[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Scaff]

And Pences response is spot on.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...onald-trump-a7428566.html?cmpid=facebook-post

Much as I said I thought it should be handled.

 

[McLaren]

Which was long before the incident I referred to, on a show that none of his typical followers watch. For someone that tweets about anything that bothers him, the silence with regards to this particular incident is telling. If two incidents happen on one day and he decides to rant about one and completely ignores the other...

Your perception of time is seriously misconstrued.

The 60 Minutes interview was done around a week ago. This Adam Yauch incident just happened a couple days ago. You're purposely setting up a situation for failure if you believe the man should come out & condemn every single thing that happens.

Regardless of whether or not his followers watch 60 minutes doesn't matter much when every news outlet picked up & replayed that single clip. But, applause for that assumption, though. I'm sure in your mind, they're all off watching The Dukes of Hazzard instead.

Google Steve Bannon quotes.

That's not a why like you were asked. Quotes are also not a why considering how easily they've been taken out of context this entire election on both side.

 

[NLxAROSA]

And Pences response is spot on.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...onald-trump-a7428566.html?cmpid=facebook-post

Much as I said I thought it should be handled.

It's obvious who has more experience running public office.

I'm sure in your mind, they're all off watching The Dukes of Hazzard instead.

Ah, personal digs, always great if you run out of real arguments. 👎

 

[McLaren]

Ah, personal digs, always great if you run out of real arguments. 👎

But, it's fine for you to assume Trump supporters don't watch 60 Minutes?

Running out of real arguments is ignoring the rest of post that actually addresses your points.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Ah, personal digs, always great if you run out of real arguments. 👎

So is not answering the question, as I so conveniently seen you do for the last few times it was brought up. The question wasn't just what Steven Bannon quotes you think is racist, but rather why you think it constitutes racism.

 

[NLxAROSA]

But, it's fine for you to assume Trump supporters don't watch 60 Minutes?

I'll assume most of them don't, given Trumps (and his supporters) disdain for the main stream media (can't blame them either). But Trump is very mindful about which message he posts on what platform, if he wants something widely spread among his following, he'll use Twitter. If you take that statement as a personal attack/insult, then that's your problem. It certainly wasn't meant as one.

So is not answering the question, as I so conveniently seen you do for the last few times it was brought up. The question wasn't just what Steven Bannon quotes you think is racist, but rather why you think it constitutes racism.

I don't think his remark about too many Asian CEOs in the tech industry needs any explanation on why it's racist.

 

[Pupik]

The Uber-Right thinks people getting offended by talk that disagrees with them is a weakness. They promptly get offended and cry for apologies. Let's just admit this whole anti-PC-thing is a farce and move on, shall we?

I'm done with this because at this point, the arguments make no sense. Feel free to continue.

 

[Joey D]

Refusing to allow any criticism of the government is usually the first sign of a tyrant

Once again, he's not refusing anyone to allow criticism of the government.

Look I can understand you aren't from the US and don't know our Constitution, but the First Amendment, that protects free speech, spells out what can or rather cannot be done.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Until Trump petitions for a law to ban criticism of the US government, he hasn't done anything wrong. If he were to do that, or make some sort of indication that he would push for that law, then by all means get in a huff over it.

Also, the US fought against tyranny, that's why we aren't part of the Commonwealth. The American people won't stand for a tyrant either, just like we didn't stand for it in 1776.

Trump might be an ass and misguided on country leadership, but I highly doubt he's a tyrant.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

the US fought against tyranny

Which was generations ago. Are you sure you'd recognise a tyrant when you saw one? After all, the likes of Mussolini got elected legitimately before revealing their true colours.

 

[Tornado]

I'm pretty sure.

 

[Joey D]

Which was generations ago. Are you sure you'd recognise a tyrant when you saw one? After all, the likes of Mussolini got elected legitimately before revealing their true colours.

Yes, it would be pretty easy to pick out a tyrant since a tyrant is defined as a cruel and oppressive ruler. Kim Jong-un is a pretty good example of a tyrant.

