12 ms·

You sound just like the republicans in 2008 when a gasp black president was elected. Oh dear, the world is ending, the end times are coming! What's the world co

You sound just like the republicans in 2008 when a gasp black president was elected. Oh dear, the world is ending, the end times are coming! What's the world coming to! We are doomed. A socialist Kenyan Muslim is in the whitehouse! What actually happened? Nothing. If you looked at the country for the last 8 years you wouldn't be able to tell whether a republican or democratic was in the whitehouse. Same thing will happen if trump gets in. A lot of talk, but little action.

dpark 10y ago
You really think that opposing Obama because he's black is comparable to opposing Trump because he incites violence and encourages racism and xenophobia and speaks highly of dictators and brags about sexual assault? You want to rethink that?
- ThomPete 10y ago
  I consider Obama one of the best most rational presidents the US have ever had. But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial. Don't take a beautiful and cool facade for anything than that. Behind the scenes its raw power and they are all, everyone of them, in the game for the power.
  - dpark 10y ago
    I'm not asserting that in any way Obama is perfect and have no problem with people criticizing his actions. I do take issue with comparing opposition of Obama based on his race with opposition of Trump based on his positions. It does not follow that because a black president did an acceptable job that any president would do an acceptable job. Nor is opposing a president for being black morally equivalent to opposing a president for the things he says he wants to do.
    - digler999 10y ago
      Obama also lied about a lot and yet the world didn't end. Something about "transparent administration" ring a bell? "Closing Guantanamo" perhaps? Doesn't this set the precedent that you can't really believe anything a candidate says before he is elected? To be fair I don't single out Obama for lying. All candidates do it.which is why I don't worry about trump.
      - dpark 10y ago
        And again, I am in no way saying that Obama is above criticism. I'm saying that opposing him for being black is not at all the same as opposing Trump for his positions. I think it's also not wise to treat all broken campaign promises equally. There's a big difference in voting for someone expecting that they won't accomplish everything they promise and voting for someone hoping that they won't accomplish everything that they promise. The former is hope that your candidate will do what they say. The latter is hope that your candidate is an outright liar or incompetent. I find it so bizarre that supporters look at Trump and say, "oh, he's just making empty promises and he'll never do that." His empty promises are that he'll violate the constitution to enshrine religious discrimination into laws! It seems so fucked up to vote for someone hoping that they're just a pandering amoral liar who won't deliver on their promises.
        hiringmanager 10y ago
        Republicans were not opposed to Obama because of his race, though for the past 8 years that has been the excuse to avoid talking about the issues. And once again, Liberals are not talking about Trumps positions, but merely calling him racist and sexist. "It seems so fucked up to vote for someone hoping that they're just a pandering amoral liar who won't deliver on their promises." Well, the charitable view of Hillary supporters is that this is what they are doing. Otherwise, you really think journalists should be taken out by drone for publishing things embarrassing to hillary? You really think free speech rights should be taken away from people who make a movie critical of hillary? (That's what "Citizens United" was about - the supreme court defended free speech for a group that made a movie critical of hillary-- and since then we've been hearing how evil that ruling is.)
  - berntb 10y ago
    >> But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial. The point with smart weapons like drones is that they kill people in a few meters radius. They don't take out a whole village, or more. If a country should be in war and/or hunt irregular terror organizations is debatable. It should be debated. But complaining about one of the most humane (relative the alternatives) ways of waging war seems just weird. The negative thing I have to say about Obama is that he didn't do more to stop the horror in Syria, with chemical weapons, millions driven from the country and hundreds of thousands dead. But I am not certain I have a better solution either.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      I understand the point about smart weapons it does not change the fact that the US is doing targeted killing without trial or are still keep people in guantanamo and so many other things that we are fine with. Yet somehow the rhetorics of Trump trumps all that.
