Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does anybody remember...

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 2:32:28 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
That's probably because Obama didn't lose the popular vote or insult millions of people deliberately; and actually had a mandate to lead: but that doesn't matter, now, does it?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,638
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 2:35:10 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 2:32:28 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
That's probably because Obama didn't lose the popular vote
When was the US ever a democracy? When did the founding fathers intend for absolutely democratic elections?

or insult millions of people deliberately; and actually had a mandate to lead: but that doesn't matter, now, does it?
what millions of people did he insult?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 2:52:59 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 2:35:10 AM, triangle.128k wrote:

what millions of people did he insult?

The millions of illegal Mexicans. I would riot too if I was an illegal Mexican in this country.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,638
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 3:02:59 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 2:52:59 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:35:10 AM, triangle.128k wrote:

what millions of people did he insult?

The millions of illegal Mexicans. I would riot too if I was an illegal Mexican in this country.

Yes, we should allow mass migration of illegal Mexican immigrants and let them come here, speak Spanish, not assimilate, form ethnic enclaves, and then let a bunch of them commit crime and bring in drugs.

Looks like so many people really want a bunch of people coming in and disrespecting our immigration laws and policies.
mc9
Posts: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 3:30:58 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 2:35:10 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:32:28 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
That's probably because Obama didn't lose the popular vote
When was the US ever a democracy? When did the founding fathers intend for absolutely democratic elections?

or insult millions of people deliberately; and actually had a mandate to lead: but that doesn't matter, now, does it?
what millions of people did he insult?

Muslims, women, Mexicans, iowa voters
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,638
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 3:32:09 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 3:30:58 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:35:10 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:32:28 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
That's probably because Obama didn't lose the popular vote
When was the US ever a democracy? When did the founding fathers intend for absolutely democratic elections?

or insult millions of people deliberately; and actually had a mandate to lead: but that doesn't matter, now, does it?
what millions of people did he insult?

Muslims, women, Mexicans, iowa voters

give me an example of where he insulted each of these groups
mc9
Posts: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 3:41:13 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 3:32:09 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 3:30:58 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:35:10 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:32:28 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
That's probably because Obama didn't lose the popular vote
When was the US ever a democracy? When did the founding fathers intend for absolutely democratic elections?

or insult millions of people deliberately; and actually had a mandate to lead: but that doesn't matter, now, does it?
what millions of people did he insult?

Muslims, women, Mexicans, iowa voters

give me an example of where he insulted each of these groups

There are explicit comments in here so proceed with caution https://www.google.com...
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,638
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 3:58:21 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 3:41:13 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 3:32:09 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 3:30:58 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:35:10 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:32:28 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
That's probably because Obama didn't lose the popular vote
When was the US ever a democracy? When did the founding fathers intend for absolutely democratic elections?

or insult millions of people deliberately; and actually had a mandate to lead: but that doesn't matter, now, does it?
what millions of people did he insult?

Muslims, women, Mexicans, iowa voters

give me an example of where he insulted each of these groups

There are explicit comments in here so proceed with caution https://www.google.com...

He apologized for his lewd comments. The rest of it is heavily misquoted and taken out of context, things he never said, or insults at ONE woman which does not count as sexism since there is nothing sexist about insulting an individual woman.
mc9
Posts: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:01:15 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 3:58:21 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 3:41:13 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 3:32:09 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 3:30:58 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:35:10 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:32:28 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
That's probably because Obama didn't lose the popular vote
When was the US ever a democracy? When did the founding fathers intend for absolutely democratic elections?

or insult millions of people deliberately; and actually had a mandate to lead: but that doesn't matter, now, does it?
what millions of people did he insult?

Muslims, women, Mexicans, iowa voters

give me an example of where he insulted each of these groups

There are explicit comments in here so proceed with caution https://www.google.com...

He apologized for his lewd comments. The rest of it is heavily misquoted and taken out of context, things he never said, or insults at ONE woman which does not count as sexism since there is nothing sexist about insulting an individual woman.

Where did he apologize
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:05:03 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 2:28:07 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
...all the anti-Obama protests and riots in 2008 & 2012?

oh wait...

