Meanwhile in America after Trump

[Ricnvolved1956 51]

Maybe the Hillary fanatics are beginning to realize that the DNC actively working against Sanders in favor of Hillary was a really, really bad move.

 

NAHHHHH! It's much easier to whine about imagined Russian hacking of the election and any other insanely lame ass excuses they can grasp at. They will place the blame ANYWHERE except where it really belongs and when you're in that position, looking in the mirror is a VERY uncomfortable thing to do.

 

Yep, I'm feasting on schadenfreude right now and by god it tastes delicious!

 

(As an aside, it's pretty telling that so many on the left will photoshop a pic of Trump and Putin in a clearly gay suggestive setting, yet are the same ones hyper vigilant against the slightest perception of anti-homosexuality. Well well well.... I guess homophobia from the left is perfectly alright if it's directed against someone you really don't like. Which just proves to me that the politically conservative right wing doesn't have a monopoly on hypocrisy.)

[Kepler_452b 77]

Society has these stupid ideas that we are all homophobes unless we dedicate "holidays" to homosexuals. And then we all must approve of them in every aspect of our lives. You damned well know exactly what I meant. And if you truly do not, then count yourself blessed.

What do you mean by "forced acknowledgement"? Who is forcing whom to acknowledge what?

 

It is politically incorrect to say anything bad, even if true about anyone who is any gender preference other than heterosexual, just like saying anything bad about anyone who is not white.

 

I am not racist, nor sexist, nor a homophobe. But I am heterosexual. I see no need to acknowledge any gender preference that does not apply to me. And if that is politically incorrect, so be it.

 

And just because it clearly irritates you in particular to actually think a bit. What political party started this mess? Did republicans celebrate "gay pride" stuff? I think not. They had the good sense to leave it to the side and focus on things that actually matter. And that little detail irritates the hell out of the entire democratic party.

 

So before you accuse me of hating homosexuals as the party line requires you, kindly read what I said again. And have a nice day.

I'm not aware of any holidays for homosexuals. There are gay pride festivals in most democratic countries (not repressive countries like China or Russia) where people are free to celebrate as they please. But these are not official holidays. It certainly sounds like you do not like homosexuals and that's your choice. It's amusing that you're irritated by 'gay pride' stuff. Why is it so annoying for you to acknowledge that gays and gay sexuality exists? No one is insisting that you participate. I've always wondered if OmniNegro was in fact Negro. I'm guessing yes. Nearly all African countries are extremely homophobic. It's well known that the African American community is traditionally rather anti-gay. That's changing after Obama's election when the NAACP finally officially supported equal rights for gays. I've always felt that there ought naturally to be a kind of understanding, sympathy and solidarity between the two groups, gays and blacks, that have both been oppressed by mainstream cultures, but that hasn't been the case. I don't think that equality can be parceled out in different measure to different groups. Equal means equal...for everyone. It's a great thing for people of different backgrounds to try to understand and empathize with each other. I recently saw the film "Fences". Amazing play and film, highly recommended.

[Kepler_452b 77]

Across the Globe, Huge Numbers Raise Voices in Opposition to Trump

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/women-march-protest-president-trump.html

 

On the funny side:

There Were Some Seriously Amazing Signs At The Women's Marches

"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/womens-march-signs_us_5883c27ee4b0e3a735698332?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular"

 

Like:

 

“Tinkle tinkle little czar, Putin put you where you are”   and

 

“Public Cervix Announcement: FUCK YOU”

 

LOL

[OmniNegro 155]

I'm not aware of any holidays for homosexuals. There are gay pride festivals in most democratic countries (not repressive countries like China or Russia) where people are free to celebrate as they please. But these are not official holidays. It certainly sounds like you do not like homosexuals and that's your choice. It's amusing that you're irritated by 'gay pride' stuff. Why is it so annoying for you to acknowledge that gays and gay sexuality exists? No one is insisting that you participate. I've always wondered if OmniNegro was in fact Negro. I'm guessing yes. Nearly all African countries are extremely homophobic. It's well known that the African American community is traditionally rather anti-gay. That's changing after Obama's election when the NAACP finally officially supported equal rights for gays. I've always felt that there ought naturally to be a kind of understanding, sympathy and solidarity between the two groups, gays and blacks, that have both been oppressed by mainstream cultures, but that hasn't been the case. I don't think that equality can be parceled out in different measure to different groups. Equal means equal...for everyone. It's a great thing for people of different backgrounds to try to understand and empathize with each other. I recently saw the film "Fences". Amazing play and film, highly recommended.

