General US Politics

[Lord Raven]

it took you this long to realize that trump was a horrible human being

not the blatant racism or even the previous sexism on tape, not even his racism in the 80s and 90s, not even the fact that he did some shit in 95 to evade taxes and called himself smart for evading taxes

it's the "grab them by the pussy" thing

amazing. fyi a lot of these rape allegations are old news, they just came to light because, you know, now they have the public behind them as opposed to cases where women are shamed for otherwise hurling rape accusations against famous people. the same shit happened against Cosby.

also didn't you never support trump? lmao you flip flop harder than an actual flip flop, and that facebook posts reeks of "left vs right" bullshit still, you really need to stop that

Edited October 17, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Life]

it took you this long to realize that trump was a horrible human being

not the blatant racism or even the previous sexism on tape, not even his racism in the 80s and 90s, not even the fact that he did some shit in 95 to evade taxes and called himself smart for evading taxes

it's the "grab them by the pussy" thing

amazing. fyi a lot of these rape allegations are old news, they just came to light because, you know, now they have the public behind them as opposed to cases where women are shamed for otherwise hurling rape accusations against famous people. the same shit happened against Cosby.

also didn't you never support trump? lmao you flip flop harder than an actual flip flop, and that facebook posts reeks of "left vs right" bullshit still, you really need to stop that

1) I thought he was more of an idiot until now. As I mentioned above, this crossed a line for me.

It's not that he said "pussy". It's that he actually insinuated that it is acceptible to commit sexual assault on married women because he is rich. Whether or not he has done so is irrelevant in my eyes.

Someone I know on Facebook tried to argue with "you've probably said something like that too". The answer is no. I don't condone sexual assault at all.

PS: On this forum, I know that there are a few posts that could blow up my statment. Bonus points if you find them and understand why they don't.

2) It's not that the rape allegations never existed. But Trump's been called a mysogonist for over a year. If the goal here was just to destroy him, then they would have surfaced in the primaries. But rather, they only come to light a few days after Anderson Cooper point blank asks Trump if he has ever sexually assulted women. And the cases are located in states that are vital for Trump to win (Florida and Ohio).

What I'm saying is that this is all tied up in a neat bow perfectly for Clinton. I think the way this was leaked was deliberate because it feels like a Hail Mary that ended up being caught in the endzone.

3) I don't care about your opinion on my "left vs. right" outlook. But I do push a little harder right here than I really am in my personal life. There are a few reasons for why but the biggest one is because I use this forum to test out the veracity of opinions that I question. So I take the hardline right wing stance here as a way to see if I personally agree or don't. Think of it like training ground for ideas.

I'm still right wing with my opinions. And I still have an issue with the regressive left. But on Facebook (with friends and family), my actual opinions are represented and I feel that I articulated my opinion on this matter the best there.

Am I asking you to believe me? No. Couldn't care less. But I was disgusted by the Billy Bush tape. And furthermore, I officially got off the Trump train afterwards.

My "flip-flop" (as you call it) was such: I gave Trump a chance to convince me. He did (or rather, it was other factors). And then he turned me off. I see no reason why you believe that I must marry my opinion to the guy when new evidence emerges.

[Lord Raven]

For 2) I have absolutely no idea what your point is. Damning evidence against presidential candidate comes out close to the end of the election? What a SHOCK right? So are you denying the rape allegations or some video or what?

"I used to think Trump was an idiot" doesn't fly. He's said all sorts of horrible (not just mean) shit. This one thing should not have pushed you over the edge. It should've reaffirmed our beliefs.

As far as the flip-flop point I'm referring to the fact that you've said "I've never supported Trump" in the past, and now you're saying you used to support him. I also don't see how "I don't care about your opinion" doesn't contradict "I use people's opinions on this forum to test my opinions." Furthermore, you get way too hostile over your opinions in here to convince me that you use Serenes like that.

