General US Politics

[Just call me AL]

Question. Do we also let people go for involuntary manslaughter?

Better question: Do you think that the Republican majority in Congress would even give us a choice in that matter? Considering the way most of them think nowadays?

[Lord Raven]

Sorry, not worth. May repost if more time to discuss if arguments ensue.

That's a shame because the post before this was not only very good but it also showed why people get exasperated with arguing with Life Admiral; because he, like his lord and savior Donald J Trump, is alpha and does not let simple things known as facts get in the way of his opinions.

[Life]

That's a shame because the post before this was not only very good but it also showed why people get exasperated with arguing with Life Admiral; because he, like his lord and savior Donald J Trump, is alpha and does not let simple things known as facts get in the way of his opinions.

For the 50th time, I am not supporting Trump because I like him. You seem to not get this.

I am supporting him because he is fighting against what I hate. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Lord Raven]

I get it, you are his friend, therefore you like him, because he's the enemy of your enemy.

I mean can't you take a joke? Grow thicker skin.

EDIT: if you think Trump is fighting for anything but his brand and delusional sexism/racism/xenophobia/the right to rich people to molest things and do whatever they want then feel free. Doesn't mean the facts support that belief.

What do you define political correctness and regressive left without going into namecalling? Like seriously, because I really wasn't satisfied with your previous answer because of how vague and open ended it was.

Also why do you have the gall to call me out on missing one point (on purpose) but you in turn ignore every other point and go on a soapbox instead? Like this is the pot calling the kettle black - even though the kettle is blue and the pot is black as coal.

EDIT 2: Trump is your enemy, Clinton is your enemy, and they are each other's enemy. Wouldn't that make both your friend?

Edited November 2, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Yojinbo]

I am supporting him because he is fighting against what I hate.

He's not fighting against political correctness.

[Just call me AL]

For the 50th time, I am not supporting Trump because I like him. You seem to not get this.

I am supporting him because he is fighting against what I hate.

Am I to interpret this as a notion that you hate racial equality, gender equality, the idea of the rich paying their fair share of taxes, stricter arms laws, maintaining/improving relations with foreign allies, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, democracy, and liberty? Because I'm pretty sure Frump's fighting against each and every one of those.

What do you define political correctness and regressive left without going into namecalling?

I don't even think that any "leftist" view could be called "regressive" in any sense of the word. Modern right-wing views, on the other hand... Edited November 2, 2016 by Just call me AL

[Time the Crestfallen]

I don't even think that any "leftist" view could be called "regressive" in any sense of the word. Modern right-wing views, on the other hand...

Depends on how you're defining 'leftist'. Realistically, the kind of people people that Life refers to in this circumstance are right-wingers, since they employ a lot of the same logic and arguments, albeit for different groups/a different cause. People who think that the world would be a better place if one race died off and advocate for genocide, for instance, are not left-wing, regardless of the of the race they hate.

[Just call me AL]

Depends on how you're defining 'leftist'. Realistically, the kind of people people that Life refers to in this circumstance are right-wingers, since they employ a lot of the same logic and arguments, albeit for different groups/a different cause. People who think that the world would be a better place if one race died off and advocate for genocide, for instance, are not left-wing, regardless of the of the race they hate.

And thank you for summing up my point for me.

[Crysta]

Given his inability to take criticism and history of going after reporters for divulging less-than-flattering information about him, I'd say he's far more keen on tightening the noose on speech than Clinton ever has been or ever will be. The idea of him being a champion of blunt facts and being unconcerned with hurt feelings is laughable, and I can only guess that you've projected traits onto him that simply aren't there in reality lol

[Life]

What do you define political correctness and regressive left without going into namecalling? Like seriously, because I really wasn't satisfied with your previous answer because of how vague and open ended it was.

