Did SJWs help create Trump?

[buddhist]

Really? Which communist terrorists would these be? Any individuals or groups come to mind?

Sure, those who burn down their own cities, or groups bussing people in for 'fifty years' to rig elections, etc.

Also, how can "communists terrorists" (or anyone for that matter) be xenophobes & xenophiles at the same time?

As I see it, the Communists have demonstrated that it's possible to be both xenophobic (e.g. against whites, and to a lesser extent, asians), and xenophilic towards many other groups.

 

[Nietzsche]

Sure, those who burn down their own cities, or groups bussing people in for 'fifty years' to rig elections, etc.

As I see it, the Communists have demonstrated that it's possible to be both xenophobic (e.g. against whites, and to a lesser extent, asians), and xenophilic towards many other groups.

I think I'd have more respect for you(albeit no less disgusted) if you came up with your own material rather than just stealing from Hitler's unused speech notes.

 

[esmith]

That is very outdated. She's actually now leading by 1.3 million votes.
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

Let's look at the facts. You know that funny little word that so many people ignore because it doesn't fit their opinions

There are approx 231.5 million eligible voters in the U.S.
Approx 134.7 million ballots cast or 58% voted
As of 18 Nov the results are as follows
Hillary 63,049,607 million (46.6% approx)
President Elect Trump 60,966,953 (45.2% approx)
There are 538 electoral votes
President Elect Trump received 306 Electoral College votes (53.9%)
Hillary received 232 Electoral College votes (43.1%)

So looking at the popular vote Hillary received (as of 18 Nov) 2,082,654 or 1.1% more than President Elect Trump
above data from:
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/eligi...can-democrat-popular-vote-registered-results/
and
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity...ote-over-donald-trump-but-by-how-much-w451352

Now you can ***** and moan all you want but the election and the results are legal and binding. So, I suggest if you want to complain do so, but by doing so does not heal the massive divide this country has experienced under the Obama administration. A lot of us were willing to give Obama a chance but his policies and divisiveness soon showed that the country was going in the wrong direction. Let's give President Elect Trump a chance to put forth polices before you condemn him. Political campaign speech and actual actions are two different animals.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is very outdated. She's actually now leading by 1.3 million votes.
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

Link?

 

[Revoltingest]

Reminds me of '12. A margin of 5 million popular votes and over 100 Electoral votes was, according to the Righ, "no mandate," and they certainly did not accept it as a landslide. But now they want to call a candidate loosing the popular vote by 1.4 million and winning the EC by 62 votes as a "landslide?"
If this was a landslide, then pretty much damn near every election has been a landslide, essentially making the term worthless and so redundant that we should just dismiss it from our vocabulary. [/QUOTE]
I live in Michiganistan, where our "mountains" are mere hills.
So 62 is a landslide.
He had more than enuf states to win.

Consider that Trump's campaigned was geared to win electoral college votes.
Were the rules different, then his strategy would've been too.
Who is to say he'd have lost the pop vote if that were his goal?

 

[Revoltingest]

@Revoltingest refuses to cast his ballot.

I voted for Chump....er, Trump....the day before the election was held.

 

[Mister_T]

The problem is how Americans have gone from redefining what it means to be "left" wing or "right" wing to starting to redefine what it means to be an "extremist" or "fringe" element.

"Americans" aren't the ones redefining anything though, we are discussing these things in the context of American politics. There are obviously different levels of extremism and a difference in American right and left politics compared to certain other places or people in history. Behavior from both right and left groups are indeed "extreme" in the context of American politics, in the sense that it is not the norm here.

As far as I am concerned, an "extremist" is someone who is willing to fill mass graves to achieve their objectives.

extremist
/ɪkˈstriːmɪst/
noun
1.
a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical
adjective
2.
of, relating to, or characterized by immoderate or excessive actions, opinions, etc

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/extremist

As far as the dictionary is concerned, "filling mass graves" is not a requirement to define extremism.

I take issue with how a "them versus us" mentality has started to set in and in which a "fringe" element is being treated as a threat to the constitution and bill of rights etc, or "extremist" when the group that this label is being applied to will accept those institutions and agree with you on 90-95% of the issues.

When you try to censor free speech, freedom of expression and police ones thoughts and encourage violence for saying or thinking a certain way, then yes you are being unconstitutional. Doesn't matter what they agree with, how they go about implementing their beliefs is a different story. I'd also disagree that the two different sides of the left politics here agree on 90-95%, maybe at one time but that ship has long since sailed.

Perspective is much needed to get you guys to step back and think about whats really important to you because you may well lose it unless you do. Your literally fighting phantoms here. thats not a rational conversation and its a really bad place for Americans to take it when the evidence is so weak that such a threat even exists.

To be honest, I don't really concern myself with how people outside of the USA perceive us since I find a lot of it very skewed to begin with. If you don't live here, then you don't really have an accurate picture of how things really are or how things work. Since it seems obvious that we are never going to see eye-to-eye on happenings and political definitions here in the US and I feel we are just going in circles, I'll have this be my last post with you on the matter and just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Mister_T]

You seem so balanced & zennie.
I want to be you when I grow up.

You're going to need a lot of chest hair to be grown up me....probably back hair too.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

For the sake of discussion, how would someone define a SJW? It is always thrown around as a condescending, negative label. So long as we are going to continue this tradition, I think it is fair to define it first.

SJW: someone who actually believes minorities are subjugated in the west and that white men have absolute power that they use to maintain that subjugation.

It's an inherently retarded position held by three types of people: the ugly, the mediocre and the undesirable.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

No, white middle class racism, sexism and xenophobia "created" Trump. "SJW" is just a right-wing snarl word.