And also you keep saying "left" and "regressive left" like you're trying to target people based on a label that you don't agree with or find dumb. Which makes it even more obvious that your claim that you use these forums as a testing ground for really strange or batshit opinions is a joke. In fact you're fully aware that the stuff you say here is kind of batshit so do you intentionally troll? Also what the fuck do you even mean by regressive left?

Edited October 17, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Life]

Gonna reply onto the last paragraph because I think it's the only one with substance.

When I say "left", that's because I don't agree with the ideas that are left wing. Welfare, public education, health care... that stuff. I think they're not that good in practice and as a result, I think they're dumb. But I can hold conversations with those people because they're willing to listen to my side.

"Regressive left" is the culture of identity politics that has been overtaking the left. It is designed to be an insult at SJWs. The problem is, this culture is becoming more prevalent and has led to race riots (as an example).

As for my opinions being batshit crazy, they might be to you. I see them as tenable positions that can be argued. So do others. No trolling done whatsoever.

Does that answer your question?

[Lord Raven]

Gonna reply onto the last paragraph because I think it's the only one with substance.

- First paragraph asks you what point you were actually making. Is it suspicious that this info was released right before the election? Are you denying the rape allegations? You were just saying things without any finer point. I'll refer you back to the post just as a heads up.

Regarding the sexual abuse allegations, I think that it is suspicious about how perfectly it lined up for the Clinton campaign. Not saying that they're necessarily false but the timing and locations (one in Ohio and another in Florida) make me think that the Clinton campaign had a hand in it.

In which case, I don't know what your point is. "Hillary Clinton slanders Donald Trump - with proof!" is not a shocking headline, nor is it relevant to outing a sexual offender.

- Second paragraph is calling you out on the "I used to think he was just an idiot" bullshit. You fully agreed with a bunch of his points, of course not all, so what are you trying to say? He's said a lot of really shitty things.

- Third paragraph is furthermore calling you out on this revelation you had. You keep flip flopping between "I want Trump to be president" to "I never ever supported Trump ever" to now you're saying you used to support him but now you can't anymore. That's kind of what it means to "get off the Trump train."

FYI I respond to all of your points even though they lack substance. Don't be an asshole about it. They had plenty of substance, and they had a finer point or question.

When I say "left", that's because I don't agree with the ideas that are left wing. Welfare, public education, health care... that stuff. I think they're not that good in practice and as a result, I think they're dumb. But I can hold conversations with those people because they're willing to listen to my side.

"I think they're dumb ideas, but I'm willing to listen to the practitioners of these dumb ideas." = "not trolling" ??? That's pretty condescending.

"Regressive left" is the culture of identity politics that has been overtaking the left. It is designed to be an insult at SJWs. The problem is, this culture is becoming more prevalent and has led to race riots (as an example).

Define identity politics. Like, "Oh I'm a right winger who can take anything you left wingers can throw at me." Is this not politics by identity? You're guilty of the same thing. Are you part of the regressive left then???

Race riots? You mean the kind that happen in protest of police departments who discriminate against their people? Or what about the presidential candidate who is discriminating against other people

So again, what the hell are you referring to with "Regressive left"??? You didn't actually define it very well, you just said something about SJWs and race politics.

As for my opinions being batshit crazy, they might be to you. I see them as tenable positions that can be argued. So do others. No trolling done whatsoever.

"taxes are theft"

"transpeople have forfeited their right to be a human being"

"china did not have to rely on the progressive tax and socialism to get out of poverty instead I'll link an article that says the exact opposite as proof"

???

You even said you go a little bit crazier on the right with it than you ordinarily would, or at least "further right" which implies crazy. Again, are you intentionally trying to troll?

Edited October 17, 2016 by Lord Raven

[ping]

"Regressive left" is the culture of identity politics that has been overtaking the left. It is designed to be an insult at SJWs. The problem is, this culture is becoming more prevalent and has led to race riots (as an example).