Political correctness is the Law Society of British Columbia that tried to shut down a law school because it is Christian based and believes in traditional values. On what grounds? That the Law Society would be perceived as endorsing LBGTQ hate and should care about diversity. Case was overturned at the appeal level but will almost certainly appear before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Political correctness is drowning out Jordan Peterson when he objects to Bill C-16 and attempting to associate him with being a Nazi since he rightfully argues that Bill C-16 is an attack on free speech. That culminated with the claim by Nicholas Matte (another University of Toronto professor who teaches transgender studies) who claimed on camera that not using someone's preferred pronoun can be considered violence or hate speech against said person.

Political correctness is when a Canadian police officer who was forced to apologize to the entire Aboriginal community after a tweet he made that was not racist in any way but was perceived as such regarding the death of Annie Pootoogook. The article is from The Globe And Mail dated yesterday. I'm going to assume that if the officer did not make the apology, he would have been fired.

The Regressive Left is the ideology that pushes ideas like this. It is authoritarian in nature (think like us or we will attempt to destroy you) and uses guilt for not caring about another person's victimhood as a weapon. Black Lives Matter is a great example because it has now become an excuse to riot and destroy cities. HuffPo is another one regarding feminism.

Trump is the antithesis of all of this. This entire ideology hates everything about him because he just proves them right and is somehow popular. And I hate the ideology that feels that it has a right to controlling my brain or suffering the consequences. You've heard Cykes-domo say it himself. I should be in jail for insulting people or at least have my life ruined.

I know that Trump isn't fighting this directly because he might not get it. But I do. And Hillary does. Why do you think she called Trump supporters (who were supporting a man who was airing their grievances) "deplorables"? Because the regressive left actually thinks that we (and this means anyone who doesn't agree with them) are and loved Hillary for "calling us out for the terrible human beings that we are". And she's playing to that. We are the misogynists because we argue that the wage gap doesn't exist. We are the racists because we argue that the police aren't targeting blacks specifically because the numbers don't support the claims. We are the homophobes. We are the bigots. We are the evil boogieman who seeks to destroy their utopian world by simply voicing an opinion. Therefore, we must be silenced by all means necessary. Violence and prison are not out of the question.

That is political correctness and the regressive left.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Life

[Time the Crestfallen]

<snip>

I'll get back to this latter, because I have an exam to do soon, but you do realise that all of this behaviour is also displayed to an equal, if not greater degree by right-wingers, yes? Shitty behaviour knows no political allegiance and people on the right whining about this sort of thing is extremely hypocritical at best, considering that they will complain SJW/PC culture bullshit and then do those exact same things a moment latter.

[Life]

I'll get back to this latter, because I have an exam to do soon, but you do realise that all of this behaviour is also displayed to an equal, if not greater degree by right-wingers, yes? Shitty behaviour knows no political allegiance and people on the right whining about this sort of thing is extremely hypocritical at best, considering that they will complain SJW/PC culture bullshit and then do those exact same things a moment latter.

Show me and I'll be happy to call out what I find abhorrent. No hypocrisy needed.

Remember, every example needs to be backed by the idea of violence or silencing opposition from the right.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Life

[Lord Raven]

Political correctness is the Law Society of British Columbia that tried to shut down a law school because it is Christian based and believes in traditional values. On what grounds? That the Law Society would be perceived as endorsing LBGTQ hate and should care about diversity. Case was overturned at the appeal level but will almost certainly appear before the Supreme Court of Canada.

I don't know what you've been reading, but based on my research, they seeked to remove accreditation in the province, not seek to shut it down, due to discriminatory rules. Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-appeal-court-upholds-law-societys-stand-on-christian-school/article30674427/

Quote: (first sentence)

The Ontario Court of Appeal has rejected a Christian law school’s bid for recognition in the province, calling its prohibition on sexual activity between same-sex married couples degrading and reminiscent of similar rules singling out blacks and interracial couples in the United States.

Accreditation for a university is a form of quality control. It has little to do with shutting down a school. I don't know if you've ever been to university, but for the most part this won't affect the university at all.