Bull****.

If you go around calling people racists, sexists and xenophobes just because you disagree with them, a protest vote will rapidly manifest itself.

That's absolutely ludicrous that you'd call "SJW" a snarl word literally one sentence after you cited phantom racists, sexists and xenophobes.

 

[Laika]

"Americans" aren't the ones redefining anything though, we are discussing these things in the context of American politics. There are obviously different levels of extremism and a difference in American right and left politics compared to certain other places or people in history. Behavior from both right and left groups are indeed "extreme" in the context of American politics, in the sense that it is not the norm here.


extremist
/ɪkˈstriːmɪst/
noun
1.
a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical
adjective
2.
of, relating to, or characterized by immoderate or excessive actions, opinions, etc

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/extremist

As far as the dictionary is concerned, "filling mass graves" is not a requirement to define extremism.


When you try to censor free speech, freedom of expression and police ones thoughts and encourage violence for saying or thinking a certain way, then yes you are being unconstitutional though. Doesn't matter what they agree with, how they go about implementing their beliefs is a different story. I'd also disagree that the two different sides of the left politics here agree on 90-95%, maybe at one time but that ship has long since sailed.



To be honest, I don't really concern myself with how people outside of the USA perceive us since I find a lot of it very skewed to begin with. If you don't live here, then you don't really have an accurate picture of how things really are or how things work. Since it seems obvious that we are never going to see eye-to-eye on happenings and political definitions here in the US and I feel we are just going in circles, I'll have this be my last post with you on the matter and just have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough. I really don't think there is more I can say either so it's best to let it go.

 

[fantome profane]

You're going to need a lot of chest hair to be grown up me....probably back hair too.

But you are not truly a man until you have to brush your ear hair.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

SJW is a word used unironically by people who get their feelings hurt when they're called out as being an arse for their unacknowledged social prejudices and traditionalist views on social minorities uninformed by critical thought. Or, in the case of the above poster, scientific literacy.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

SJW: someone who actually believes minorities are subjugated in the west and that white men have absolute power that they use to maintain that subjugation.

It's an inherently retarded position held by three types of people: the ugly, the mediocre and the undesirable.

Bull****.

If you go around calling people racists, sexists and xenophobes just because you disagree with them, a protest vote will rapidly manifest itself.

That's absolutely ludicrous that you'd call "SJW" a snarl word literally one sentence after you cited phantom racists, sexists and xenophobes.

Eh, the Trump campaign didn't get a protest vote really. Trump didn't really rally any new supporters. HIllary just did a fine job of loosing hers. I don't think that the SJW bit played any palpable role in the election.

And while I agree that many of the positions of SJW are untenable but don't you feel this is a bit untenable as well? I don't know if your speaking hyperbole here or not. While the general "feeling" of your post I agree with but just not the degree. SJW doesn't work to convert but usually isolates conversations. And they don't normally believe that white men have all the power. Normally I've seen SJW tackling issues that don't need to be tackled or attacking an issue/people disrespectuflly. I don't just mean disrespecting the idea but in a harmful way. While I also don't agree with their arguments the majority of the time there is a scale of SJW that goes from "bat**** crazy" to "almost resonable". As does most opinions and groups.

*** this post was moderated ***

There is something about gender idenity and that is supported by by the differed results and historical evidence. I still feel that we should have legal protections granted to them from discrimination even. However I don't like the claim that the issues aren't up for debate. Your comment of "end of story" is the same as the "safe space" argument set up by SJW. When discussion is banned and evidence is not required then you live in a zone where opinion is treated as fact.

So believe what you want. No one's viewpoints should legally be protected from scruitiny (both conservative and liberal) and laugh away. Just don't refuse service based on that.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

SJW is a word used unironically by people who get their feelings hurt when they're called out as being an arse for their unacknowledged social prejudices and traditionalist views on social minorities uninformed by critical thought. Or, in the case of the above poster, scientific literacy.

LOL

So you believe that gender is not defined by XX & XY chromosomes? Explain how. This should be hysterical.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

LOL

So you believe that gender is not defined by XX & XY chromosomes? Explain how. This should be hysterical.

Maybe look at any Web page that explains the difference between sex and gender. Maybe look up chromosome switched intersex while you're at it. Nether sex or gender is that straight forward, no matter how much you'd like to simplify it.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Your comment of "end of story" is the same as the "safe space" argument set up by SJW. When discussion is banned and evidence is not required then you live in a zone where opinion is treated as fact.

My comment "end of story" is rhetoric punctuating the fact that sex&gender is a scientific issue that has been confirmed.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

My comment "end of story" is rhetoric punctuating the fact that sex&gender is a scientific issue that has been confirmed.

The problem being it isn't. Definitly the sex has been determiend, cleared up and put away. But psychological issues determining gender is currently less understood. To think sex and gender to be the same thing is also not quite right. I'm saying the "scientific" position still has the jury out. Gender is the role in society that you take rather than biological. Though there are people who claim that it has to do with neuro-biology and perhaps can find a way to determine specifically.

There are scientific theories that "gender" doesn't exist. There is evidence supporting this which was rather interesting.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

There are scientific theories that "gender" doesn't exist. There is evidence supporting this which was rather interesting.

Please provide one of these theories and any evidence in support. I'd love to see it.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Which you concluded by a stunning lack of interest in any actual research and education, which is not surprising.

Direct me to one verifiable source that supports what your saying.

So far you've come up with NOTHING except: "uuhh... some people on the internet think so..."