As for my opinions being batshit crazy, they might be to you. I see them as tenable positions that can be argued. So do others. No trolling done whatsoever.

Does that answer your question?

So how is that not a contradiction?

2) It's not that the rape allegations never existed. But Trump's been called a mysogonist for over a year. If the goal here was just to destroy him, then they would have surfaced in the primaries. But rather, they only come to light a few days after Anderson Cooper point blank asks Trump if he has ever sexually assulted women. And the cases are located in states that are vital for Trump to win (Florida and Ohio).

What I'm saying is that this is all tied up in a neat bow perfectly for Clinton. I think the way this was leaked was deliberate because it feels like a Hail Mary that ended up being caught in the endzone.

So you're implying that Trump succeeding was all because of a Democrat conspiracy? Sorry, but if anyone needed to hear that Billy Bush talk to recognize what a horrible person Trump is, it's their own fucking fault.

If that's not what you're saying, I'm sorry that I don't see any point whatsoever in bringing up the timing of those allegations.

[Life]

So you're implying that Trump succeeding was all because of a Democrat conspiracy? Sorry, but if anyone needed to hear that Billy Bush talk to recognize what a horrible person Trump is, it's their own fucking fault.

If that's not what you're saying, I'm sorry that I don't see any point whatsoever in bringing up the timing of those allegations.

I'm saying this reminds me exactly of the Jian Ghomeshi case. And exactly how the unfolded. Spoiler alert: He was found not guilty on charges of sexual assault.

[Lord Raven]

Yes, except Trump had multiple women come forward, one of them being 13 at the time, and become more vocal about it.

His own ex-wife actually went on record describing how Trump raped her, but then said to not call it rape (and it was technically legal at the time due to marital rape laws). That guy you talked about is not only one dude (so again not indicative of anything), but also it was only one woman.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Lord Raven

[ping]

I didn't know of that case beforehand. Did Mr Ghomeshi also brag how he was able to get away with sexual assault while being recorded?

[Life]

I didn't know of that case beforehand. Did Mr Ghomeshi also brag how he was able to get away with sexual assault while being recorded?

Recorded? No. But there were rumours flying around CBC for years.

And Raven, no, it wasn't one women. There were four charges of sexual assault on record and another 20 or so allegations.

There's a topic here that I started about the case and how it all went down. And remember that that case unfolded in a period of 48 hours with no political ramifications.

Why am I the only one here who is saying "hey, the law is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt"? You all have made the assumption that he is guilty by default.

Saying that he "can" get away with it is not proof that he did such things. That's thought-policing, bro.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Deplorable Pepe

[Just call me AL]

I feel like mentioning that it was the "I'm going to ban Muslims from the U.S." thing that caused Frump to lose my vote. And that wall "that I'll get Mexico to build" thing just had me scratching my head beforehand. Everything else that followed caused my vote to stay away from him.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Just call me AL

[Life]

That's fine. I personally think that there should be an ideological test. I like Steven Crowder's idea regarding a drawing of Muhammed but he wants Muslims to draw Muhammed. I say show them a picture of Muhammed and observe their reaction.

Also, to Raven.

Your snark does not give you the right to blatantly make up shit about something that could have been Googled. Every statement you made with regard to the Jian Ghomeshi case is false because had you used Google (or even looked at the topic on page 2), you would have seen that less than 24 hours after Ghomeshi's "Dear Everyone" letter, the Toronto Star published an article about 3 different women claiming sexual assault.

You're allowed to be snarky and disagree with me on lots of shit. That doesn't let you patently lie about a case that you know nothing about simply as an attempt to show that I'm a nut job.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Deplorable Pepe

[Tryhard]

When I say "left", that's because I don't agree with the ideas that are left wing. Welfare, public education, health care... that stuff.

What do you mean by public education? Any public schools funded by the government whatsoever?

Why am I the only one here who is saying "hey, the law is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt"? You all have made the assumption that he is guilty by default.

