US Presidential Election 2016

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, Lad said:

I said mainstream muslim teachings condemn gays not massacre them.Are you saying this is incorrect?

How about also saying that mainstream Christian teachings condemn gays not massacre them, too....?

Cos funnily enough, the anti-gay stuff of both has the exact same source.

But hey, there's nothing wrong with Christians.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

'Hey, Im only at this party run by the KKK because of the really nice sponge cake they promised me, not the racism.'

Hey, I'm only at this bomb-the-middle-east party because of the really nice sponge cake they promised me, not because I like to inflict death.

Care to tell me which of the choice of bomb-my-brothers or ban-my-brothers-from-the-USA a decent Muslim should have voted for?

Cos, just perhaps, some might prefer their brothers alive-but-banned to free-to-enter but already-dead.

There was no perfect choice to be made.

[pink_triangle]

9 hours ago, zahidf said:

Steve Bannon, whose website Breitbart is a hub for white nationalism & homophobia is White House chief strategist. We are in big trouble.

And the other choice he made yesterday, is he a similar background or an establishment republican? I assume you aren't just cherry picking here.

[pink_triangle]

13 minutes ago, zahidf said:

'Hey, Im only at this party run by the KKK because of the really nice sponge cake they promised me, not the racism.'

And what would be your guess about the proportion of Trump voters who have attendee a Kkk party?

Out of interest you still haven't answered my question why many of these racist people voted for a blank man middle name Hussein not once, but twice.

[zahidf]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Hey, I'm only at this bomb-the-middle-east party because of the really nice sponge cake they promised me, not because I like to inflict death.

Care to tell me which of the choice of bomb-my-brothers or ban-my-brothers-from-the-USA a decent Muslim should have voted for?

Cos, just perhaps, some might prefer their brothers alive-but-banned to free-to-enter but already-dead.

There was no perfect choice to be made.

You said above we should only look at the campaign promises by Trump and not his history of racism/misogyny.

 

Same courtesy to Clinton no? Her campaign wasnt pro bombing of the middle east. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by zahidf

[zahidf]

9 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

And what would be your guess about the proportion of Trump voters who have attendee a Kkk party?

Out of interest you still haven't answered my question why many of these racist people voted for a blank man middle name Hussein not once, but twice.

35%? The other 65% knew Trump was hosting but because of the cake promised to them, decided they didnt really care ahout racism

[pink_triangle]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

35%? The other 65% knew Trump was hosting but because of the cake promised to them, decided they didnt really care ahout racism

I think that number is absolutely ridiculous, I suspect 0.35 is a lot closer to the mark.

So any thoughts on the other question?

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

I think that number is absolutely ridiculous, I suspect 0.35 is a lot closer to the mark.

So any thoughts on the other question?

Sexists rather than racists. Decided to vote for a black man through gritted teeth, but a woman??? Dont be silly.

[zahidf]

20 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

And the other choice he made yesterday, is he a similar background or an establishment republican? I assume you aren't just cherry picking here.

'Why does everyone only focus on the racists i am hiring in senior positions?'

 

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, zahidf said:

You said above we should only look at the campaign promises by Trump and not his history of racism/misogyny.

 

Same courtesy to Clinton no? Her campaign wasnt pro bombing of the middle east. 

I'll keep on throwing your own idiocy back at you until you give it up. 

FFS.

[eFestivals]

Shall we try a different thing....?

Like it or not, Trump won the argument. Throwing 'racist' at him didn't make him lose, it made him win.

Are the left more intelligent than the right, or not? They're definitely not if they keep on fighting the battle they've already lost.

A better way would be to re-group, and find a line of attack where they might win the argument.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Sexists rather than racists. Decided to vote for a black man through gritted teeth, but a woman??? Dont be silly.

that'll be the democrat voters, then.

I read an article yesterday that tried that line, and even the democratic Bernie hardcore were laughing their tits off at the utter stupidity.

Trump HAS TO BE about the bits I don't like, and Clinton HAS TO BE a clean shiny version with no past.

That's how fucking stupid I am.

Edited November 14, 2016 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Shall we try a different thing....?

Like it or not, Trump won the argument. Throwing 'racist' at him didn't make him lose, it made him win.

Are the left more intelligent than the right, or not? They're definitely not if they keep on fighting the battle they've already lost.

A better way would be to re-group, and find a line of attack where they might win the argument.

Well, emphasising his racism is about holding him to account now and mobilising protests against any racist policies he may enact.

But yes, turns out being openly racist is no longer a disqualifying attribuite for high office anymore. So the left will have to adapt to society going back 40 years or so 

[pink_triangle]

9 hours ago, zahidf said:

Steve Bannon, whose website Breitbart is a hub for white nationalism & homophobia is White House chief strategist. We are in big trouble.

He doesn't seem to have made a great start pushing his homophobic agenda through. Hasn't trump said he won't undo gay marriage legislation? Your right he seems a nasty piece of work. If he tries to enact some of his extreme views, I hope Congress will block him.

In the spirit of compromise maybe stick him on a desert island with Seamus Milne and the world will be a better place.

[zahidf]

Just now, pink_triangle said:

He doesn't seem to have made a great start pushing his homophobic agenda through. Hasn't trump said he won't undo gay marriage legislation? Your right he seems a nasty piece of work. If he tries to enact some of his extreme views, I hope Congress will block him.

In the spirit of compromise maybe stick him on a desert island with Seamus Milne and the world will be a better place.

Whats with the false equivalence? Milne is clearly not as bad as bannon. You can just say Bannon is a dick who should clearly not be near the Whitehouse

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Well, emphasising his racism is about holding him to account now and mobilising protests against any racist policies he may enact.