      - berntb 10y ago
        You just repeated your position and ignored what I wrote. I will assume that means you have no serious arguments. If you really don't understand: A serious argument would be showing that it is not a war situation -- or that you have to put enemy combatants into a court before you can shoot at them. (Edit: To argue that it is wrong or illegal to declare war and hunt e.g. alQ is not relevant either. I made that distinction in the previous comment -- and didn't take a position.)
        ThomPete 10y ago
        I don't agree with the interpretation of war. Lets just start there.
        berntb 10y ago
        So, give references to international law about what exactly qualify as a war -- and what does not? Because obviously, the top law specialists don't agree with you -- presidents aren't above the law. Edit: Here is the US law about unlawful combatants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Unlawful_and_lawful_enemy_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_20... It came after a decision from the US Supreme Court. (Another Supreme Court decision says the unlawful combatants are protected by the Geneva protocols.) Edit 2: I asked for references and got nothing in the answer below. Enough for me.
  - woodchuck64 10y ago
    > I consider Obama one of the best most rational presidents the US have ever had. > But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial. Well, no; technology gave us drones, not rationality. The US has always killed what it identifies as enemy combatants without a trial, whether its through war, covert operations or drones. Obama at least doesn't match the death count of the Bush years.
  - lobf 10y ago
    He inherited the middle east from GWB, I don't think we'd have the drone program we do if we hadn't invaded twice.
- drakonandor 10y ago
  > brags I think that if any other celebrity said what he said, you'd think it's a little off color, but not bragging about criminal actions. His statements verbatim do not imply anything criminal, unless you fill in extra words yourself. If you don't hate the guy, you could easily fill in extra words the other way, that is, to make it sound like he's saying something less ambiguous and more reasonable.
  - dpark 10y ago
    So ignore the part about sexual assault and there's still a laundry list of stuff that Trump has said on the record that is terrifying in a major party political candidate. Complementing dictators for running countries well? Proposing a ban on Muslims in direct contradiction of the bill of rights?
    - drakonandor 10y ago
      As I understand, even at the farthest point he was talking about non-citizens of this country. I don't personally believe we need a reason to stop a non-citizen from coming here. I also don't see any reference in the Bill of Rights concerning that - it's certainly a presidential power that has been exercised before. It is worth noting he has since backed (evolved if you will) that position down to "extreme vetting" to "certain parts of the world" (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, etc.)
      - dpark 10y ago
        There has never to my knowledge been a president who banned immigration based on religion. If it's happened it was unconstitutional then as well. Certainly it's within the government's scope to ban immigration but not based on a religious test.
        itbeho 10y ago
        Obama in 2011? He certainly didn't say it was based on religion, but these were almost all muslim countries of origin: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants- https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presi...
- nightspirit 10y ago
  Yes, it is equivalent. The fact that you are deluded to think that you can change anybody's mind by repeating this "racism xenophobia sexual assault" mantra which literally everybody has already heard million times by now just shows that you are equally stuck in your ways and irrational as the people you oppose. It's knee jerking on both sides. And, speaking of Obama, you guys reminded me of this beauty created during the previous campaign: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ So we can have Trump-o-meter. 1. start World War 3 2. legalize rape 3. eradicate Islam 4. enslave Blacks ... any ideas? We'll track his progress and see how far he goes. Trump is a joke. A level 666 troll. If I were you, I'd be more worried about the number of pissed off people who just waited for someone like him.
  - dpark 10y ago
    It's not comparable to oppose a potential president for being black and opposing a potential president the things he claims he wants to do. You can oppose Obama's policies and statements all day, and that is comparable to opposing Trump based on his positions. Opposing Obama because he's black is just overt racism and equivalent to opposing Trump for having small hands.
    - hiringmanager 10y ago
      Nobody opposed Obama for being black. Not even racists in the south. They couldn't care about that because they were too upset with the policies he proposed. The only people talking about Obamas race where Obama supporters who wanted to avoid substantive discussion about the issues. Those same people are running around calling Trump a racist now.
