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

2016 American Presidential Campaign

Status
Not open for further replies.
alasdairm said:
what were you really voting for?
Click to expand...

​

(I don't vote, but anyway ...) Fields had a serious point behind this joke. Let's be serious here.

We all know that Trump was not elected based on truth or campaign promises. Nor was Obama. Both would be well styled "post-truth" candidates (not that they're at all alone as such, in still relatively recent memory Reagan and Bill Clinton come to mind, but Obama and Trump executed post-truth electoral politics in a distinctly 21st century way.) "HOPE AND CHANGE" vs "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN." Trump was elected primarily as a repudiation of the excesses of the P.C./identity-politics/"SJW" left; the last (entirely derogatory) phrase being one that came into mainstream consciousness really during his campaign and which I don't think was even really much of a thing on the Internet too much earlier. More power to him. I don't care what he does or doesn't do as president, as long as this repudiation soldiers on.

I struggle to think of anything he could do that wouldn't make me prefer him to anyone elected by seeking the votes of a mass of over-educated, under-matured, intellectually vapid young people who really, honestly, truly, and for real, actually, ontologically, unironically, believe that "marriage," "man," and "woman" have malleable definitions, or that we have to "check our privilege" or open our borders or give up our guns or extend the benefits of citizenship and voting to noncitizens or abandon our national, racial, ethnic identities, as well as any sort of religious convictions among Christians that goes beyond "moralistic-therapeutic deism." (=basically, be nice, God is out there somewhere non-specifically, and will help you feel better. Think of Joel Osteen as a Unitarian-Universalist.)

Whatever you want to call it, political correctness, Cultural Marxism, identity politics left, SJWism) kidnapped whatever America ever had in the post-Carter era of left-wing politics and ruined it. Trump saw this in a way that no one else in the Republican candidate field did, and best took advantage of the fact by getting himself elected, essentially, non-politically, as far as 20th century perspectives on American electoral politics go.

The American people were pretty much getting to be comfortable with living among people who's culture, religion and appearance were different than their own, with women having equal authority in the workplace, with homosexuals being open about being homosexuals, even with miscegenaton interracial marriage, and a hundred similar, (seemingly?) reasonable enough other things, and then whoever-you-want-to-call-them came along and went completely off the reservation. I would rather that they didn't. I would have loved, and would love, to see socialized medicine pass, even nationalization of a number of parts of industry, especially the defense contractors, large swaths of the banks and of sectors relating to healthcare provision and products. I would've loved to ally with real leftists to implement this and to wage war on neoliberalism. Hell, anyone who reads my posts in considerable depth will find that on most economic policies (which is where the term "social justice" actually originated and belongs) I'm in many ways to the left (as the word is actually construed) of even someone like Bernie Sanders (which is why the whole "left/right/centre" thing in politics is highly questionable as I am absolutely accurately described as radical, far-right, Fascist-influenced.)

But most important, of course, is who he appoints to the supreme court. Before I favor anyone who will appoint left-leaning Justices on the kinds of issues I mentioned above, the rightist alternative could start droning civilians and even follow the lead of his Filipino semi-analogue Duarte and start extrajudicially executing us for drug use/drug dealing. It's just a shame that the "right-wing" ideology that would be advanced in the Supreme Court is a neoliberal one. I wish that it weren't so. But not at the expense of the rest. Not at the expense of someone who's going to support the sort of things I mentioned above, or who will support God-knows what if they are achieved? (Remember in the 90s when the homosexual lobby said that they only wanted equal rights and protection of law not to be victimized for their proclivities and so on, but that many mainstream "gay rights" groups and editorials were saying "we would never ask for marriage?" What will follow next?)
 
Last edited:
mal3volent said:
We ought to just split the States in to 4 quadrants. It's not that radical if you think about it. NE, SE, SW, and NW. The country as it is now is way too large, way too spread out, way too populated. Keep the individual state lines intact as much as possible... the idea is just to decentralize federal power and make everything more efficient. You might think, "Well the South East is screwed...". Maybe at first, but it would even out eventually. People crave stability, the vast majority anyway. We'd keep each other in check and remain political allies etc.