I remember the tea party protests.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:17:04 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 2:28:07 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
...all the anti-Obama protests

You're trying wayyyy too hard.

https://www.facebook.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,638
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:17:14 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 4:05:03 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:28:07 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
...all the anti-Obama protests and riots in 2008 & 2012?

oh wait...

I remember the tea party protests.

Were they as frequent? And did they involve burning down a bunch of things and destroying cities?
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,638
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:17:51 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 4:17:04 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:28:07 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
...all the anti-Obama protests

You're trying wayyyy too hard.

https://www.facebook.com...

(read reply above)
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,638
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:18:34 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 4:01:15 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 3:58:21 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 3:41:13 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 3:32:09 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 3:30:58 AM, mc9 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:35:10 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:32:28 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
That's probably because Obama didn't lose the popular vote
When was the US ever a democracy? When did the founding fathers intend for absolutely democratic elections?

or insult millions of people deliberately; and actually had a mandate to lead: but that doesn't matter, now, does it?
what millions of people did he insult?

Muslims, women, Mexicans, iowa voters

give me an example of where he insulted each of these groups

There are explicit comments in here so proceed with caution https://www.google.com...

He apologized for his lewd comments. The rest of it is heavily misquoted and taken out of context, things he never said, or insults at ONE woman which does not count as sexism since there is nothing sexist about insulting an individual woman.

Where did he apologize

It was literally on the news, google it.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:24:46 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 2:28:07 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
...all the anti-Obama protests and riots in 2008 & 2012?

oh wait...

I think there's another component here.

While I think some of the backlash against Trump is justified (he is a complete political outsider, he's a bit crude etc), I believe the main aspect of this is just basic shock. For months (maybe much longer), the left in the country believed that Hillary being elected was a sure thing, and Trump winning really came as a shock to almost everyone.

People, especially ideologues, need to vent in some way. Unfortunately, the way ideologues and angry people vent also occasionally happens to be destructive.

I've always maintained that the pendulum effect on US politics is the most significant force and I would have maintained that if this wasn't such a weird election cycle (I had figured Hillary would win for awhile now - so I'm as shocked as anyone). In other words, regardless of how good lately a president might be perceived, a changing of the guard will tend to be inevitable (at least in recent history). Clinton served 8 years, then Bush 8 years, then Obama 8 years, and so the odds were stacked in the GOPs favor - but then Trump happened (the most improbable election win in history), and all of the polls showed a clear Hillary win.

The left was gearing up for a massive victory. 8 years of Obama to be followed by another of their own (even if reluctantly by a lot on the left who would prefer Sanders), Hillary Clinton. This really would have been monumental in carrying on the momentum of the liberal agenda (and I don't mean "liberal agenda" in a negative way, I am a liberal).

But then this sure thing came to a crashing halt, like a full grown elephant running at full speed, then full stop, crashing into a wall. That's more devastating than a conventional election loss. In fact, while I'm relatively young (I'm 32, that makes me pretty old to most of this sites membership) I can't recall anything quite like it, and I don't think there's anything quite like that in history given the circumstances.

The closest thing I can think of was Bush-Gore (the most contentious election aftermath ever), but the major dynamic missing from that was that no one believed Gore was a sure thing, and even if you are a card carrying Democrat, no one was really super excited about Gore in the way they were for Hillary. Even reluctant Hillary supporters were more enthused than Gore supporters (at least how I remember it).

So I agree with a lot of the sentiment that feels the left is being ridiculous, and it's time to move on, but I sure do understand their anger and frustration, even if I don't share it with them. It seems like every 8 years now we are going to have a referendum on whatever was in power, and that occurred once again.

I think it's worth touching on the Obama results comparison. As I mentioned above, the fact that the left was already expecting their assured victory, plays a major part in this. I'm certain that Hillary insiders (campaign workers and cronies) were already discussing who was going to get what jobs, and I'm sure her supporters were looking forward to her victory and already counting on it as a foregone conclusion. You had to be extremely naive (as a republican) to not believe that Obama was assured of his victory. Bush had rock bottom poll numbers, and the pendulum was moving the other direction (one party rule for Obama's first 2 years). The left was also very much geared up for that election, and got out the vote in record numbers. I don't think anyone on the right really believed McCain had a chance, so displaying anger and frustration, would just seem ridiculous.
Debate.org Moderator
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:34:07 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 4:24:46 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:28:07 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
...all the anti-Obama protests and riots in 2008 & 2012?

oh wait...