Political correctness is drowning out Jordan Peterson when he objects to Bill C-16 and attempting to associate him with being a Nazi since he rightfully argues that Bill C-16 is an attack on free speech. That culminated with the claim by Nicholas Matte (another University of Toronto professor who teaches transgender studies) who claimed on camera that not using someone's preferred pronoun can be considered violence or hate speech against said person.

The bill seeks to "disallow discrimination against transgender people" according to what I've read. You know why they try to drown him out? Because he's advocating for bigotry, and it is extremely condescending and close-minded to refer to someone by something other than their preferred gender pronouns. You think people actively go against the idea of preferred gender pronouns out of anything but spite?

Was he threatened jailtime for saying it? Was he told to shut up for speaking? The latter are different, but unless the government threatened to put him in jail, then what everyone else said is in-line and legal and it's silencing an opposition that wants to restrict the rights of others because of his bigotry.

Political correctness is when a Canadian police officer who was forced to apologize to the entire Aboriginal community after a tweet he made that was not racist in any way but was perceived as such regarding the death of Annie Pootoogook. The article is from The Globe And Mail dated yesterday. I'm going to assume that if the officer did not make the apology, he would have been fired.

A few days after her body was identified, Hrnchiar posted from his Facebook account in the comment section of an Ottawa Citizen story that her death "could be a suicide, accidental, she got drunk and fell in the river and drowned, who knows."

In a second post, Hrnchiar wrote "much of the Aboriginal population in Canada is just satisfied being alcohol or drug abusers." The comments have since been deleted.

"not racist in any way"?

The Regressive Left is the ideology that pushes ideas like this. It is authoritarian in nature (think like us or we will attempt to destroy you) and uses guilt for not caring about another person's victimhood as a weapon. Black Lives Matter is a great example because it has now become an excuse to riot and destroy cities. HuffPo is another one regarding feminism.

You're associating select chapters of certain movements with the regressive left. That means those chapters are regressive, and the majority of people (including our president and the president he endorses) are wholly against the chapters of BLM when they incite violence. Not only that but Barack Obama was wholly against things like the Baltimore riots. You're conflating things like the modern democratic party with the "regressive left."

Trump is the antithesis of all of this. This entire ideology hates everything about him because he just proves them right and is somehow popular. And I hate the ideology that feels that it has a right to controlling my brain or suffering the consequences. You've heard Cykes-domo say it himself. I should be in jail for insulting people or at least have my life ruined.

Hillary Clinton has never vouched against free speech, she has vouched against people being scummy. She doesn't want to make it illegal to be racist, so much as she believes that being racist/sexist/-phobic is irrational and wrong. Read Crysta's post, pls:

Given his inability to take criticism and history of going after reporters for divulging less-than-flattering information about him, I'd say he's far more keen on tightening the noose on speech than Clinton ever has been or ever will be. The idea of him being a champion of blunt facts and being unconcerned with hurt feelings is laughable, and I can only guess that you've projected traits onto him that simply aren't there in reality lol

Trump reacts like a 12 year old when he receives criticism, then he acts like the thing they're criticizing him for. He also calls for an expansion of libel laws beyond what they currently are, and as they currently are they are strong enough, so "expanding" them means that maybe he wants the power to sue them himself if he feels they fuck up.

I know that Trump isn't fighting this directly because he might not get it. But I do.

No you don't, you brought up some really terrible examples.

And Hillary does. Why do you think she called Trump supporters (who were supporting a man who was airing their grievances) "deplorables"? Because the regressive left actually thinks that we (and this means anyone who doesn't agree with them) are and loved Hillary for "calling us out for the terrible human beings that we are". And she's playing to that.

She said that "half of Trump supporters" were deplorables. This is an open-ended statement. If you don't believe you're racist, sexist, or -phobic, then you're not a deplorable. It's a very open-ended classification.

The fuck happened to your self-righteous rant about Donald Trump crossing the line with claiming he can get away with sexual assault then going back to rooting for him? Unless it wasn't genuine outrage.

We are the misogynists because we argue that the wage gap doesn't exist.