That's true, but at the same time, as far as I know, all those claims about Bill Clinton being a rapist/sexual assaulter have also not been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, right? It makes no sense to me to talk about either as if they are simply true without being proven in a court of law. I mean, it happens that I have seen people that support Trump being very hypocritical in this regard (or vice versa for the democrats playing for the team).

To be truthful though, I could see some of the claims of either or both Donald Trump or Bill Clinton to be true, as awful as that is.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Tryhard

[Life]

What do you mean by public education? Any public schools funded by the government whatsoever?

That's true, but at the same time, as far as I know, all those claims about Bill Clinton being a rapist/sexual assaulter have also not been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, right? It makes no sense to me to talk about either as if they are simply true without being proven in a court of law. I mean, it happens that I have seen people that support Trump being very hypocritical in this regard.

To be truthful though, I could see some of the claims of either or both Donald Trump or Bill Clinton to be true, as awful as that is.

I like charter schools more than public schools. I think public schools are a waste of money and resources.

I think they're both terrible people. I want to see them both before a court of law along with Hillary as being an accessory. After that, let justice run its course.

[Lord Raven]

i didn't lie, i was misinformed

did i say you were a nut job in that post anyway... and why did you even bring it up? how is that relevant to the donald trump thing? if trump were not guilty would you "support" him again?

Also is being a snarky asshole the only way to get a response from you lmao? You are petty. I should probably just be a snarky asshole if I want you to acknowledge anything from now on, because you sure as hell ignore a lot of things for someone who is just looking for discourse. I still haven't gotten an answer for what point you were actually making, and ping actually asked the same thing. Yet somehow I got two posts that said I was factually wrong about a claim after one of the most halfassed google searches I've ever performed.

Saying that he "can" get away with it is not proof that he did such things. That's thought-policing, bro.

How is that thought-policing???????? This is people calling him out on some shit he said about how he can abuse his power to kiss whoever the fuck he wants.

That's fine. I personally think that there should be an ideological test. I like Steven Crowder's idea regarding a drawing of Muhammed but he wants Muslims to draw Muhammed. I say show them a picture of Muhammed and observe their reaction.

I think the majority of Muslims would not react very well to this at all. What the fuck? Even people who detested the violence caused by the drawing of Muhammed said that drawing Muhammed is a transgression. What, should we test Jewish ideology by seeing how they react if they're forced to eat pork?

Why am I the only one here who is saying "hey, the law is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt"? You all have made the assumption that he is guilty by default.

Nobody has even discussed the possibility of him being guilty. Just that the cases are ongoing and multiple women are now even more vocal about it, which paints more of a picture than any conviction will. We were also saying that in response to your incoherent post where nobody knew what point you were actually making, and when someone asks you to clarify you say that nothing we said had substance. Please get over yourself.

I like charter schools more than public schools. I think public schools are a waste of money and resources.

Charter schools are also huge issues, even though there are good ones there are also plenty of awful ones. And poorer people can't afford a better charter school for their kids, so you are again punishing children for being born to poor parents without any sort of free public education. There are also plenty of public school systems in the US that are very good, however some are not at all good and those happen to be in places where the demographics probably can't afford any decent charter school to begin with. Edited October 17, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Life]

i didn't lie, i was misinformeddid i say you were a nut job in that post anyway... and why did you even bring it up? how is that relevant to the donald trump thing? if trump were not guilty would you "support" him again?Also is being a snarky asshole the only way to get a response from you lmao? You are petty. I should probably just be a snarky asshole if I want you to acknowledge anything from now on, because you sure as hell ignore a lot of things for someone who is just looking for discourse. I still haven't gotten an answer for what point you were actually making, and ping actually asked the same thing. Yet somehow I got two posts that said I was factually wrong about a claim after one of the most halfassed google searches I've ever performed.

How is that thought-policing???????? This is people calling him out on some shit he said about how he can abuse his power to kiss whoever the fuck he wants.