I know that will never happen, I just felt like saying it for some reason.
Click to expand...

A fortiori, a very interesting argument says that we are 11 nations in one.



(sorry for large pic, but is kinda needed for detail; also IM a lot more of western/northern NY could be better cast as a tug-of-war between Greater Appalachia in the sticks and Yankeedom and in towns, but that's only speaking because I know the area very well from my own experience; but as the disclaimer in the article says, it's referring to geographic entities and overall dominant cultures not so much individual peoples, but if this were mapped out on a county- or even town-level, you'd probably see a considerable number of exclaves of nearby "nations;" I probably identify most with Appalachia and Tidewater, in that order, despite being from neither (although not afar off from where Appalachia meets the Midlands)
 
Last edited:
SKL said:
​

(I don't vote, but anyway ...) Fields had a serious point behind this joke. Let's be serious here.

We all know that Trump was not elected based on truth or campaign promises. Nor was Obama. Both would be well styled "post-truth" candidates (not that they're at all alone as such, in still relatively recent memory Reagan and Bill Clinton come to mind, but Obama and Trump executed post-truth electoral politics in a distinctly 21st century way.) "HOPE AND CHANGE" vs "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN." Trump was elected primarily as a repudiation of the excesses of the P.C./identity-politics/"SJW" left; the last (entirely derogatory) phrase being one that came into mainstream consciousness really during his campaign and which I don't think was even really much of a thing on the Internet too much earlier. More power to him. I don't care what he does or doesn't do as president, as long as this repudiation soldiers on.
Click to expand...
i disagree that you can argue that everybody was voting against rather than for something but, even if they were, what were they voting against?

were they voting against same old 'politics as usual' in washington? were they voting against corporate and personal cronyism? were they voting against career establishment figures who talk a lot about helping the people when they have nothing in common with those people and are just in it for themselves and their rich friends? were they voting against campaigning politicians who lie freely and massively and don't give a shot about 'the truth'? etc.

well, if they were, more fool them because that is exactly what they got.

and the sjw thing is as overplayed by conservatives as it is underplayed by 'liberals'. it's used by those on 'the right' to label and dismiss issues they can't or won't debate on their merits. call it ''political correctness gone mad", call those saying it "sjws", tell yourself you won the debate and move on :\

alasdair
 
^We did win the debate and are trying to move on. It's the LOSERS that won't let it go. See Buzzfeed fake news "intelligence" document that fake POW Hanoi John McCain creamed his jeans over. LOL,prolly the only hard-on he's had in years.Lindsay Graham wet herself over it too,to no avail. LET IT GO AND MOVE THE FUCK ON.
 
MMT said:
^We did win the debate and are trying to move on. It's the LOSERS that won't let it go. See Buzzfeed fake news "intelligence" document that fake POW Hanoi John McCain creamed his jeans over. LOL,prolly the only hard-on he's had in years.Lindsay Graham wet herself over it too,to no avail. LET IT GO AND MOVE THE FUCK ON.
Click to expand...
LOL the comments about McCain and Graham are hilarious!

Trump is great.

Piu464w
 
alasdairm said:
i disagree that you can argue that everybody was voting against rather than for something but, even if they were, what were they voting against?

were they voting against same old 'politics as usual' in washington? were they voting against corporate and personal cronyism? were they voting against career establishment figures who talk a lot about helping the people when they have nothing in common with those people and are just in it for themselves and their rich friends? were they voting against campaigning politicians who lie freely and massively and don't give a shot about 'the truth'? etc.

well, if they were, more fool them because that is exactly what they got.

and the sjw thing is as overplayed by conservatives as it is underplayed by 'liberals'. it's used by those on 'the right' to label and dismiss issues they can't or won't debate on their merits. call it ''political correctness gone mad", call those saying it "sjws", tell yourself you won the debate and move on :\

alasdair
Click to expand...
Nope sjws are these college snowflakes protesting a non existent rape culture in California and many many other examples of overly affected emotional children whining about something as an exaggerated response.
 
