Quote:
Originally posted by Diarrhoea
Opportunistic yeah, horrible I don't quite think so. He isn't a particularly nice person, but I've been keeping up with politics here for about three years and it's made me the most cynical person ever  I can't take the Hillary Clinton types anymore. People always complain like the world is gonna collapse in when someone surprising comes into play, it still hasn't. I think that even when he doesn't win, he could have the ability to prompt a shift in politics. It's already started, I hope it continues. |
Cynical is not the right word. It's not simply cynical to accuse Mexican immigrants of being mostly rapists, to suggest that we ban all Muslim refugees from our country, to call respected and highly qualified women "bimbos" on Twitter. He's not a good kind of surprising. The comparisons that have been made between him and Hitler - while I'm not saying I support the comparisons - are rooted in his own actions, views, and words. Any shift that he would prompt would be toward nationalism and intolerance, and that has historically proven to be a horrible kind of shift. European countries are experiencing rising nationalism with consequences that are not positive, that are not admirable.
I don't know what you mean by "Hillary Clinton types" but I don't know that you know exactly what you mean by that either. If you're referring to the perception that she is untruthful or "evil," you'd do well to note that this perception is the product of decades of slander and propaganda.
Quote:
Originally posted by Diarrhoea
Quote:
- Misguided but most people support it and he's a vote wh***, so. It's not even like the other Republicans provided an alternative
- Again the idea isn't that extreme in theory but the way he wants to go about it is a mess. Again, it's not like the other Republicans were any better
- He's an idiot and was asked about abortions being illegal, he just thought that the standard answer was to punish the women. Blame the aids who didn't brief him on this
|
 |
1) No. Most people didn't even consider it until it was proposed on a national stage by Trump; the idea gained traction as the campaign did. Additionally, its support does not make it justifiable. The will of the many is not ineffable - that's not what democracy really is.
2) Yes, it is actually extreme in theory. He's not proposing not letting in refugees right now, he's proposing we block all immigration from a whole religion without exception. He's not just talking about blocking particular countries or places, but all people who believe in a particular system. That is discrimination and it is not ethically justifiable.
3) That is ridiculous. No man who cannot formulate a respectful and logical stance on abortion without being "prepped" deserves to be elected. Additionally, given his track record, I'm quite certain it was all him and his true opinion, not what the thought the "standard answer" was. That's a horrible cop out.
Quote:
Originally posted by Diarrhoea
Quote:
- Maybe but so are all the others if you want to go down that route
- I don't think so
- Maybe but so are all the others if you want to go down that route [2]
- Yeah but I think most of that is pandering to the electorate, you get what you deserve. Besides, extremist Islam shouldn't be tolerated, he should tone it down on Islam and then extend it to other religions too, including Christianity, which he won't but w/e. Also I don't think giving him the ability to curb religious freedom would go down well whether or not he intends to use it for good or not
- Lowkey yes
|
Just let Hillary get her lashings, and hopefully politicians will change for the better as a result. |
I don't know what most of this pertains to, but nobody has suggested we tolerate violent extremists.
Hillary "getting her lashings" is an incredible statement. You want to vindictively take out dissatisfaction with the system on a woman who has spent her life fighting for families and women worldwide? I can't support such a suggestion. The idea that all or most politicians need to change for the better is a misguided viewpoint that assumes that there is always a common corruption between them. That is not substantiated. That is not logical. That is not even particularly feasible. It's standard repetition of what I feel is a viewpoint shared by those who fail to look into the facts - it's just taking out anger on someone who people think they can blame.