Society has these stupid ideas that we are all homophobes unless we dedicate "holidays" to homosexuals. And then we all must approve of them in every aspect of our lives. You damned well know exactly what I meant. And if you truly do not, then count yourself blessed.

What do you mean by "forced acknowledgement"? Who is forcing whom to acknowledge what?

 

It is politically incorrect to say anything bad, even if true about anyone who is any gender preference other than heterosexual, just like saying anything bad about anyone who is not white.

 

I am not racist, nor sexist, nor a homophobe. But I am heterosexual. I see no need to acknowledge any gender preference that does not apply to me. And if that is politically incorrect, so be it.

 

And just because it clearly irritates you in particular to actually think a bit. What political party started this mess? Did republicans celebrate "gay pride" stuff? I think not. They had the good sense to leave it to the side and focus on things that actually matter. And that little detail irritates the hell out of the entire democratic party.

 

So before you accuse me of hating homosexuals as the party line requires you, kindly read what I said again. And have a nice day.

So your response is to question my race... Tell me why that has any bearing on this? (You did say Equal means equal.) And I ask yet again, please read what I said. You did exactly what I said you would do and accused me of being a homophobe.

 

Rather than even respond to your attempt to discern private information from me, I will settle this once and for all. My race is Human. My blood would work in the body of anyone with the same blood type, regardless of the color of their skin, and theirs would work in my body just as well.

 

I have no fear of homosexuals. Thus I am not a homophobe. I do not care one way or another if you or anyone else in the entire world is homosexual, heterosexual, transexual, bisexual, or any of a trillion other options. My problems with this mess is that people are being tricked into thinking that your acceptance is important. It is not. If I were unaccepting of these things, they would still exist. And exactly nothing would change.

 

Now can we abort this mes before you are temped to accuse me of being racist or homophobic yet again? I sure hope so.

[LZ1 672]

Omni, I believe the expression you're looking for is "gender politics" - which has indeed detracted from many of the core issues via distraction

[Kepler_452b 77]

Homosexuals aren't asking for acceptance. They are demanding equal treatment, just as black people and other traditionally oppressed minorities are, and that demand is entirely legitimate, and yes IMPORTANT. It's completely unimportant if you "accept homosexuality", whatever that means (hint this is not a revival meeting). But it's very important that everyone is treated equally! BTW, homophobia doesn't mean fear of homosexuals, it means fear of homosexuality which motivates hostility. It may not be important to you that people are treated equally, but it is important to people that have a sense of fair play. Your "problem is that people are being tricked into thinking that" equality is important?  That's the most paranoid and twisted thing I've heard all week.

[Kepler_452b 77]

Omni, I believe the expression you're looking for is "gender politics" - which has indeed detracted from many of the core issues via distraction

@LZ1, "gender politics" is a very core issue if you are oppressed because of your gender or orientation. It's also a core issue to people who care about equality. It would appear that you are not amoung the later group since you consider gender equality a distraction.

[LZ1 672]

It's an important issue, but it's not a core issue and perhaps that's the difference. But Obama, due to the way he speaks, which is full of platitudes, inundates people with words and phrases which are largely meaningless and don't provide an actual recipe for practical action. Things which are just as vague and nondescript as "Make America Great Again" - as with Obama's speeches, it sounds hopeful and positive, but is ultimately pretty meaningless. It doesn't encourage action, it doesn't say what will be done or when and perhaps if anything, it may even encourage inaction. Core issues are ones such as economic questions, questions about war, healthcare and so forth, which won't be solved by hopeful speech. Speeches which actually easily would see Obama do the opposite of his speech - much like when he visited Prague in Europe (in 2009 or so). He said he would strive for a world without nuclear weapons basically. But when he got back, he invested in more nuclear weapons, more nuclear delivery systems, more nuclear warheads and even a kind of "mini" nuclear weapon, designed so that it would be more "thinkable" to use a nuclear weapon in battle, because it's smaller. But gender politics also tends to split people up into categories, based on any number of things, such as race. "The black vote", "The hispanic vote" and so on for instance. A thing which should be about bringing people together, actually helps accentuate their differences oddly enough and as the polls showed, you can't predict everything via polls; especially not based on something as inherently diverse as "the black vote" or "the womens vote", as neither of those groups have people who all vote in as uniform a way as the polls would have you think.

