• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

2016 trump presidency thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
the people that voted for trump are mostly of very low intelligence or ultra rich and selfish.

the ones of low intelligence and poor have two things that influence their voting

1) jobs economy
2) racism agains non whites (also applies to the upper class trump voters)...and these brown races are the reason you have no jobs!

trump appealed to both of these way more than hillary, the only thing hillary appealed to was:

"not being a racist or mean person" and "knowing more than trump"--without having any strong message about what she would do with that knowledge.

bernie had a strong message: "fix the wealth gap" HIllary: no message, leading everyone to assume she would just continue to help wallstreet/banks/walmart etc.


its very easy to see how trump won this thing, he did something no other politician has done by directly appealing to the racism present in 80-90% of people

the thing is, now that he opened that pandoras box, coming up with ANYTHING that overrides the hate that a very large percentage of the swing voting whites of low intelligence people feel for races like muslims or mexicans is going to be a very difficult thing to accomplish during the next election.

the democrats are going to have a very tough time in the next election overriding this persecution of minorities which gains trump great favor among poor and rich conservatives and swing whites, as long as the economy does not get drastically worse under trump.

black people staying home and not voting because the guy running isn't black also does not help either. They are basically the reason dems lost this time.

consumer said:
We can definitely agree here. Money in politics only corrupts. People who give money always want a return on their investment whether its indirect or direct.
Click to expand...

the thing is I don't think government is possible without this corruption. never in history as there been a government based on altruistic principles that was truly for the people. Its impossible.

Those that play by corruption and greed leave the honest and decent politicians in the dust. Just like in business, just like in every other area of life.

Sorry for this cynical view but its just reality of how humans are that will never change and we need to learn to accept it and not be so angry about it. Look at countries which are so angry that the people riot. Someone else gets put in power and the same shit continues
 
Last edited:
alasdairm said:
^ get used it. i think you're going to start to see a lot of actions which cause you to pause and think "hmm. this isn't what i thought i was getting..."

it's already started and i can only see it getting worse.

alasdair
Click to expand...
well I hope not, but there is also a ton of fake news out there. If I don't agree with something I won't turn a blind eye ttytt.
cashfl0w_d0nkey said:
What about a large DEA, NSA, prison system, etc? It seems the conservatives in this country have no problem with large government in that sense. So let's end this lie that conservatives hate big government. They just hate the areas of government that even remotely promote public welfare.

Note that I think there is a lot less actual disagreement on welfare than is commonly portrayed. Liberals don't like handing out money to people who don't work either. Conservatives want good health care. Yet we never seem to discuss areas of agreement.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't conflate cuckservatism and conservatism. Bush 2 VS Rand Paul. I'm a pro small government conservative, and I'm not sure of the last administration that has espoused these ideals? Reagan might have been the closest, but still not ideal with his anti drug nonsense.
 
LucidSDreamr said:
the people that voted for trump are mostly of very low intelligence or ultra rich and selfish.

the ones of low intelligence and poor have two things that influence their voting

1) jobs economy
2) racism agains non whites (also applies to the upper class trump voters)...and these brown races are the reason you have no jobs!

trump appealed to both of these way more than hillary, the only thing hillary appealed to was:

"not being a racist or mean person" and "knowing more than trump"--without having any strong message about what she would do with that knowledge.

bernie had a strong message: "fix the wealth gap" HIllary: no message, leading everyone to assume she would just continue to help wallstreet/banks/walmart etc.


its very easy to see how trump won this thing, he did something no other politician has done by directly appealing to the racism present in 80-90% of people

the thing is, now that he opened that pandoras box, coming up with ANYTHING that overrides the hate that people feel for races like muslims or mexicans is going to be a very difficult thing to accomplish during the next election.
Click to expand...
The funny thing is this is exactly what most trump voters would say of Hillary/Bernie supporters. I'd venture to say the truth is somewhere in the middle :)
 
Droppersneck said:
The funny thing is this is exactly what most trump voters would say of Hillary/Bernie supporters. I'd venture to say the truth is somewhere in the middle :)
Click to expand...

what would they say about them?

low intelligence?
racist?

both?


...i don't see how someone thats ultra rich that wants to pay higher taxes to help society is selfish. So there is a marked difference between rich libs and cons that I don't think anyone would argue with

I had a very good friend who is now a conservative...was liberal but married ann coulter and now is conservative.

He told me that he did not care if I was not allowed to get insurance ever again due to my preexisting condition, that he would rather pay lower taxes than have me be allowed to have insurance. conservatives are just two things:

1) selfish (racism falls under this category)
2) christian

there is nothing more to it.
 
