Making America Hate Again

[Ygrene Imref]

Trump is the master of "bait and switch." It's what got him elected.

And, in most cases, the "switch" will carry a huge sting, as the working class takes a beating again and again from his proposals.

Example: he said (on video) he would "repeal Obamacare and make it better."

The bill he was wheeling and dealing in the House to get signed was exponentially worse than Obamacare--and that's a "switch" that would sting 24 million people...or more.

People who are betrayed by flim-flam men often do become haters....

They sure hated Bernie Madoff...flim-flam man to millionaires.

I don't feel betrayed by Donald Trump, because it seemed blatantly obvious to me that his promises were 100% fake. You can only feel betrayed by flim-flam men if you've been taken in by them.

Oh, but wait until he upsets his base.

Trumps opponents know what and who he is; we don't invest hope in him. But those that did, and risked looking like a ridiculous human defending his actions day after day will be the ones who are going to have egg on their face. It will be funny, but the laughter for me will be a nervous reaction because I know what would follow: backlash.

It has already been PLANNED, which is why this election (and the past elections) are emotion based/demagoguery. Most of us think with emotion, so disappointment and a breach of trust will lead to equally mindless emotional backlash. It is called destabalozation, and countries exploit the population because they are easy and at tike undereducated. Destabalozation is one of the best ways to destroy and/or conquer a country without launching a missle, or firing a shot.

And, it is happening not because of Obama, or even Trump. It happens because of ignorance and sophomoric emotional alignments.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Seriously though, I'm aware that they are more motivated and driven. I work with plenty of them in my profession. It's pure anecdotal, but the harshest criticisms I've heard about native blacks have come from immigrants who were from Africa, TBH.

You should read that book I linked to - you'd probably find it interesting (and I mean that in all honesty, without considering to whether or not it will convince you of anything). He highlights some really interesting differences between the US and France in the perceptions of native blacks vs immigrants, and how those perceptions are similar in tone yet very different in who they target. He also spends a considerable amount of time describing how workers of all stripes construct mental justifications for elevating their own perceived statuses. His writing style is kind of repetitive, but if you can get past that...

Actually, it doesn't. I just don't think it holds anywhere near the weight people try to ascribe it. For all of my dislike of Dubya, he had one good phrase, which was the "soft bigotry of low expectations." I'm actually part Cherokee. My great grand-mother was disowned by her entire family for marrying outside her race, and 'halfbreeds' were not well received during the 20's and 30's. My family line would never have been confused as rich, but we've been a heck of a lot better off than those who stayed on the reservations or lived off of government funding.

The same is true for those of all colors who fell into a similar trap with Johnson's so-called "Great Society." It wasn't done out of spite or malice, but the way to Hell is paved with good intentions, as the saying goes. One of the major things that the GS did, was encourage women to not have a man in the home, as it drastically reduced benefits. In essence, the U.S. Gov't took over the role of the father in many homes, and this has been the primary cause of the trouble with many households in the last couple of generations. Larry Elders has done numerous talks about this, which I would encourage you to watch/listen to when you have a chance.

It may very well be that the GS set up some perverse incentives, but when, at the same time, you're discriminating against those same men in education, hiring, and house, and targeting them for higher rates of incarceration - all of which contribute to those men being suitable partners and less able to contribute to society, it's tough for me to get angry at welfare programs that are at least trying to help people.

It's also tough for me to distinguish between "low expectations" and unrealistic expectations / blindness to systemic problems that affect individual successes. To put it another way - the vast majority of people are unremarkable and over the course of their lives trend towards some average value of their experiences. I don't care if you're rich, poor, black, white, whatever - chances are good that you're going to wind up in some way similar to what you learned growing up. That's how we have so many family businesses run by multiple generations, and why so many kids follow their parents into a variety of fields like military, law enforcement/firefighting, medicine, law, music/art, etc. You're exposed to it as a kid, you develop and earlier-than-normal affinity and understanding of it, and you have the connections to get you in ahead of your peers. Heck, even Trump and his oldest kids are just following in generational footsteps - none of them have had to go out and make it on their own.