Unless Trump starts committing mass genocide, starving millions of people, dissolving any democratic process, or interning people in work camps against their will, he's no tyrant. And even though we as a country fought 250 years ago against English tyranny, you can bet that if any president attempted that today, there would be resistance.

All of this is really naught right now though since Trump has no power and will not have any until January. So right now he couldn't be a tyrant even if he wanted to be.

 

[McLaren]

I'll assume most of them don't, given Trumps (and his supporters) disdain for the main stream media (can't blame them either). But Trump is very mindful about which message he posts on what platform, if he wants something widely spread among his following, he'll use Twitter. If you take that statement as a personal attack/insult, then that's your problem. It certainly wasn't meant as one.

60 Minutes is not the mainstream media like FOX, CNN, NBC, etc. 60 Minutes does in-depth reports/interviews on only 2-3 topics a show that keep a rather neutral stance on its topics that cover a wide variety.

Never the less, you still fail to see Trump has addressed his followers to stop provoking minorities, despite stating him being silent.

I don't think his remark about too many Asian CEOs in the tech industry needs any explanation on why it's racist.

And I think you need to go back and actually see what he said since you have no intention of posting sources.

Talk drifted to the subject of immigration. Trump mentioned that he wasn't in favor of sending home foreign students who come to the US to study.

"We have to be careful of that, Steve," said Trump. "You know, we have to keep our talented people in this country." He seemed to expect that Bannon would agree that foreign students were "our talented people."

Bannon appeared to demur.

"When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think..." he began. He then offered this thought: "A country is more than an economy. We're a civic society."

Some might see the tiniest implication that if too many tech CEOs are from some part of Asia, civic society might be threatened. Disrupted, even.

https://www.cnet.com/news/trumps-chef-strategist-not-happy-with-many-tech-ceos-being-asian/

1) He did not say the tech industry. He was referring to Silicon Valley.
2) According to this source, he doesn't finish his thought. There is no defined "racist" statement being made, only implied because of how he worded his thoughts.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

it would be pretty easy to pick out a tyrant since a tyrant is defined as a cruel and oppressive ruler

Classical definitions of tyrants are much more varied, such as authoritarian leaders who rule without regard for the law. And given that any kind of gun control or gun reform - such as restricting access to terror suspects - is immediately viewed as "the government trying to take your guns", I have my doubts as to whether you'd know a tyrant before they emerged.

 

[Tornado]

And given that any kind of gun control or gun reform - such as restricting access to terror suspects - is immediately viewed as "the government trying to take your guns"

And yet people would somehow completely miss an attempt to deconstruct the Amendment immediately preceding that one (which in itself would be a feat, since Trump would have zero support in Congress or the Supreme Court).

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And yet people would somehow completely miss an attempt to deconstruct the Amendment immediately preceding that one (which in itself would be a feat, since Trump would have zero support in Congress or the Supreme Court).

Like I said, Mussolini managed it.

 

[Joey D]

Classical definitions of tyrants are much more varied, such as authoritarian leaders who rule without regard for the law. And given that any kind of gun control or gun reform - such as restricting access to terror suspects - is immediately viewed as "the government trying to take your guns", I have my doubts as to whether you'd know a tyrant before they emerged.

If we are going by a classical definition, Plato described tyrants as "one who rules without law, and uses extreme and cruel tactics—against his own people as well as others" in his writings about the five regimes. Regardless of what definition you go by, Trump isn't a tyrant at the present time since he's not ruling anything.

I'm curious have you ever visited the US for an extended period of time? Or are basing all of your assumptions about the US off of international media? You seem to know an awful lot about how our country operates and the general attitudes that citizens express, so I'm just curious what you're basing it off of.

 

[Tornado]

Like I said, Mussolini managed it.

And what exactly did Mussolini manage that is applicable to another country in another century?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Like I said, Mussolini managed it.

Is this your attempt avoid the usual, predictable Hitler analogy with a Mussolini analogy?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And what exactly did Mussolini manage that is applicable to another country in another century?