MMT said:
^We did win the debate and are trying to move on.
Click to expand...
you talk as if trump has some impressive mandate. nearly 3 million more people voted for his opponent. yes, he won because of the system and i respect that but more americans voted for clinton than any losing candidate in u.s. history. further, he's the most unpopular president elect in 40 years.

hardly the mandate you seem to imply.

move the fuck on? can you help me understand what that looks like? is it the republicans' behavior in the 8 years since obama won two elections? is that what moving on looks like? help me out here?

Droppersneck said:
...overly affected emotional children whining about something as an exaggerated response.
Click to expand...
i am literally laughing out loud at this. thanks, seriously, for the best laugh i have had on bluelight in months.

i could show you a fantastic example of this but you know what it is because you help manage it.

oh. haha. you funny droppers :)

lol.

alasdair
 
lol I thought you would like that, but tbf that forum is a direct rejection of some sjw ideals pushed here on a site policy level.

There is most certainly mandate with 306 electoral colleges, the senate, the house, most state governments, the SCOTUS. Clinton loses the popular vote bigly if you take out only LA county. Obama was a failed president who failed to work with anyone that didn't directly believe the same things he did. He is jimmy carter rebooted IMO. Thank god he is finally out of office and can do no more damage to our constitutional democracy!
 
Droppersneck said:
lol I thought you would like that, but tbf that forum is a direct rejection of some sjw ideals pushed here on a site policy level.
Click to expand...
well, that's one way of looking at it. another is that its suppression of opinion and censorship makes it a lot worse than bluelight.

it's certainly telling that a freedom lover like yourself would support a place that does not believe in freedom. but you were never very consistent in your views so, like trump, who knows what you actually believe.

Droppersneck said:
Thank god he is finally out of office and can do no more damage to our constitutional democracy!
Click to expand...
your boy trump has indicated he has little regard for the constitution in a number of areas. but, again, you've stated publicly that you only care about certain parts of the constitution so you're on the same page, it seems.

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
well, that's one way of looking at it. another is that its suppression of opinion and censorship makes it a lot worse than bluelight.

it's certainly telling that a freedom lover like yourself would support a place that does not believe in freedom. but you were never very consistent in your views so, like trump, who knows what you actually believe.

your boy trump has indicated he has little regard for the constitution in a number of areas. but, again, you've stated publicly that you only care about certain parts of the constitution so you're on the same page, it seems.

alasdair
Click to expand...
Hard time arguing with you about bl.reddit all I can do is make my feelings on the subject known. I'd prefer it be a free speech zone but the powers that run it feel differently. :\

Trump may not be perfect, but the constitution and the freedom it garauntees are much safer under trump than Clinton! Especially the SCOTUS! Although I don't love the idea of some zealot trying to over turn Roe V wade. I'm all about freedom and there are ideas that threaten that on both sides of the political spectrum IMO
 
It's one thing to let a 16 year old sing the song, quite another to let an 8 year old do the inauguration speech.

Dangerous times.
 
droppers, did you watch devos' hearing? thoughts on her suitability to head education in this country?

i know you don't care much for truth-telling but how do you feel about the fact that she lied (either to the senate or the irs) about her involvement in her mother's foundation?

alasdair
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
It's one thing to let a 16 year old sing the song, quite another to let an 8 year old do the inauguration speech.
Click to expand...

Do people actually find this sort of thing funny? I see it often enough that I guess somebody does, but I don't.
 
alasdairm said:
droppers, did you watch devos' hearing? thoughts on her suitability to head education in this country?

i know you don't care much for truth-telling but how do you feel about the fact that she lied (either to the senate or the irs) about her involvement in her mother's foundation?

alasdair
Click to expand...
Nope didn't hear that about her. I'll have to look into it. I did hear her declare support for guns in classrooms, which I support, but didn't like her bear analogy. My favorite part about her is that she has never worked in the public education field. Outsider to shake up the broken inner workings of the Dept and maybe bring some school choice to the less privileged!
 
I will give the protesters credit as they are rioting on K st.,the heart of DC corruption. Forget eating the rich,have a lobbyist for dinner with fava beans and a nice chianti.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top