If you take a certain block of the population (e.g. blacks) and put up artificial barriers to their success (e.g. Jim Crow), making them poorer and less educated and more likely to be incarcerated, then you're not only gonna screw up the futures of the people directly subjected to those policies, but you're also gonna screw up the futures of their kids and their grandkids and their great-grandkids. Because, again, most people are unremarkable and they're going to tend towards what they know, and if they grow up knowing poverty and dysfunction and criminality, then those are likely the traits they're going to embody as adults. This cycle is broken by exposing children to different environments when they're young - you set the expectations high when they're kids, and you surround them with people who meet and exceed those expectations. You can't just tell them to be better and not give them access to the people and tools that they need to get better.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Of all the posts here, this one rings of the most truth.

Liberals can, and do, engage in this ultra violent stuff at every turn.... even groups of them physically beating Trump supporters......... sometimes going so far as outright murder of police officers. But, oh no, a Conservative better not even speak a word of discontent.

If only rings true if you're ignorant of the violence and hatred coming from the right.

Lately, I've been more popular with the left-wingers than the right on the forums, however, this post is probably going to change that a bit lol...

As much as the left-wing protesters would like to pretend that they have a "special reason" for the radical protesting activities they're engaging in, the fact remains, in terms of words vs. actual violence/damage, the right handled the Obama election better than the left has handled the Trump election. As much as I hate to break it to *some* democrats, sorry, your reasons aren't "special", the fact that you think Trump is uniquely bad compared to previous presidents (which I would agree with) doesn't exempt the protesters from your side from the basic rules of decency. "Yeah, but this is different because..." isn't a valid answer for that.

The tea partiers had their rallies with mean pictures and slogans, there were some instances of right-wingers deciding to have "open carry protests" that just so happened to conveniently located outside in the parking of venues where left wing groups were meeting, which was purely being done for the intimidation factor by those folks...

However, they weren't tearing up cities, they weren't blocking traffic on major interstates, they weren't numerous reports of them dragging people out of cars and beating them for having an Obama bumper sticker, etc...

Those are just accurate observations (coming from someone who didn't vote for Obama or Trump).

Now, to flip that around bit, many GOP folks (the die-hard Trump fans in particular) need to quit using the "oh yeah, well the democrats rioted..." as a catch-all rebuttal anytime their party's lesser qualities are being discussed or when someone is pointing out hypocrisy on their side of the fence. The fact that some Berkeley kids lit dumpsters on fire or that BLM blocked I-90 doesn't give the Trump administration (and their voters) de facto ethical high ground on every issue nor should it make them immune from criticism.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Lately, I've been more popular with the left-wingers than the right on the forums, however, this post is probably going to change that a bit lol...

As much as the left-wing protesters would like to pretend that they have a "special reason" for the radical protesting activities they're engaging in, the fact remains, in terms of words vs. actual violence/damage, the right handled the Obama election better than the left has handled the Trump election. As much as I hate to break it to *some* democrats, sorry, your reasons aren't "special", the fact that you think Trump is uniquely bad compared to previous presidents (which I would agree with) doesn't exempt the protesters from your side from the basic rules of decency. "Yeah, but this is different because..." isn't a valid answer for that.

The tea partiers had their rallies with mean pictures and slogans, there were some instances of right-wingers deciding to have "open carry protests" that just so happened to conveniently located outside in the parking of venues where left wing groups were meeting, which was purely being done for the intimidation factor by those folks...

However, they weren't tearing up cities, they weren't blocking traffic on major interstates, they weren't numerous reports of them dragging people out of cars and beating them for having an Obama bumper sticker, etc...

Those are just accurate observations (coming from someone who didn't vote for Obama or Trump).

Now, to flip that around bit, many GOP folks (the die-hard Trump fans in particular) need to quit using the "oh yeah, well the democrats rioted..." as a catch-all rebuttal anytime their party's lesser qualities are being discussed or when someone is pointing out hypocrisy on their side of the fence. The fact that some Berkeley kids lit dumpsters on fire or that BLM blocked I-90 doesn't give the Trump administration (and their voters) de facto ethical high ground on every issue nor should it make them immune from criticism.

The post I was responding to claimed that the one post that "rings of the most truth" is one that claims to not see any hate coming from the right, which is completely absurd. The right has been fomenting hatred towards liberals of all stripes for a solid 30 years (maybe longer), and it's only gotten worse in the last decade or so. That's not an attempt to excuse leftists - it's just pointing out that there are a lot of people on the right just dripping with contempt for anyone in the direction of the center.