 

Omni, I believe the expression you're looking for is "gender politics" - which has indeed detracted from many of the core issues via distraction

@LZ1, "gender politics" is a very core issue if you are oppressed because of your gender or orientation. It's also a core issue to people who care about equality. It would appear that you are not amoung the later group since you consider gender equality a distraction.

 

And as you said earlier:

All politicians are showmen...leadership requires a good show.

 

The western liberal democracies are in a war with radical Islam. War means acts of violence between combatants. In the one day Trump has been president he's already dropped hundreds of bombs on Isis in Syria. But really problematically he's said he would deny China access to the islands they've built in the South China Sea. And the state run newspaper responded that doing so would result in war. I'm afraid Trump will start WW3 by playing chicken with China. He accepts no limits on his speech or behavior. It's perfectly clear from the campaign that Trump is a belligerent bully.

It's interesting to note, that Obama and Bush have also been belligerent bullies. But perhaps you didn't notice, precisely because all the pageantry and platitudes which accompany his speeches and other public shows, blinds you to these things. While with Trump, he's so obviously corrupt, that you're already looking for the signs. I disagree there's a war against radical Islam though. It seems more like a war against average people to me. Besides this, it wasn't Trump who started down the path of containment of China with the Obama "Pivot to Asia" strategy. So again, do you notice? If not, I don't blame you at all. But I do believe one has to look behind the facade, instead of being taken in with too many nice words. Much like when a VPN provider says they've got a quality service and we peer behind the veil to find a splendid VPS setup! Haha.

 

And hey, who doesn't

[Kepler_452b 77]

It's an important issue, but it's not a core issue and perhaps that's the difference. But Obama, due to the way he speaks, which is full of platitudes, inundates people with words and phrases which are largely meaningless and don't provide an actual recipe for practical action. Things which are just as vague and nondescript as "Make America Great Again" - as with Obama's speeches, it sounds hopeful and positive, but is ultimately pretty meaningless. It doesn't encourage action, it doesn't say what will be done or when and perhaps if anything, it may even encourage inaction. Core issues are ones such as economic questions, questions about war, healthcare and so forth, which won't be solved by hopeful speech. Speeches which actually easily would see Obama do the opposite of his speech - much like when he visited Prague in Europe (in 2009 or so). He said he would strive for a world without nuclear weapons basically. But when he got back, he invested in more nuclear weapons, more nuclear delivery systems, more nuclear warheads and even a kind of "mini" nuclear weapon, designed so that it would be more "thinkable" to use a nuclear weapon in battle, because it's smaller. But gender politics also tends to split people up into categories, based on any number of things, such as race. "The black vote", "The hispanic vote" and so on for instance. A thing which should be about bringing people together, actually helps accentuate their differences oddly enough and as the polls showed, you can't predict everything via polls; especially not based on something as inherently diverse as "the black vote" or "the womens vote", as neither of those groups have people who all vote in as uniform a way as the polls would have you think.

 

@LZ1, "gender politics" is a very core issue if you are oppressed because of your gender or orientation. It's also a core issue to people who care about equality. It would appear that you are not amoung the later group since you consider gender equality a distraction.

Omni, I believe the expression you're looking for is "gender politics" - which has indeed detracted from many of the core issues via distraction

 

And as you said earlier:

It's interesting to note, that Obama and Bush have also been belligerent bullies. But perhaps you didn't notice, precisely because all the pageantry and platitudes which accompany his speeches and other public shows, blinds you to these things. While with Trump, he's so obviously corrupt, that you're already looking for the signs. I disagree there's a war against radical Islam though. It seems more like a war against average people to me. Besides this, it wasn't Trump who started down the path of containment of China with the Obama "Pivot to Asia" strategy. So again, do you notice? If not, I don't blame you at all. But I do believe one has to look behind the facade, instead of being taken in with too many nice words. Much like when a VPN provider says they've got a quality service and we peer behind the veil to find a splendid VPS setup! Haha.