Or for voting for a guy who admits to groping women because he can get away with it.

We are the racists because we argue that the police aren't targeting blacks specifically because the numbers don't support the claims.

They do, so you are wrong with this. Hilariously, we've been over this, and you've not offered a response, you just tried to take a tangent by saying "well blacks kill more people," entirely irrelevant to the argument.

We are the homophobes.

IDK about you, but Mike Pence - Trump's running mate, you know him? - is heavily in favor of gay conversion camps and illegalizing gay marriage.

We are the bigots.

Scroll up, but need I remind you of your hatred of transpeople?

I am never going to let you live that down. I have never seen something that vile posted on SF in a long ass time, and I've seen CrashGordon and Chiki post.

We are the evil boogieman who seeks to destroy their utopian world by simply voicing an opinion.

An opinion that hampers the rights of certain people due to irrational logic.

Therefore, we must be silenced by all means necessary. Violence and prison are not out of the question.

[citation needed]

my response to this post: lol

Edited November 3, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Nobody]

I will never, ever, ever understand people who claim "political correctness" is limiting their free speeches, but then complain about other people, in their own right of free speech, finding them homophobic, racists or deplorable. I mean, people thinking others are racist, homophobic or deplorable is literally them exercising their free speech.

The complaining about the "biased liberal media" is also something that literally cracks me up. Complaining about their free speech being censored (which it isn't, at least in the US, considering Trump is running for president), but then not wanting PRIVATE OWNED, I.E. NOT BELONGING TO THE STATE media voicing their opinion. Hypocrisy at its best.

I don't even think that any "leftist" view could be called "regressive" in any sense of the word. Modern right-wing views, on the other hand...

As someone who not only likes Clinton better than Trump but actually likes her and thinks that trump being elected president of America is literally one of the worse things that could realistically happen to the world, I completely disagree. There are some QUITE regressive leftist views out there. See Venezuela. If you want me to be specific, their entire economic policies, with the State controlling everything, including prices, which leads to shortages.

Also, going to an extreme example, seizing everyone's private property is by textbook definition a leftist view. I don't think you will find many people who don't think that's regressive. At least not since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Actually, look no further away from this very election. Jill Stein is a nutjub, with her "wifi gives cancer" sort of beliefs

Edited November 3, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Zkirsche]

I mean, people thinking others are racist, homophobic or deplorable is literally them exercising their free speech.

Other people aren't racist for saying racist things, they are racist for believing them. Finding an attitude abhorrent is not finding free speech abhorrent.

[Nobody]

Other people aren't racist for saying racist things, they are racist for believing them. Finding an attitude abhorrent is not finding free speech abhorrent.

My point was that someone saying "Trump supporters are racist, deplorable, etc", they are exercising their free speech, and if someone tries to stop them from saying that, they're limiting their free speeches. Trump supporters and the alt right in general complain a lot about people trying to limit their free speech, but by trying to prevent others from calling them bad names, they themselves are trying to limit others' free speech.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Lord Raven]

Also in response to the child sex trafficking theory that Life posted, I think we may have the first illiterate president on our hands.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Life, I'll make the post tomorrow, I'm completely bushed right now and can only think of molluscs.

Anyway, the gap between Trump and Hillary is much lower now. With five days to go, how do you guys think this is going to end?

Edited November 3, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[Nobody]

I think Hillary will still win, since early voting was apparently favourable for her and polls still show her winning, but yeah, Trump definitely has a chance

[Yojinbo]

Therefore, we must be silenced by all means necessary. Violence and prison are not out of the question.

Trump has silenced detractors several times by threatening to take them to court for "slandering" him, knowing they don't have the money to afford an adequate lawyer or pay court fees.

Obama, who is much further to the left of the political spectre than Hillary [who really isn't a left-wing politician at all], has been in charge for 8 years - during that time right wing politicians were not imprisoned for practicing their right of free speech. Nobody became the victim of violence by the "regressive left".