To get himself elected by popular vote in a legitimate election - as opposed to usurping the position - and introduce fascism. He did it, so I don't see any reason why someone else cannot, and I very much doubt that any country is completely insulated from the rise of a tyrant. After all:

"Perfection, of a kind, is what he was after
And the poetry he invented was easy to understand
He knew human folly like the back of his hand,
And he was greatly interested in armies and fleets.
When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter,
And when he cried, the little children died in the streets."

If you think that the tyrant will show himself for what he is from the moment he starts drawing breath, you're sorely mistaken.

 

[Tornado]

Thanks for the history lesson. Now if you would be so kind as to answer the question.

 

[Joey D]

To get himself elected by popular vote in a legitimate election - as opposed to usurping the position - and introduce fascism. He did it, so I don't see any reason why someone else cannot, and I very much doubt that any country is completely insulated from the rise of a tyrant. After all:

"Perfection, of a kind, is what he was after
And the poetry he invented was easy to understand
He knew human folly like the back of his hand,
And he was greatly interested in armies and fleets.
When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter,
And when he cried, the little children died in the streets."

If you think that the tyrant will show himself for what he is from the moment he starts drawing breath, you're sorely mistaken.

Mussolini did it at a time when information wasn't readily available to the masses. With the advent of the Internet and social media, a tyrant would be found out in the US long before they arose to power. Not to mention WikiLeaks would probably get a hold of communications long before they became and issue.

I don't think you're giving the citizens of the United States any credit, most of us are reasonably intelligent and would be fully aware if a tyrant was attempting to take over. Which goes back to the question you willfully ignored, what are you basing your perception of the US on? If you've visited or lived here for an extensive time, I'd be curious to see what part of the country and who you interacted with, if you're basing it purely on international media, you're view of our country is missing chunks so big that you could drive a semi through them.

 

[mister dog]

Stevie van Zandt got in a fight with his followers over the Hamilton incident:

https://twitter.com/StevieVanZandt

 

[Sanji Himura]

I don't think his remark about too many Asian CEOs in the tech industry needs any explanation on why it's racist.

There you go again, you dodged the question again. Unless he used some racist word or something to that effect, at worst he is a bigot, and at best you are getting angry over one statement that was likely taken out of context.

 

[Orayani]

The Uber-Right thinks people getting offended by talk that disagrees with them is a weakness. They promptly get offended and cry for apologies. Let's just admit this whole anti-PC-thing is a farce and move on, shall we?

I'm done with this because at this point, the arguments make no sense. Feel free to continue.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't know any millenials who had a conversation with an empty chair ...

 

[Northstar]

I don't know any millenials who had a conversation with an empty chair ...

They're too busy humping them to conversate.

 

[Johnnypenso]

To get himself elected by popular vote in a legitimate election - as opposed to usurping the position - and introduce fascism. He did it, so I don't see any reason why someone else cannot, and I very much doubt that any country is completely insulated from the rise of a tyrant. After all:

"Perfection, of a kind, is what he was after
And the poetry he invented was easy to understand
He knew human folly like the back of his hand,
And he was greatly interested in armies and fleets.
When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter,
And when he cried, the little children died in the streets."

If you think that the tyrant will show himself for what he is from the moment he starts drawing breath, you're sorely mistaken.

A little education is in order.
I suggest reading the U.S. Constitution.

 

[NLxAROSA]

There you go again, you dodged the question again. Unless he used some racist word or something to that effect, at worst he is a bigot, and at best you are getting angry over one statement that was likely taken out of context.

Ok, so let's assume we'll disregard the racist bit and he's just a bigot. Doesn't change the general gist of my initial post, which was that for someone claiming to drain the swamp, he's surrounding himself with a lot of questionable people.

 

[tarnheld]

A little education is in order.
I suggest reading the U.S. Constitution.

If you suggest a piece of paper can stop totalitarism please read up on the Weimar Constitution.

 

[Scaff]

A little education is in order.
I suggest reading the U.S. Constitution.

Which is open to potential abuse via executive orders, as a great number of political academics have pointed out for years.

After all elements of the right have been arguing for years that Obama could take such a route to bring his FEMA death camps online (the man really is lazy on this - he's had eight years and not a single one).

No political system is safe from abuse of the potential for tyranny.