws against hate speech. It's called the Volsverhetzung. Not every country has the whole 'constitutional right to unconditional free speech' thing going on.

[Life]

Nazi material and anti-Semitism is 'percieved' hate speech? I wonder what you think actual hate speech is if this doesn't count.

Anyway, Germany does have laws against hate speech. It's called the Volsverhetzung. Not every country has the whole 'constitutional right to unconditional free speech' thing going on.

I'm the Jew and I've had family gassed to death in the gas chambers. And I don't think it's hate speech.

I classify hate speech as "a direct incitement to violence or other form of discrimination against an entity". That way, there is no slippery slope that leads us to ban opinions (because jail time for "being mean" will eventually lead to jail time for criticism).

i don't understand why you make it out to be soooo hard to be a conservative. this nation is conservative. maybe it's because you don't live here afaik.

I'll get to the rest later but for now I want to mention this.

When conservative media stops to talk about Trump hiring a campaign manager and everyone says "hey, I know Steve Bannon, he's the worst human being in the world", there's a serious division in the conservative camp.

Shapiro's said it, Dana Loesch has said it and I'll probably find a lot more right wing political commentors who have turned around and said something like "if Steve Bannon gets Trump elected, I may have to legitimately go into hiding for fear of my life".

In this election cycle, we're screwed.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Time the Crestfallen]

I'm the Jew and I've had family gassed to death in the gas chambers. And I don't think it's hate speech.

I classify hate speech as "a direct incitement to violence or other form of discrimination against an entity". That way, there is no slippery slope that leads us to ban opinions (because jail time for "being mean" will eventually lead to jail time for criticism).

Is that not what Nazi Propaganda is? That is to say, attempting to incite violence and discrimination against Jews. Unless you think that 'direct' incitement is real-life only, in which case what if, hypothetically, they're organising a campaign online in which they will harass Jewish people. Is the online organising of such an event hate speech or is it only hate speech once they put such a thing into action?

When conservative media stops to talk about Trump hiring a campaign manager and everyone says "hey, I know Steve Bannon, he's the worst human being in the world", there's a serious division in the conservative camp.

Shapiro's said it, Dana Loesch has said it and I'll probably find a lot more right wing political commentors who have turned around and said something like "if Steve Bannon gets Trump elected, I may have to legitimately go into hiding for fear of my life".

In this election cycle, we're screwed.

And yet Trump secured the nomination, even though the they had the opportunity at the RNC to not elect him. There's definitely an argument to be made that they were fucking terrified of the public backlash they'd receive from Trump supporters but as a whole (unless someone can prove me wrong) this tells me one of two things; it tells me that either they care more about getting elected/avoiding backlash than they do about not having Trump elected, which goes against what you say about a 'serious' division since they seemingly don't mind, or they tried to change it but couldn't, making those who dislike him in the minority, without the power to really oppose him and thus, not representative of the Republican Party in it's current state.

[Life]

And yet Trump secured the nomination, even though the they had the opportunity at the RNC to not elect him. There's definitely an argument to be made that they were fucking terrified of the public backlash they'd receive from Trump supporters but as a whole (unless someone can prove me wrong) this tells me one of two things; it tells me that either they care more about getting elected/avoiding backlash than they do about not having Trump elected, which goes against what you say about a 'serious' division since they seemingly don't mind, or they tried to change it but couldn't, making those who dislike him in the minority, without the power to really oppose him and thus, not representative of the Republican Party in it's current state.

Well, we had a big tent and we fucked up due to the regressive left pushing part of us to go alt-right.

I liked Carly Fiorina (said that multiple times) but just look at the diversity of opinion we had on the right: Carson, Rubio, Cruz, Trump, Fiorina, Bush, Christie... the list just goes on.

Did we choose the wrong person. Yeah, I sincerely think so. But are we traitors to conservatism because we're on the fence about actually voting for Trump to be president? No. Why should we be?

Dana Loesch has a great rant on the matter. It's flat out entertaining. And understand that she is rightfully mad because she's been called a traitor to her own kind.

Again, we should be better than this in-fighting.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Time the Crestfallen]

Well, we had a big tent and we fucked up due to the regressive left pushing part of us to go alt-right.

Well realistically, I feel like Conservatives have gone way further. RAINN (which, if I remember correctly, has been discussed in this very thread) for example, gives suggestions directly to the White House. Using 'regressive left' logic, you'd expect them to be espousing stereotypical regressive left, rad-fem bullshit but all their plans/suggestions/ETC are all very reasonable and both the President and Vice President of the organisation have gone on record saying that Rape Culture is bullshit.

(http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/18/rainn_attacks_the_phrase_rape_culture_in_its_recommendations_to_the_white.html).

However, based on what Trump's support, both in votes and delegate numbers, the alt-right has infected a solid (if not major) majority of the Republican Party.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/trump-trumps-wins-historic-race-record-fashion/

The video you posted is pretty good, but it seems to me that people like her are very much in the minority.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Phillius

[Life]

Dana? Oh, she's Tea Party. I don't personally agree but she's very articulate when it comes to gun control or stupidity.

I'll look at the links later when I'm typing a proper response to Pheonix and Raven.

[Phoenix Wright]

I'm the Jew and I've had family gassed to death in the gas chambers. And I don't think it's hate speech.

I classify hate speech as "a direct incitement to violence or other form of discrimination against an entity". That way, there is no slippery slope that leads us to ban opinions (because jail time for "being mean" will eventually lead to jail time for criticism).

I'll get to the rest later but for now I want to mention this.

When conservative media stops to talk about Trump hiring a campaign manager and everyone says "hey, I know Steve Bannon, he's the worst human being in the world", there's a serious division in the conservative camp.

Shapiro's said it, Dana Loesch has said it and I'll probably find a lot more right wing political commentors who have turned around and said something like "if Steve Bannon gets Trump elected, I may have to legitimately go into hiding for fear of my life".

In this election cycle, we're screwed.

good, you should be screwed. everyone in this country is this election cycle.