I think the majority of Muslims would not react very well to this at all. What the fuck? Even people who detested the violence caused by the drawing of Muhammed said that drawing Muhammed is a transgression. What, should we test Jewish ideology by seeing how they react if they're forced to eat pork?

You were not misinformed. You deliberately made up it up. Even a simple Google search would have told you that.

Being misinformed means that you were not provided all the details and came to a conclusion without knowing the full story. But everything you said was factually incorrect.

I am salty about it because I think it was more important to you to claim that I was wrong despite the fact that I brought up the case for a reason (because you hadn't heard about it before). The least you could do is try to understand why I see them to be similar. What you did was intellectually dishonest in my eyes.

Next. Thought policing is jailing someone for their thoughts and words, not actions.

I've called Trump out on his words. You want him in jail with no due process.

As for the last point, no. Forcing a Muslim to draw Muhammed is like forcing a Jew to eat pork. I said that I don't agree with that.

But forcing a Jew to watch someone else eat pork as an ideological test is acceptable. Like showing a Muslim a picture of Muhammed. I'm looking for their reaction. If they want me dead for drawing Muhammed, I don't want them in my society.

Speaking of which, I should call Crowder out on that one. Haven't done so yet.

[Lord Raven]

You were not misinformed. You deliberately made up it up. Even a simple Google search would have told you that.

Being misinformed means that you were not provided all the details and came to a conclusion without knowing the full story. But everything you said was factually incorrect.

I'm sorry? I skimmed like one sentence of a wiki article and assumed it was one person. That's being misinformed. I did not even attempt to lie, nor am I attempting to back it up. You're being petty.

I am salty about it because I think it was more important to you to claim that I was wrong despite the fact that I brought up the case for a reason (because you hadn't heard about it before). The least you could do is try to understand why I see them to be similar. What you did was intellectually dishonest in my eyes.

Okay, but... again, not relevant. You still haven't answered a question asked a page back.

Next. Thought policing is jailing someone for their thoughts and words, not actions.

I've called Trump out on his words. You want him in jail with no due process.

No I don't. Where did I or anyone say this? I said some lawsuits came up, and something similar happened with Cosby, which is why more people are publicizing it, because frankly I couldn't understand what point you were making.

As for the last point, no. Forcing a Muslim to draw Muhammed is like forcing a Jew to eat pork. I said that I don't agree with that.

Forcing them to look at a picture of Muhammed is like that too. It's forbidden to draw pictures of Muhammed, and looking at it and forcing them to sit there and take it is no better.

But forcing a Jew to watch someone else eat pork as an ideological test is acceptable. Like showing a Muslim a picture of Muhammed. I'm looking for their reaction. If they want me dead for drawing Muhammed, I don't want them in my society.

Easy bypass. Don't say "I want to kill you." Then they come in. There's absolutely no way to prove how extreme someone is in their ideology without giving them a gun. Your litmus test is flawed. Edited October 18, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Life]

Easy bypass. Don't say "I want to kill you." Then they come in. There's absolutely no way to prove how extreme someone is in their ideology without giving them a gun. Your litmus test is flawed.

Takkiyah.

I want to see their reaction to the idea they want to move to a country that endorses free speech. If I drop a picture of Muhammed on them in the middle of an interview and they can't accept the idea that I can draw Muhammed all I want, then they are not compatible with the USA.

[Lord Raven]

Takkiyah?

I want to see their reaction to the idea they want to move to a country that endorses free speech. If I drop a picture of Muhammed on them in the middle of an interview and they can't accept the idea that I can draw Muhammed all I want, then they are not compatible with the USA.

I don't see how this is relevant. People aren't tolerant of ideas like gay marriage and etc in the US despite us having a very very implicit "freedom of orientation" yet here we are. A lot of people in the US aren't compatible with the USA, including a presidential candidate that you vouched for until he was open about the fact that he bragged about being able to sexually assault women and they'd have to sit there and take it.