I think there's another component here.

While I think some of the backlash against Trump is justified (he is a complete political outsider, he's a bit crude etc), I believe the main aspect of this is just basic shock. For months (maybe much longer), the left in the country believed that Hillary being elected was a sure thing, and Trump winning really came as a shock to almost everyone.

People, especially ideologues, need to vent in some way. Unfortunately, the way ideologues and angry people vent also occasionally happens to be destructive.

I've always maintained that the pendulum effect on US politics is the most significant force and I would have maintained that if this wasn't such a weird election cycle (I had figured Hillary would win for awhile now - so I'm as shocked as anyone). In other words, regardless of how good lately a president might be perceived, a changing of the guard will tend to be inevitable (at least in recent history). Clinton served 8 years, then Bush 8 years, then Obama 8 years, and so the odds were stacked in the GOPs favor - but then Trump happened (the most improbable election win in history), and all of the polls showed a clear Hillary win.

The left was gearing up for a massive victory. 8 years of Obama to be followed by another of their own (even if reluctantly by a lot on the left who would prefer Sanders), Hillary Clinton. This really would have been monumental in carrying on the momentum of the liberal agenda (and I don't mean "liberal agenda" in a negative way, I am a liberal).

But then this sure thing came to a crashing halt, like a full grown elephant running at full speed, then full stop, crashing into a wall. That's more devastating than a conventional election loss. In fact, while I'm relatively young (I'm 32, that makes me pretty old to most of this sites membership) I can't recall anything quite like it, and I don't think there's anything quite like that in history given the circumstances.

The closest thing I can think of was Bush-Gore (the most contentious election aftermath ever), but the major dynamic missing from that was that no one believed Gore was a sure thing, and even if you are a card carrying Democrat, no one was really super excited about Gore in the way they were for Hillary. Even reluctant Hillary supporters were more enthused than Gore supporters (at least how I remember it).

So I agree with a lot of the sentiment that feels the left is being ridiculous, and it's time to move on, but I sure do understand their anger and frustration, even if I don't share it with them. It seems like every 8 years now we are going to have a referendum on whatever was in power, and that occurred once again.

I think it's worth touching on the Obama results comparison. As I mentioned above, the fact that the left was already expecting their assured victory, plays a major part in this. I'm certain that Hillary insiders (campaign workers and cronies) were already discussing who was going to get what jobs, and I'm sure her supporters were looking forward to her victory and already counting on it as a foregone conclusion. You had to be extremely naive (as a republican) to not believe that Obama was assured of his victory. Bush had rock bottom poll numbers, and the pendulum was moving the other direction (one party rule for Obama's first 2 years). The left was also very much geared up for that election, and got out the vote in record numbers. I don't think anyone on the right really believed McCain had a chance, so displaying anger and frustration, would just seem ridiculous.

Trump is already exceeding expectations, too. He has come out as not intending to mess with gay marriage, he's going to keep the most important parts of Obamacare, and he's getting ready to do tons of infrastructure spending.

With the sole exception of his tone (which does not bother me), he is proving to be a 21st century FDR. It feels like we're getting ready to get a new deal.

Maybe he will grab the GOP by the pvssy and make it into a party of the people.
Tsar of DDO
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:42:28 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 4:34:07 AM, YYW wrote:

Trump is already exceeding expectations, too. He has come out as not intending to mess with gay marriage, he's going to keep the most important parts of Obamacare, and he's getting ready to do tons of infrastructure spending.

I just watched his 60 Minutes interview and he definitely seems to be backtracking on the rhetoric and more extreme portions of what he has said. I actually thought that he seemed very presidential, and did a lot to help his image.