All politicians are showmen...leadership requires a good show.

 

The western liberal democracies are in a war with radical Islam. War means acts of violence between combatants. In the one day Trump has been president he's already dropped hundreds of bombs on Isis in Syria. But really problematically he's said he would deny China access to the islands they've built in the South China Sea. And the state run newspaper responded that doing so would result in war. I'm afraid Trump will start WW3 by playing chicken with China. He accepts no limits on his speech or behavior. It's perfectly clear from the campaign that Trump is a belligerent bully.

 

And hey, who doesn't love Couch Commander?

@LZ1, please quit attacking me personally. You've been doing it for months, telling me what I do think (usually wrong) and/or telling me what I should think. This passive-aggressive badgering papered over with lots of disingenuous hahas is condescending, tedious, boring and boorish. It doesn't speak well for you. Please stick to talking about ideas.

 

To say there isn't a war between radical islam and western democracies is a shocking denial of an obvious reality. What ideological preference blinds you to that reality? Both sides are actively attacking, killing and calling for the destruction of the other. Sounds like a war to me.

 

More later.

[LZ1 672]

I didn't attack you. I certainly didn't tell you what to think either - are we reading the same post? If you do not wish for people to respond to your posts with their own thoughts and have a friendly discussion and/or exchange of ideas, then maybe it would be better if you refrained from posting. Peace .

[Kepler_452b 77]

I didn't attack you. I certainly didn't tell you what to think either - are we reading the same post? If you do not wish for people to respond to your posts with their own thoughts and have a friendly discussion and/or exchange of ideas, then maybe it would be better if you refrained from posting. Peace .

No, you haven't told me what to think in this post but you have in others. But you did just accuse me of being blinded by pageantry and platitudes. Sounds like a condescending put down to me. And now you've suggested I refrain from posting. You often sound like you have some special relationship to AirVpn or some authority there. But as far as I know you're just another poster, not staff, not a moderator even. So from here on let's just keep it impersonal and idea oriented, OK?

 

Getting back to a friendly exchange of ideas, you say there is a "war on average people". What does that look like and who is conducting it?

[LZ1 672]

No, you haven't told me what to think in this post but you have in others. But you did just accuse me of being blinded by pageantry and platitudes. Sounds like a condescending put down to me. And now you've suggested I refrain from posting. You often sound like you have some special relationship to AirVpn or some authority there. But as far as I know you're just another poster, not staff, not a moderator even. So from here on let's just keep it impersonal and idea oriented, OK?

I didn't attack you. I certainly didn't tell you what to think either - are we reading the same post? If you do not wish for people to respond to your posts with their own thoughts and have a friendly discussion and/or exchange of ideas, then maybe it would be better if you refrained from posting. Peace .

 

 

Thank you. That's something I can work with.

 

Getting back to a friendly exchange of ideas, you say there is a "war on average people". What does that look like and who is conducting it?

 

I said: "But perhaps you didn't notice, precisely because all the pageantry and platitudes which accompany his speeches and other public shows, blinds you to these things"

I've highlighted the relevant part of the sentence, which ensures that it's not an accusation, but a thought and consideration. Then I highlight why one could be blinded, if one were to be. Which is due to the pageantry and platitudes.

 

There's also nothing wrong with making a polite suggestion, which I did, as it wasn't a statement, because you sometimes do seem to take rather general things quite personally. It's entirely within your own mind and thus out of my control, if you think I have a special relationship with AirVPN or some authority. Also, if you re-read my post, you will find I am in fact voicing ideas, as well as some factual elements (such as Obamas Prague speech).

 

As for the war, it should be self-evident. It looks like Guantanamo Bay, constant bombings and so forth as most of the victims appear to be innocent civilians.

However, you also made an unsubstantiated claim that I've been attacking you for months, which I'm sorry to hear. Without re-reading all of my posts, I'll take this chance to say I haven't attacked anything regarding you, except your arguments. So there's nothing more to talk about, take care.

[Kepler_452b 77]

It's not a war on average Muslims. It's a war against Islamist extremists who in fact are trying to kill average citizens in Europe and America. The U.S. at least tries to limit civilian casualties as they are attacking Islamist soldiers. The radical extremists, however are  admittedly and deliberately killing western civilians (average people).