Trump has threatened to not acknowledge the result of the election in case he doesn't win and used the word "revolution" as the ultima ratio in that case.

Trump is the one who silences opposition and who has threatened to call for violence if democracy doesn't go his way.

The "regressive left" has yet to do any of that, they even accepted Bush jr becoming president when Al Gore actually had a majority of the votes.

Trump does not fight political correctness. He uses political incorrectness as a pretext to fight opposition. Use politically incorrect speech against Trump, his supporters or right wingers in general and they'll be the first to call for PC police.

You are either misguided or a massive hypocrite.

[Etrurian emperor]

I know that Trump isn't fighting this directly because he might not get it. But I do. And Hillary does. Why do you think she called Trump supporters (who were supporting a man who was airing their grievances) "deplorables"? Because the regressive left actually thinks that we (and this means anyone who doesn't agree with them) are and loved Hillary for "calling us out for the terrible human beings that we are". And she's playing to that. We are the misogynists because we argue that the wage gap doesn't exist. We are the racists because we argue that the police aren't targeting blacks specifically because the numbers don't support the claims. We are the homophobes. We are the bigots. We are the evil boogieman who seeks to destroy their utopian world by simply voicing an opinion. Therefore, we must be silenced by all means necessary. Violence and prison are not out of the question.

Definitively lumping in Clinton with ''Social justice warriors'' seems like a bit of a stretch to me. No matter what you think of them its pretty clear those who lean that much to the left are idealists.

Clinton does not strike me as an idealist. Clinton isn't an idealist but an opportunist, her being an opportunistic is where so much of people's distaste for her comes from. An idealist and an opportunistic are two fundamentally different creatures. You can even argue that Clinton isn't even that much of a left winger to begin with. She's frequently called more Republican than Trump.

Clinton is the candidate of the status quo, a status quo ''Social justice warriors'' aren't fully comfortable with either. Her being a woman may grant her some points with that crowd but her policies aren't likely to do so. Did Clinton not oppose Gay marriage for as long as it was beneficial for her to do so? Is she not something of a warhawk? That doesn't seem very regressive leftish to me. I'm not entirely sure but I also heard she backed certain policies that ended up ensuring more black people were convicted. ''Social justice warriors'' may view Trump as the enemy but they are only one group among many that do so. Your stance on Trump that the enemy of your enemy is your friend is probably the exact same thing that they are thinking.

It may be a political faux pas to actually say it but its not very hard to see why Clinton, or many people wouldn't hold populist voters in very high esteem. Its easy to imagine them as being easily duped by a conman and there's something off about people who yell how they are tired about elitist liars and then flock to the man who clearly lies the most. The very idea of a multi millionaire who got started with a multi million loan from daddy being a man of the people is ridiculous to begin with. Populist voters can also give the impression of having such a big axe to grind with the establishment that they will go against their own, and everyone's best interest just to give the government a middle finger. A lot of Trumps dumber moments seem to be some sort of catering to them. ''His traditional voter base eat this up'' is often something that reporters say when Trump does something utterly unpresidential.

Populists may also not like racist and questionable people flocking to their ranks but those people certainly like populists and flock to their ranks regardless.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Etrurian emperor

[Just call me AL]

Clinton is the candidate of the status quo

Hard to see how she's the champion of the status quo when she's the one who wants the rich to be able to pay their fair share of taxes in the first place. If anything, Frump's far more of a champion of the status quo than her. And he may very well end up leading the U.S. into another depression should he be voted into the White House. Edited November 4, 2016 by Just call me AL

[Yojinbo]

[...] she's the one who wants the rich to be able to pay their fair share of taxes in the first place.

Does she really?

[Balcerzak]

Hard to see how she's the champion of the status quo when she's the one who wants the rich to be able to pay their fair share of taxes in the first place.

I didn't realize she was campaigning to cut taxes for the rich. Source?

[Lord Raven]

Bal are you going to walk into a thread to preach a flat tax when we talked about this ages ago to virtually no response?