When asked about gay marriage he essentially said it's a non-issue since it's been resolved already, and I got the same sense from him when he talked about abortion (though he had to temper it a bit by saying he's Pro-life).


With the sole exception of his tone (which does not bother me), he is proving to be a 21st century FDR. It feels like we're getting ready to get a new deal.

I think he'll probably be more cognizant not to get into tons of PR disasters now (by saying stupid stuff), so that he can focus on policy. If he approaches things like he did in the interview, he can be a straight shooter without alienating anyone, aside from outright ideologues who think he's the devil and whom he can't do anything about anyway.

Maybe he will grab the GOP by the pvssy and make it into a party of the people.

That's the upside I've been trying to argue to the left lately. The guy isn't ideal for a lot of reasons, but the one major plus side is that he's not a conventional conservative. He doesn't really pass the litmus test on those issues (making the Pence choice unfortunate but politically understandable I suppose), so he may drag the party to a reasonable centrist position.

So we'll see, but I'm optomistic
Debate.org Moderator
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,638
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:43:15 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 4:34:07 AM, YYW wrote:
With the sole exception of his tone (which does not bother me), he is proving to be a 21st century FDR. It feels like we're getting ready to get a new deal.

The only thing close to a 21st century FDR is Bernie Sanders, and that is far from a good thing. I for one would not want a 21st century offshoot of a person who prolonged the great depression, sent Japanese Americans into internment camps, was an absolute socialist, heavily violated the constitution, abused the separation of powers to a crazy extent, ran for POTUS more than 2 times, etc.

Really I don't recall Trump wanting out of control spending and heavy socialism.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:46:49 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 4:43:15 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:34:07 AM, YYW wrote:
With the sole exception of his tone (which does not bother me), he is proving to be a 21st century FDR. It feels like we're getting ready to get a new deal.

The only thing close to a 21st century FDR is Bernie Sanders, and that is far from a good thing. I for one would not want a 21st century offshoot of a person who prolonged the great depression, sent Japanese Americans into internment camps, was an absolute socialist, heavily violated the constitution, abused the separation of powers to a crazy extent, ran for POTUS more than 2 times, etc.

Really I don't recall Trump wanting out of control spending and heavy socialism.

There are certainly things I could argue in the negative about FDR, but the guy knew how to lead, and he began the dominance of the Democrat party for over a generation. I don't know if YYW was speaking about particular policies (I don't believe he was), but that Trump could be the leader that could transform the GOP into something more palatable in the long term.
Debate.org Moderator
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:49:47 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 4:17:14 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:05:03 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:28:07 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
...all the anti-Obama protests and riots in 2008 & 2012?

oh wait...

I remember the tea party protests.

Were they as frequent? And did they involve burning down a bunch of things and destroying cities?

Not particularly violent no, racist yes [http://www.forwardprogressives.com...][http://www.huffingtonpost.com...][https://www.youtube.com...][http://www.msnbc.com...]. Frequency I can't attest to because I don't keep track. But as we've already established the violence cause at anti-trump rallies isn't by the protestors, but anarchists taking advantage of the situation.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:50:13 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 4:46:49 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:43:15 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:34:07 AM, YYW wrote:
With the sole exception of his tone (which does not bother me), he is proving to be a 21st century FDR. It feels like we're getting ready to get a new deal.

The only thing close to a 21st century FDR is Bernie Sanders, and that is far from a good thing. I for one would not want a 21st century offshoot of a person who prolonged the great depression, sent Japanese Americans into internment camps, was an absolute socialist, heavily violated the constitution, abused the separation of powers to a crazy extent, ran for POTUS more than 2 times, etc.

Really I don't recall Trump wanting out of control spending and heavy socialism.

There are certainly things I could argue in the negative about FDR, but the guy knew how to lead, and he began the dominance of the Democrat party for over a generation. I don't know if YYW was speaking about particular policies (I don't believe he was), but that Trump could be the leader that could transform the GOP into something more palatable in the long term.