But to the issue of protests - I see the right-wingers as more of a constant slow burn, whereas the left-wingers tend to flare up and then go away. There are a number of reasons for this, but a big one is that it's actually kind of hard to sustain left-wing rage. Broadly, the sorts of personality traits that lead one to be liberal (at least in the American definition of "liberal") tend to not be the same sorts of traits that lead one to live in a state of constant self-righteous anger. Now, maybe that's been changing over the last few years, but for at least the 2nd half of the 20th century and into the 21st, religiosity, conservatism, and self-righteous anger all kind of went hand-in-hand - because they all tend to stem from the same values and personality traits. This is why hard-core partisanship took hold among Republicans decades before it did with Democrats - Republicans have had great success with partisan media since at least the early 90s, whereas Dems had zero success on radio in the 90's and only moderate success on TV into the 2000's. They've been doing better now that the internet has become ubiquitous, but I don't know that they're doing any better than Republicans so much as they're merely catching up.

So, yes, Dems have behaved badly in some spectacular ways. But after a riot ends, things calm down and everybody goes back to their business. But if a conservative gets busted planning to blow up a mosque, you've still got dozens more behind him still fomenting the same hate.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

We are repeating history that isn't even 100 years old...

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Stating "All lives matter" isn't being support of the idea in general - it's being dismissive of the idea. "Black lives matter" is an attempt to highlight the ongoing discrimination against blacks and the lack of consideration given to the struggles they face. "All lives matter" blurs those concerns and pretends as if everybody's dealing with the same kinds of issues.

I am trying to figure out when "All Lives Matter" actually mattered in the United States of America. In fact, I cannot think of a single time in American history or in recent memory when all lives actually mattered in this country. If 'all lives' mattered in a country that was suppose to be founded on freedom, liberty and justice for all, then there would be no need for civil rights groups for people of color, like the NAACP, Black Lives Matter, American Indian Movement, Idle No More, Native Lives Matter or any of the civil rights groups listed here. And if 'all lives' actually mattered in America, then abortion would not be legal and there would be no need for anti-discrimination laws to protect people of color, women, the disabled, the elderly, LGBT, and non-Christians either (groups also listed here). So, I think it is ironic that all lives suddenly matter since BLM was started.

 

[Rion]

I am trying to figure out when "All Lives Matter" actually mattered in the United States of America. In fact, I cannot think of a single time in American history or in recent memory when all lives actually mattered in this country. If 'all lives' mattered in a country that was suppose to be founded on freedom, liberty and justice for all, then there would be no need for civil rights groups for people of color, like the NAACP, Black Lives Matter, American Indian Movement, Idle No More, Native Lives Matter or any of the civil rights groups listed here. And if 'all lives' actually mattered in America, then abortion would not be legal and there would be no need for anti-discrimination laws to protect people of color, women, the disabled, the elderly, LGBT, and non-Christians either (groups also listed here). So, I think it is ironic that all lives suddenly matter since BLM was started.

ALM was a response to BLM being increasingly tribalistic and, quite frankly, racist. Which isn't surprising, considering the founders of it.

 

[rambot]

If people are stupid enough to base their hatred and prejudice on who,s on the white house then they are stupid enough to believe anything,even a ridiculous poll.

My favourite part is that 4 people called this a "Winner" post when, in fact, he's insulting the racists who are enflamed by Trump.

So...essentially, agreeing that it is stupid to base your hatred on who your president is. Of course, if your president gives tacit agreement to your viewpoints, then you'd feel empowered and emboldened to act on this. What a shock this must be to people to realize this. I mean, you could see PC and SJWs feeling empowered by Obama, but the alt-right? No, they aren't empowered by Trump. They wouldn't do that. We are better than that! Someone who agrees with me that Trump is a good president wouldn't feel emboldened by his ridiculous rhetoric to threaten synagogues and jewish schools.

 

[rambot]

If people are stupid enough to base their hatred and prejudice on who,s on the white house then they are stupid enough to believe anything,even a ridiculous poll.

My favourite part is that 4 people called this a "Winner" post when, in fact, he's insulting the racists who are enflamed by Trump.