He can only be held to account for what he does, not the fantasies you invent for him.

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

But yes, turns out being openly racist is no longer a disqualifying attribuite for high office anymore. So the left will have to adapt to society going back 40 years or so 

Perhaps they will, yep.

Like it or not, the ground has changed, and the battles have to be fought on the new ground. Which isn't about repeating the same arguments which lost.

Immigration is the thing - *immigration*, which isn't necessarily about the racism you insist it's *ONLY* about.

There's been posts made in here which try claiming that immigration is without doubt, and at all levels, a good thing - yet it's extremely clear that a huge number of people don't think so.

The first thing the likes of you have to work out before you're able to engage yourself in the real discussion is what level of immigration would be too much for you, so that you're able to make a sound argument around immigration rather than demonstrating that you only wish to ignore those you disagree with.

[pink_triangle]

21 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Whats with the false equivalence? Milne is clearly not as bad as bannon. You can just say Bannon is a dick who should clearly not be near the Whitehouse

I have no doubt that conservatives in this country have employed people from the sun and mail, 2 vile aspects of the British media.

At the end of the day the winner gets to pick his team and in this case the winner has a small pool of the establishment who supported him. If he tries to push through extreme policies then Congress will block. 

 

[The Nal]

Trump isn't taking the 400k salary. What a nice man!

[pink_triangle]

2 hours ago, zahidf said:

Sexists rather than racists. Decided to vote for a black man through gritted teeth, but a woman??? Dont be silly.

Why vote for a black man through gritted teeth, when they could have voted for a white man twice?

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

I have no doubt that conservatives in this country have employed people from the sun and mail, 2 vile aspects of the British media.

At the end of the day the winner gets to pick his team and in this case the winner has a small pool of the establishment who supported him. If he tries to push through extreme policies then Congress will block. 

 

I think you are downplaying breitbart's racism

[pink_triangle]

51 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I think you are downplaying breitbart's racism

No, it's accepting that breitbart don't run the country.  They may have influence, who knows they may want to ban muslims entering the country. However even the republicans in Congress would block that. The US president is not this all powerful person who can do whatever they choose as you seem to believe.

Again you seem to have missed another question (which maybe doesn't suit your narrative). If the racist voters who switched from Obama to Trump did so through gritted teeth. Why didn't they just ungrit them and vote for a white man in 2008 and 2012.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Again you seem to have missed another question (which maybe doesn't suit your narrative).

This is a bit of thing.

Not only for zahidf, but for just about everyone. Screaming insults at 'the others side' might make people feel better but that's the only 'better' it does.

We've had decades of one group refusing to accept there's anything worthwhile to be listened to from 'the other side', and during that time 'the other side' has gained in strength and not weakened.

Why might anyone think there's a victory to be had by continuing with the same thing which has failed them? It's nuts!

'The left' needs to show it takes the concerns about immigration seriously, which very definitely isn't going to come about by saying "everything should stay exactly as it is, more of the same will address your concerns". If that was the case we would never have got to where we are.

Immigration, zahidf. In your own view, at what levels does immigration cease to be a good thing and become a bad thing? 

It's a question that 'the left' needs to address, to prove to 'the other side' that their concerns are not dismissed out of hand.

[Lad]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

How about also saying that mainstream Christian teachings condemn gays not massacre them, too....?

Cos funnily enough, the anti-gay stuff of both has the exact same source.

But hey, there's nothing wrong with Christians.

I didn't say mainstream Christains condemn gays because on the whole I don't believe they do.Obviously some discrimination occurs especially from the evangelicals . I think you'd have to look at churches in Africa to see the most extreme and violence . Suppose that'd be a racist position to take.

 

To see completely out of control hatred and violence against gays I'd recommend Islamic countries.I'm sure you know this but if you're in doubt you can Google it.Dont think you need me for examples.If someone thinks something is wrong I don't think that ignoring the biggest problems shows you are in any way sincere . 

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, Lad said:

I didn't say mainstream Christains condemn gays because on the whole I don't believe they do.Obviously some discrimination occurs especially from the evangelicals . I think you'd have to look at churches in Africa to see the most extreme and violence . Suppose that'd be a racist position to take.

Whether individual Christians do or don't isn't really the issue with any comparison when you've talked about religions and not individuals, because the religious scriptures are the same thing about this for both Muslims and Christians.

And while the UK might like to rub its halo about its attitude to gays, that more liberal attitude is a very new thing in historical terms. It's not even a decade since gay marriage has been allowed, and less than 15 years ago equal rights for gays was considered beyond what the country could accept.

So all you've managed to do here is to flag up your own cultural imperialism by your expectation that all cultures should be culturally the same as whatever the UK view happens to be today.

We've had 200+ years to get used to 'modernity'. For much of the middle east it's something that's been smashed in their face by outsiders in the last 40 years or so, and just as it took time for the UK to adjust its going to take different cultures an amount of time to adjust too.

That adjustment is happening. I'd prefer it happened faster, but just as 'heritage racism' in the UK isn't going to die out until the oldies that hold those views die out, it's going to be much the same with cultural changes in other places too.

 

8 minutes ago, Lad said:

To see completely out of control hatred and violence against gays I'd recommend Islamic countries.I'm sure you know this but if you're in doubt you can Google it.Dont think you need me for examples.If someone thinks something is wrong I don't think that ignoring the biggest problems shows you are in any way sincere . 

The same "out of control hatred and violence against gays" can also be found in plenty of Christian countries too.

But you keep on polishing your halo of hatred to immigrants while saying how especially liberal you are. 

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Immigration, zahidf. In your own view, at what levels does immigration cease to be a good thing and become a bad thing? 

Why the silence, zahidf?