More or less, just a "party of the people" type change is what I was suggesting. I also don't agree that Sanders could be an FDR. FDR's personality and ego consumed entire city blocs, whereas Sanders is a guy who has difficulty maintaining a stage presence.
Tsar of DDO
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,638
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:50:28 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 4:46:49 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:43:15 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:34:07 AM, YYW wrote:
With the sole exception of his tone (which does not bother me), he is proving to be a 21st century FDR. It feels like we're getting ready to get a new deal.

The only thing close to a 21st century FDR is Bernie Sanders, and that is far from a good thing. I for one would not want a 21st century offshoot of a person who prolonged the great depression, sent Japanese Americans into internment camps, was an absolute socialist, heavily violated the constitution, abused the separation of powers to a crazy extent, ran for POTUS more than 2 times, etc.

Really I don't recall Trump wanting out of control spending and heavy socialism.

There are certainly things I could argue in the negative about FDR, but the guy knew how to lead, and he began the dominance of the Democrat party for over a generation. I don't know if YYW was speaking about particular policies (I don't believe he was), but that Trump could be the leader that could transform the GOP into something more palatable in the long term.

He was a good leader, and he used good leadership for all the wrong things. I certainly hope Trump makes positive change in the GOP, unlike FDR who made negative changes to the party and to the (then) future of the country.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,638
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:53:02 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 4:49:47 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:17:14 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:05:03 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:28:07 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
...all the anti-Obama protests and riots in 2008 & 2012?

oh wait...

I remember the tea party protests.

Were they as frequent? And did they involve burning down a bunch of things and destroying cities?

Not particularly violent no, racist yes [http://www.forwardprogressives.com...][http://www.huffingtonpost.com...][https://www.youtube.com...][http://www.msnbc.com...]. Frequency I can't attest to because I don't keep track. But as we've already established the violence cause at anti-trump rallies isn't by the protestors, but anarchists taking advantage of the situation.

Yes because a *very* small minority of radicals represent an entire party. That would literally be like calling Democrats communists.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,638
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:53:30 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 4:53:02 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:49:47 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:17:14 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:05:03 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:28:07 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
...all the anti-Obama protests and riots in 2008 & 2012?

oh wait...

I remember the tea party protests.

Were they as frequent? And did they involve burning down a bunch of things and destroying cities?

Not particularly violent no, racist yes [http://www.forwardprogressives.com...][http://www.huffingtonpost.com...][https://www.youtube.com...][http://www.msnbc.com...]. Frequency I can't attest to because I don't keep track. But as we've already established the violence cause at anti-trump rallies isn't by the protestors, but anarchists taking advantage of the situation.

Yes because a *very* small minority of radicals represent an entire party. That would literally be like calling Democrats communists.

I'll also add on that these were MUCH LESS OFTEN than the anti-Trump riots.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:56:08 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 4:53:02 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:49:47 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:17:14 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:05:03 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:28:07 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
...all the anti-Obama protests and riots in 2008 & 2012?

oh wait...

I remember the tea party protests.

Were they as frequent? And did they involve burning down a bunch of things and destroying cities?

Not particularly violent no, racist yes [http://www.forwardprogressives.com...][http://www.huffingtonpost.com...][https://www.youtube.com...][http://www.msnbc.com...]. Frequency I can't attest to because I don't keep track. But as we've already established the violence cause at anti-trump rallies isn't by the protestors, but anarchists taking advantage of the situation.

Yes because a *very* small minority of radicals represent an entire party.

Oh boy you're so close to self awareness I can feel it.

That would literally be like calling Democrats communists.

I've heard that and worse from the right.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,638
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:56:10 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 4:50:13 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:46:49 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:43:15 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:34:07 AM, YYW wrote:
With the sole exception of his tone (which does not bother me), he is proving to be a 21st century FDR. It feels like we're getting ready to get a new deal.

The only thing close to a 21st century FDR is Bernie Sanders, and that is far from a good thing. I for one would not want a 21st century offshoot of a person who prolonged the great depression, sent Japanese Americans into internment camps, was an absolute socialist, heavily violated the constitution, abused the separation of powers to a crazy extent, ran for POTUS more than 2 times, etc.

Really I don't recall Trump wanting out of control spending and heavy socialism.