Droppersneck said:
well I hope not, but there is also a ton of fake news out there.
Click to expand...
when we have a president who's almost single-handedly ushered in a new era of 'post-truth' - who lies freely and frequently about issues big and small, important and mundane - what do you expect? people don't care about what's true anymore so why are you surprised the 'news' is fake(r)?

you make claims all the time, are challenged to substantiate them, say you will when you're "not on your phone" or some other b.s. excuse, then rarely if ever do. so these claims hang in the ether like the bad farts they are...

if you are not part of the solution... :\

alasdair
 
Ryan01 said:
The one thing I can agree with the young turks on is that money needs to get out of politics. Until then our choices will pretty much be between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
Click to expand...

I completely agree! Are you quoting SOUTHPARK?
 
Ryan01 said:
The one thing I can agree with the young turks on is that money needs to get out of politics. Until then our choices will pretty much be between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
Click to expand...

Correct!!

How or why there isn't greater support for this surprises me greatly.
 
quiet roar said:
Correct!!

How or why there isn't greater support for this surprises me greatly.
Click to expand...

thanks to the Citizen's United decision, we'll need a constitutional amendment to make that happen, because first off, no chance in hell SCOTUS is going to reverse that, especially with the GOP going far beyond rogue and wiping their ass with the constitution like never before and refusing to let the then-sitting president perform his constitutional duty of appointing a judge to fill the open SCOTUS position, and secondly because setting a precedent of SCOTUS easily reversing their decisions is not something we want. if Citizen's United can be reversed, so can Roe v Wade, Obergefell v Hodges, Loving v Virginia, Brown v Board of Education, etc (DC v Heller could probably be overturned to everyone's benefit though). the will of the people overturning the courts is fine, the courts constantly reversing themselves over things that affect nearly everyone's lives depending on who is in power is only tyranny.

compared to the total number of voting-age citizens in the US, the fascists and dominionists are a pretty small minority; about the only good thing about komrade drumpf getting into power is that people are getting engaged again. there's a lot to unfuck though, and it might be beyond the point of fixing where the only option left is wiping the board and starting clean (at the very least, un-gerrymandering all congressional districts is a requirement to return to a functioning democracy, and tbh i dont see that happening).
 
quiet roar said:
Correct!!

How or why there isn't greater support for this surprises me greatly.
Click to expand...

pretty much 99% of americans support this. But just like increased background checks for guns that 90% of americans support...congress is getting bribed by the minority so they go against what the people desire.

nothing short of burning cities down to the ground will stop it, probably not even that.
 
Increased background checks are unconstitutional. If someone is too dangerous to have a gun, either keep them off the streets or hang them.
 
while i don't think that background checks will ever prevent illegal gun sales - nor will they prevent criminals obtaining firearms (indirectly) - i think they are still important.

Ryan01 said:
Increased background checks are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

only to the uninformed, the ignorant or the naive are background checks unconstitutional.

there is a case to which those who aggressively trumpet the importance of the 2nd amendment often point: district of columbia vs. heller

they point to it because they believe it takes their side on the issue of individual gun ownership depending on membership of a "well regulated militia". they believe the case proves that the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms.

that's some pretty important case law, right? i mean it went to the u.s. supreme court! and the opinion was written by republican darling antonin scalia. so this case is important right? and right right?

here's an excerpt from the opinion of the court. not the dissent - the opinion.

"E.III Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

that's a little hard to read with those inline footnotes so here is just the text:

"E.III Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

there it is.

"...or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." it's right there in black and white in antonin scalia's opinion for the court.

it literally does not get any better than that legally speaking.

yes, background checks infringe on the 2nd amendment. but they're constitutional anyway.

so, point 1: you may dislike the idea but background checks are constitutional. the founding fathers and the u.s. supreme court say so. i'm going to take their word over yours :)

next, ~90% of american citizens support expanded background checks: At DNC, Sen. Chris Murphy says 90% of Americans want expanded background checks for gun purchases

so, point 2: the massive bulk of u.s. citizens want background checks

next, you'll say "non gun-owners shouldn't be telling us gun owners how to live our lives"? well, nope: Poll: 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks.

so, point 3: the massive bulk of u.s. citizens who own guns want background checks

here's the tl;dr for you:

  • point 1: you may dislike the idea but background checks are constitutional. the founding fathers and the u.s. supreme court say so.
  • point 2: the massive bulk of u.s. citizens want background checks
  • point 3: the massive bulk of u.s. citizens who own guns want background checks
so ask yourself why it's not happening. as ever, follow the money.

alasdair
 
Last edited:
In the absence of universal gun registration, universal background checks are meaningless. Like I said, felons who are too dangerous to have guns should be executed or kept behind bars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top