And stupid enough to believe a poll?

Geez, it must get tiring having to sort through which polls are not ridiculous.

I am trying to figure out when "All Lives Matter" actually mattered in the United States of America. In fact, I cannot think of a single time in American history or in recent memory when all lives actually mattered in this country. If 'all lives' mattered in a country that was suppose to be founded on freedom, liberty and justice for all, then there would be no need for civil rights groups for people of color, like the NAACP, Black Lives Matter, American Indian Movement, Idle No More, Native Lives Matter or any of the civil rights groups listed here. And if 'all lives' actually mattered in America, then abortion would not be legal and there would be no need for anti-discrimination laws to protect people of color, women, the disabled, the elderly, LGBT, and non-Christians either (groups also listed here). So, I think it is ironic that all lives suddenly matter since BLM was started.

all lives matter, isn't even worthy of being capitalized. It is such utter twaddle and a completely unsupported movement. "All Lives matter", but not the lives of the children at Standing Rock; not the children who are being poisoned in Flint; and not the refugees who are desperate to feel safe. Those lives don't matter.\

So don't bother trying to feed me a line that "all lives matter" and tell me you actually believe or live out that phrase in any meaningful way. It was meant to be a deflection and a rallying call for anyone who didn't like Black Lives Matter. Literally, nothing more. It feels like the most hollow political movement I've ever heard of.

 

[BubbaJack]

double-post (so nice, I said it twice!)

 

[BubbaJack]

That's rather perceptive. A lot of people who don't seem to be able to make their lives go as they wish, are angry and blaming Jews, Blacks, Muslims, "the government", or whatever.

Or white people. Or men. Double-points for blaming white men. But of course, this is acceptable in the Current Year.

 

[BubbaJack]

The Left is chock full of hate, they just think it's justified.

 

[Tull]

Geez, it must get tiring having to sort through which polls are not ridiculous.

They are all ridiculous,polling is just an attempt to create then promote a trend from a random sampling of opinions,300 million people,lets ask a few of them a question,then assume,create,fabricate what we want to be true......and all sides do it.

 

[Tull]

Geez, it must get tiring having to sort through which polls are not ridiculous.

They are all ridiculous,polling is just an attempt to create then promote a trend from a random sampling of opinions,300 million people,lets ask a few of them a question,then assume,create,fabricate what we want to be true......and all sides do it.

 

[Tull]

Geez, it must get tiring having to sort through which polls are not ridiculous.

They are all ridiculous,polling is just an attempt to create then promote a trend from a random sampling of opinions,300 million people,lets ask a few of them a question,then assume,create,fabricate what we want to be true......and all sides do it.

The Left is chock full of hate, they just think it's justified.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The Left is chock full of hate, they just think it's justified.

So... the right is chock full of hate that they admit isn't justified?

 

[iluvatar5150]

The Left is chock full of hate, they just think it's justified.

So... the right is chock full of hate that they admit isn't justified?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

ALM was a response to BLM being increasingly tribalistic and, quite frankly, racist. Which isn't surprising, considering the founders of it.

Tribalistic...

Original.

 

[Tull]

So... the right is chock full of hate that they admit isn't justified?

The left defines hate as failure to submit to an agenda,any issue involving a select group or individual has a prescribed cause and solution that must be agreed with or an accusation of hatred is made.


You must agree with the liberal narrative on race or you are a hate filled bigot

You must agree on the liberal narrative on women or you are a hate filled misogynists.


One must agree with the liberal narrative on (enter here) or one is a hate filled.........submission to an agenda is what is required.

 

[Armoured]

The left defines hate as failure to submit to an agenda,any issue involving a select group or individual has a prescribed cause and solution that must be agreed with or an accusation of hatred is made.


You must agree with the liberal narrative on race or you are a hate filled bigot

You must agree on the liberal narrative on women or you are a hate filled misogynists.


One must agree with the liberal narrative on (enter here) or one is a hate filled.........submission to an agenda is what is required.

Strawman building for fun and profit.

 

[BubbaJack]

So... the right is chock full of hate that they admit isn't justified?

The Left calls everything on the right, "hate." It's how they avoid debate.

 

[Armoured]

The Left calls everything on the right, "hate." It's how they avoid debate.

What particular facet of "the right" would you like to debate?