There are certainly things I could argue in the negative about FDR, but the guy knew how to lead, and he began the dominance of the Democrat party for over a generation. I don't know if YYW was speaking about particular policies (I don't believe he was), but that Trump could be the leader that could transform the GOP into something more palatable in the long term.

More or less, just a "party of the people" type change is what I was suggesting.

I do agree with this none the less, because the GOP has been utterly stupid and neo-conservative in their last few years. I sincerely hope they take a turn for the better with Trump's presidency.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:59:32 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 4:50:28 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:46:49 AM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:43:15 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:34:07 AM, YYW wrote:
With the sole exception of his tone (which does not bother me), he is proving to be a 21st century FDR. It feels like we're getting ready to get a new deal.

The only thing close to a 21st century FDR is Bernie Sanders, and that is far from a good thing. I for one would not want a 21st century offshoot of a person who prolonged the great depression, sent Japanese Americans into internment camps, was an absolute socialist, heavily violated the constitution, abused the separation of powers to a crazy extent, ran for POTUS more than 2 times, etc.

Really I don't recall Trump wanting out of control spending and heavy socialism.

There are certainly things I could argue in the negative about FDR, but the guy knew how to lead, and he began the dominance of the Democrat party for over a generation. I don't know if YYW was speaking about particular policies (I don't believe he was), but that Trump could be the leader that could transform the GOP into something more palatable in the long term.

He was a good leader, and he used good leadership for all the wrong things.

It's a matter of perspective, and I'm sure you and I agree on a lot of those issues. But the point about his leadership is an important one outside of political partisanship.

I certainly hope Trump makes positive change in the GOP

You and I might disagree on what positive change in the GOP means. I don't know how socially conservative you are, but on economics we probably mostly agree. I think positive change to the GOP would be moving to the center on most social issues.

unlike FDR who made negative changes to the party and to the (then) future of the country.

I would disagree that he made negative changes to the Democrat party. He is the most revered president (often across both aisles), and he's still the standard bearer for the left. The guy created an era of dominance for the democrats that will likely never be matched again, so I don't think you can say he made negative changes to the party, aside from a partisan point of view.

But I get your point, and I don't think you will have to worry about Trump going in that direction. Trump, at worst, I hope, will be ineffective. He has a lot of interesting ideas, and one party rule when he takes office, but the question will still be about affording what he wants to do, and the political capital in which he has to do it. In the 60 minutes interview he described a lot of things, but it all sounds pretty expensive, and I don't know how we can afford it, and lower taxes. But perhaps he has a plan. Either way, I liked hearing his optimism, even if it might be unrealistic in some cases.
Debate.org Moderator
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,638
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 4:59:39 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 4:56:08 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:53:02 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:49:47 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:17:14 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/14/2016 4:05:03 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/14/2016 2:28:07 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
...all the anti-Obama protests and riots in 2008 & 2012?

oh wait...

I remember the tea party protests.

Were they as frequent? And did they involve burning down a bunch of things and destroying cities?

Not particularly violent no, racist yes [http://www.forwardprogressives.com...][http://www.huffingtonpost.com...][https://www.youtube.com...][http://www.msnbc.com...]. Frequency I can't attest to because I don't keep track. But as we've already established the violence cause at anti-trump rallies isn't by the protestors, but anarchists taking advantage of the situation.

Yes because a *very* small minority of radicals represent an entire party.

Oh boy you're so close to self awareness I can feel it.
My point is, that the outrage against Trump is much worse and more violent than the outrage against Obama. There's a very high degree some people being heavily immature about politics in the American left wing, mainly coming from the "progressives", and this needs to stop. Democrats need to acknowledge this "progressive"/SJW problem in their party and end this. I haven't seen too many left-wingers on here except for people like YYW acknowledge this.

That would literally be like calling Democrats communists.

I've heard that and worse from the right.

Yes and those are the "radicals" that don't know sh!t they're talking about. But unfortunately it seems that the left wing in America has more violent radicals than the right wing, and a bigger portion of them. I can guarantee you that right wingers would be a lot more mature about a Hillary Clinton victory in general as to the contrary.