[LZ1 672]

It's not a war on average Muslims. It's a war against Islamist extremists who in fact are trying to kill average citizens in Europe and America. The U.S. at least tries to limit civilian casualties as they are attacking Islamist soldiers. The radical extremists, however are  admittedly and deliberately killing western civilians (average people).

It's always a great shame when innocent civilians, regardless of their place, are killed. I edited my previous post - It might as well be a war on average Muslims in practice, given who normally gets killed.

[Kepler_452b 77]

In regard to your edited post, you have a case of conveniently bad memory. But that's in the past.

 

The US is not targeting or killing innocent civilians in Cairo or Amman or Riyadh or Jakarta or Dhaka or Kuala Lumpur or any other major Muslim population centers. So its inaccurate and a false equivalence to say that "It might as well be a war on average Muslims". It's not  a war on average Muslims.

 

You're very quick to condemn western attacks on Islamic fighters where civilians are yes sadly killed but unintentionally. Where is your condemnation of Islamic attacks targeted deliberately on innocent western civilians? 

[Kepler_452b 77]

Trump Revives Ban on Foreign Aid for Abortion Counseling

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/world/trump-ban-foreign-aid-abortions.html

 

Comment: this a brilliant policy because poor countries really need more babies. Trump really can't keep his hands off women's genitals.

[Ricnvolved1956 51]

"Hope and change"

 

http://www.trueactivist.com/criminal-in-chief-78-times-president-obama-broke-the-law-during-presidency/

[Kepler_452b 77]

Trump signs order to begin Mexico border wall

"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/25/donald-trump-sign-mexico-border-executive-order"

 

IMHO, this is a hair-brained idea motivated by the the racial paranoia of Trump and many of his supporters as a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist.

[OmniNegro 155]

Trump signs order to begin Mexico border wall

"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/25/donald-trump-sign-mexico-border-executive-order"

 

IMHO, this is a hair-brained idea motivated by the the racial paranoia of Trump and many of his supporters as a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist.

Kepler, I live in Texas. If you think drug cartels need a hall pass, why don't you move down here so they can murder you like they would anyone who stands in their way.

 

Plainly, you do not understand the problem. I do not think this stupid wall is going to fix anything, but I am all for someone trying something rather than continually protesting that he is racist because all Mexicans own all of America according to the Democratic party.

 

If you can come up with a better idea that actually works, I will support it. But I think you just like to complain. Good day again.

[Kepler_452b 77]

@Omni.  Trump is racist. The Republican Party is racist.  As you said, the wall will fix nothing. The drug cartels will laugh and go over, under, around or through it. As you pointed out they're already in Texas as well as every other state. Only one thing will end the cartels: remove the profit motive. How do you do that? Decriminalize drugs. Making drugs illegal has never worked (think Prohibition). Drug cartels didn't exist until Nixon declared the 'war on drugs' in 1971. Since then they've continually grown and become richer and more powerful. Whenever something that large numbers of people want is made illegal, criminal gangs will arise to provide it and reap the enormous profits. The Mafia only became really powerful as a result of the money generated by Prohibition. The only solution: legalize, regulate, educate.

[Khariz 109]

I just rolled my eyes so hard that I can't get them to come back from inside my skull.

[Kepler_452b 77]

I just rolled my eyes so hard that I can't get them to come back from inside my skull.

Once you get control or your eyes, read up on the Dutch model of drug management.

[Khariz 109]

That wasn't the part of the post I rolled my eyes at. It was the first couple of sentences. I'm on board with drug legalization.

[Kepler_452b 77]

That wasn't the part of the post I rolled my eyes at. It was the first couple of sentences. I'm on board with drug legalization.

OK, I'm not that psychic. Which parts caused the eye gymnastics? Nevermind, it's the racist part.

[Kepler_452b 77]

Do you think the alt-right, white supremacists and the KKK support Trump because he's so inclusive? He's their guy. Did you watch any of the Republican Convention? A sea of white folks.  The Republicans have used and continue to use every trick they can think of to prevent minorities from registering to vote. This is the Party of scared white people who want 'their' country back.

 

What social science tells us about racism in the Republican party

"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/11/what-social-science-tells-us-about-racism-in-the-republican-party/?utm_term=.e6070044b32c'