      - dpark 10y ago
        The entire scenario here was posited as this being equivalent to when republicans were terrified of a black president being elected. You might not agree that this was the problem, but it's the scenario being discussed. For the record, the whole "Kenyan, Muslim" stuff was overly racist. Almost no one came out and said that they were opposed to Obama because they were racist. But when you falsely accuse a black man of being a secret Kenyan Muslim, you're just racist.
- rfrank 10y ago
  Does painting all of your opposition's supporters as racist/sexist/xenophobic/ignorant/violent count as inciting violence? Or is protesters attacking Trump supporters across the country Trump's fault too?
  - jimbokun 10y ago
    "Does painting all of your opposition's supporters as racist/sexist/xenophobic/ignorant/violent count as inciting violence?" No.
    - rfrank 10y ago
      http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/activist-who-took-credit-for-violent-chicago-protests-was-on-hillarys-payroll/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/activist-who-took-credit-f... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCx3ov55tUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCx3ov55tUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGRFEiLBZCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGRFEiLBZCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPLxfH8_sZw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPLxfH8_sZw Good thing all those do then, I suppose.
  - danans 10y ago
    > Does painting all of your opposition's supporters as racist/sexist/xenophobic/ignorant/violent count as inciting violence? Absolutely not. Unless you somehow equate the phrase "criticizing behavior" with "inciting violence". At the worst, that sentence uses the word "all" where the phrase "non-trivial subset" would be more appropriate.
- jimbokun 10y ago
  I do not think you hit on any of the things that make Trump a potential danger to our system of government. It is his blatant contempt for our Constitution, rule of law, and our political traditions that makes him an existential threat. Support for torture. Jailing political opponents. Wanting to jail journalists saying things he doesn't like. Making religious tests for entering the country. (Many more I'm sure I'm forgetting.) I think way to little has been made of this as the key reason Trump is not fit to hold the office of President.
drewrv 10y ago
> If you looked at the country for the last 8 years you wouldn't be able to tell whether a republican or democratic was in the whitehouse. Millions more people have health insurance. States have legalized marijuana without federal intervention. Relations have opened with Cuba. A climate treaty and Iran nuclear deal were reached. The supreme court (with two Obama appointees) has legalized gay marriage. Maybe none of this stuff has affected you but trust me, millions of people can tell there's been a democrat in the white house. The same thing applies with Trump. It might not effect you much if he gets elected, but it would have dire consequences for millions of people if he accomplishes a fraction of the things he's talked about.

dpark 10y ago

You really think that opposing Obama because he's black is comparable to opposing Trump because he incites violence and encourages racism and xenophobia and speaks highly of dictators and brags about sexual assault? You want to rethink that?

ThomPete 10y ago
I consider Obama one of the best most rational presidents the US have ever had. But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial. Don't take a beautiful and cool facade for anything than that. Behind the scenes its raw power and they are all, everyone of them, in the game for the power.
- dpark 10y ago
  I'm not asserting that in any way Obama is perfect and have no problem with people criticizing his actions. I do take issue with comparing opposition of Obama based on his race with opposition of Trump based on his positions. It does not follow that because a black president did an acceptable job that any president would do an acceptable job. Nor is opposing a president for being black morally equivalent to opposing a president for the things he says he wants to do.
  - digler999 10y ago
    Obama also lied about a lot and yet the world didn't end. Something about "transparent administration" ring a bell? "Closing Guantanamo" perhaps? Doesn't this set the precedent that you can't really believe anything a candidate says before he is elected? To be fair I don't single out Obama for lying. All candidates do it.which is why I don't worry about trump.
    - dpark 10y ago
      And again, I am in no way saying that Obama is above criticism. I'm saying that opposing him for being black is not at all the same as opposing Trump for his positions. I think it's also not wise to treat all broken campaign promises equally. There's a big difference in voting for someone expecting that they won't accomplish everything they promise and voting for someone hoping that they won't accomplish everything that they promise. The former is hope that your candidate will do what they say. The latter is hope that your candidate is an outright liar or incompetent. I find it so bizarre that supporters look at Trump and say, "oh, he's just making empty promises and he'll never do that." His empty promises are that he'll violate the constitution to enshrine religious discrimination into laws! It seems so fucked up to vote for someone hoping that they're just a pandering amoral liar who won't deliver on their promises.