I also don't think many Muslims are tolerant of people drawing Muhammed given that it is part of a core principle of their religion. People have a right to be intolerant of things like that. It's just like how saying shit like "I would rather my kid have cancer than be a transperson" is intolerable and technically free speech but elicits a highly negative response, don't you think? And again, anything short of "wanting to kill that person" is permissible, so it's easy to stay under that line. However, the backlash from many, MANY people would also be great because of the fact that there's multiple drawings of Muhammed throughout the US that they're showing to Muslims as a way of profiling.

Your litmus test is a joke.

[Tryhard]

All you're going to be doing is subjecting Muslims who want to enter the country to feel unwelcome more than they already do, and undoubtedly will feel upset or at the least unnerved at being shown a picture of Muhammed. That, and they can easily lie if they know that this is a test to enter the country. Perhaps people who aren't harmful but are sensitive on the subject would be unfairly rejected from entering the country because they exhibited behaviour that reinforced confirmation bias. Who is to be the authority on what behaviour is acceptable in response and which is not? Big government, right? There are places where they outright ask you in a form if you are or have links to terrorism when attempting to enter the country, people will just lie.

The closest thing I could compare would be to required viewing of Monty Python's Life of Brian or such, which was controversial and noted by many Christian organizations and individuals to be blasphemous in the time around it was released. Even then, a poor portrayal of Christianity isn't on quite the same level as the former, but even that would annoy or upset at least some Christians.

Some form of immigration process is necessary, but not in this way.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Tryhard

[-Cynthia-]

Takkiyah.

I want to see their reaction to the idea they want to move to a country that endorses free speech. If I drop a picture of Muhammed on them in the middle of an interview and they can't accept the idea that I can draw Muhammed all I want, then they are not compatible with the USA.

I'm not sure what 'can't accept' really means in this context anyway. Is a Muslim who is upset or angered by a drawing of Muhammed still 'accepting' of it as long as they aren't violent?(thoughtcrime isn't a thing in the US, as you pointed out). And as pointed out earlier, there are many Americans who are intolerant of things in the US- we still allow hate groups like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church to exist despite having opinions far outside the norm. I don't see what in the world this litmus test is supposed to accomplish, outside of providing an excuse for not allowing Muslims in the US. Reminds me of the bullshit IQ tests the US used to give immigrants.

[Phoenix Wright]

life still hasn't responded to my very valid points from a few weeks ago, telling me that he's trolling.

[Lord Raven]

To be honest, he hasn't done that in a while in many threads.

[ping]

Recorded? No. But there were rumours flying around CBC for years.

So the one case reminds you of the other one why exactly? Because they're both allegations of sexual assault? In that case I could easily find another case in which the defendant was found guilty and say that the media's response to the allegations against Trump reminds of that.

Saying that he "can" get away with it is not proof that he did such things. That's thought-policing, bro.

Please point out where anyone in this thread wrote that Trump should be jailed. I couldn't find any post suggesting that.

[tuvarkz]

I'm not sure what 'can't accept' really means in this context anyway. Is a Muslim who is upset or angered by a drawing of Muhammed still 'accepting' of it as long as they aren't violent?(thoughtcrime isn't a thing in the US, as you pointed out). And as pointed out earlier, there are many Americans who are intolerant of things in the US- we still allow hate groups like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church to exist despite having opinions far outside the norm. I don't see what in the world this litmus test is supposed to accomplish, outside of providing an excuse for not allowing Muslims in the US. Reminds me of the bullshit IQ tests the US used to give immigrants.

Except that the KKK and WBC have been mostly harmless of recent and are very small groups currently (In the meantime, fundamentalist Muslims aren't, even if they won't resort to violent methods). And they are US citizens-there's a very significant gap between 'not granting access to a foreign person to the country' and 'exiling a US citizen'.

Also, apparently more stuff keeps coming from the Clinton campaign-seems like plenty of protests were actually instigated and not spontaneous.