      - hiringmanager 10y ago
        Republicans were not opposed to Obama because of his race, though for the past 8 years that has been the excuse to avoid talking about the issues. And once again, Liberals are not talking about Trumps positions, but merely calling him racist and sexist. "It seems so fucked up to vote for someone hoping that they're just a pandering amoral liar who won't deliver on their promises." Well, the charitable view of Hillary supporters is that this is what they are doing. Otherwise, you really think journalists should be taken out by drone for publishing things embarrassing to hillary? You really think free speech rights should be taken away from people who make a movie critical of hillary? (That's what "Citizens United" was about - the supreme court defended free speech for a group that made a movie critical of hillary-- and since then we've been hearing how evil that ruling is.)
- berntb 10y ago
  >> But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial. The point with smart weapons like drones is that they kill people in a few meters radius. They don't take out a whole village, or more. If a country should be in war and/or hunt irregular terror organizations is debatable. It should be debated. But complaining about one of the most humane (relative the alternatives) ways of waging war seems just weird. The negative thing I have to say about Obama is that he didn't do more to stop the horror in Syria, with chemical weapons, millions driven from the country and hundreds of thousands dead. But I am not certain I have a better solution either.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    I understand the point about smart weapons it does not change the fact that the US is doing targeted killing without trial or are still keep people in guantanamo and so many other things that we are fine with. Yet somehow the rhetorics of Trump trumps all that.
    - berntb 10y ago
      You just repeated your position and ignored what I wrote. I will assume that means you have no serious arguments. If you really don't understand: A serious argument would be showing that it is not a war situation -- or that you have to put enemy combatants into a court before you can shoot at them. (Edit: To argue that it is wrong or illegal to declare war and hunt e.g. alQ is not relevant either. I made that distinction in the previous comment -- and didn't take a position.)
      - ThomPete 10y ago
        I don't agree with the interpretation of war. Lets just start there.
        berntb 10y ago
        So, give references to international law about what exactly qualify as a war -- and what does not? Because obviously, the top law specialists don't agree with you -- presidents aren't above the law. Edit: Here is the US law about unlawful combatants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Unlawful_and_lawful_enemy_combatant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_20... It came after a decision from the US Supreme Court. (Another Supreme Court decision says the unlawful combatants are protected by the Geneva protocols.) Edit 2: I asked for references and got nothing in the answer below. Enough for me.
- woodchuck64 10y ago
  > I consider Obama one of the best most rational presidents the US have ever had. > But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial. Well, no; technology gave us drones, not rationality. The US has always killed what it identifies as enemy combatants without a trial, whether its through war, covert operations or drones. Obama at least doesn't match the death count of the Bush years.
- lobf 10y ago
  He inherited the middle east from GWB, I don't think we'd have the drone program we do if we hadn't invaded twice.
drakonandor 10y ago
> brags I think that if any other celebrity said what he said, you'd think it's a little off color, but not bragging about criminal actions. His statements verbatim do not imply anything criminal, unless you fill in extra words yourself. If you don't hate the guy, you could easily fill in extra words the other way, that is, to make it sound like he's saying something less ambiguous and more reasonable.
- dpark 10y ago
  So ignore the part about sexual assault and there's still a laundry list of stuff that Trump has said on the record that is terrifying in a major party political candidate. Complementing dictators for running countries well? Proposing a ban on Muslims in direct contradiction of the bill of rights?
  - drakonandor 10y ago
    As I understand, even at the farthest point he was talking about non-citizens of this country. I don't personally believe we need a reason to stop a non-citizen from coming here. I also don't see any reference in the Bill of Rights concerning that - it's certainly a presidential power that has been exercised before. It is worth noting he has since backed (evolved if you will) that position down to "extreme vetting" to "certain parts of the world" (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, etc.)
    - dpark 10y ago
      There has never to my knowledge been a president who banned immigration based on religion. If it's happened it was unconstitutional then as well. Certainly it's within the government's scope to ban immigration but not based on a religious test.
      - itbeho 10y ago
        Obama in 2011? He certainly didn't say it was based on religion, but these were almost all muslim countries of origin: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants- https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presi...
nightspirit 10y ago
Yes, it is equivalent. The fact that you are deluded to think that you can change anybody's mind by repeating this "racism xenophobia sexual assault" mantra which literally everybody has already heard million times by now just shows that you are equally stuck in your ways and irrational as the people you oppose. It's knee jerking on both sides. And, speaking of Obama, you guys reminded me of this beauty created during the previous campaign: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ So we can have Trump-o-meter. 1. start World War 3 2. legalize rape 3. eradicate Islam 4. enslave Blacks ... any ideas? We'll track his progress and see how far he goes. Trump is a joke. A level 666 troll. If I were you, I'd be more worried about the number of pissed off people who just waited for someone like him.
- dpark 10y ago
  It's not comparable to oppose a potential president for being black and opposing a potential president the things he claims he wants to do. You can oppose Obama's policies and statements all day, and that is comparable to opposing Trump based on his positions. Opposing Obama because he's black is just overt racism and equivalent to opposing Trump for having small hands.
  - hiringmanager 10y ago
    Nobody opposed Obama for being black. Not even racists in the south. They couldn't care about that because they were too upset with the policies he proposed. The only people talking about Obamas race where Obama supporters who wanted to avoid substantive discussion about the issues. Those same people are running around calling Trump a racist now.
    - dpark 10y ago
      The entire scenario here was posited as this being equivalent to when republicans were terrified of a black president being elected. You might not agree that this was the problem, but it's the scenario being discussed. For the record, the whole "Kenyan, Muslim" stuff was overly racist. Almost no one came out and said that they were opposed to Obama because they were racist. But when you falsely accuse a black man of being a secret Kenyan Muslim, you're just racist.
rfrank 10y ago
Does painting all of your opposition's supporters as racist/sexist/xenophobic/ignorant/violent count as inciting violence? Or is protesters attacking Trump supporters across the country Trump's fault too?
- jimbokun 10y ago
  "Does painting all of your opposition's supporters as racist/sexist/xenophobic/ignorant/violent count as inciting violence?" No.
  - rfrank 10y ago
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/activist-who-took-credit-for-violent-chicago-protests-was-on-hillarys-payroll/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/activist-who-took-credit-f... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCx3ov55tUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCx3ov55tUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGRFEiLBZCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGRFEiLBZCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPLxfH8_sZw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPLxfH8_sZw Good thing all those do then, I suppose.
- danans 10y ago
  > Does painting all of your opposition's supporters as racist/sexist/xenophobic/ignorant/violent count as inciting violence? Absolutely not. Unless you somehow equate the phrase "criticizing behavior" with "inciting violence". At the worst, that sentence uses the word "all" where the phrase "non-trivial subset" would be more appropriate.
jimbokun 10y ago
I do not think you hit on any of the things that make Trump a potential danger to our system of government. It is his blatant contempt for our Constitution, rule of law, and our political traditions that makes him an existential threat. Support for torture. Jailing political opponents. Wanting to jail journalists saying things he doesn't like. Making religious tests for entering the country. (Many more I'm sure I'm forgetting.) I think way to little has been made of this as the key reason Trump is not fit to hold the office of President.

drewrv 10y ago

> If you looked at the country for the last 8 years you wouldn't be able to tell whether a republican or democratic was in the whitehouse. Millions more people have health insurance. States have legalized marijuana without federal intervention. Relations have opened with Cuba. A climate treaty and Iran nuclear deal were reached. The supreme court (with two Obama appointees) has legalized gay marriage. Maybe none of this stuff has affected you but trust me, millions of people can tell there's been a democrat in the white house. The same thing applies with Trump. It might not effect you much if he gets elected, but it would have dire consequences for millions of people if he accomplishes a fraction of the things he's talked about.