Accepting my accolades

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Terrible. But lucky for me, I can hold my head high. Hillary Clinton will never be the President of the United States. The "glass ceiling" is as solid as ever, until a conservative woman comes along to shatter it in the future.

No, hopefully a woman who would make a good President, i.e. neither a conservative nor Hillary.

[angus]

Congrats, Naso.  I have to admit that I thought you were full of shit and hot air as well--okay, I always agreed that the Clinton people were shrill, arrogant, and condescending, but I didn't think Trump would be elected.  It seems that you were reading the tea leaves correctly.

[White Trash]

Regarding the nasty posts you received months ago... how many of them were from obvious trolls like white trash, RINO Tom, etc?  I don't think it's fair to lump all posters together.

You have to pick out two posters to call out as trolls and you choose Southern Gothic and RINO Tom?

they are trolls...

You wouldn't know a troll unless one bit you in the ass, or you looked in a mirror. I'd like you to notice that no one has ever insinuated that Tom and were trolls other than you.

[emailking]

I have to say, I screwed up. My gut was saying "Trump's going to pull this off," and my head was saying that it was all sewn up for Clinton after the first debate. I listened to my head and not my gut. This was clearly a huge mistake, and I will try to adjust to our new Trump reality by ignoring my head and trusting my gut in the future.

I don't think it was a mistake. A gut instinct is a lot more likely to be wrong than logical, reasoned thought. Just because it happened to be right in this circumstance, that doesn't mean that listening to your gut over your brain is a sound model for analysis. I think a better approach is to determine why you/we were wrong and incorporate that knowledge in the future.

[RINO Tom]

I'll openly admit to *trolling* Non Swing Voter (where's your hyphen, bro?  I'd expect more from an EDUCATED Democrat!), as it is good fun, given his simplistic nature and definitive statements about politics (usually his opinion presented as fact) that look like they're put together by a fourth grader.

So, guess I'm a troll!!

... Or I just feel the need to call him out on how wrong he is about most things.

[Klartext89]

stopped clocks etc

nobody cares that you two special little snowflakes got your feelings hurt

Someone is pissed :-D Highly embarrassing for Germany that you're showíng your intolerant and unteachable behaviour here.

[Klartext89]

@Reaganfan

Congratulations to you (and of course your great country and the whole world)! I know your feeling well ;-)

[Klartext89]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's OK.

I do enjoy pointing out the classless behavior of some of the worst of the red avatars, however.  Just to clarify who's living in the glass house when they throw rocks.

You don't have the moral fiber to criticize someone who agrees with you when they go over the top on someone you disagree with.  That's called a lack of integrity.  Own it.

there's no such thing as goïng over the top against fascists

this whole "respect people who disagree with you" thing is all well and good when the "disagreement" you're talking about is ice cream flavours or sports or w/e, but not when it's about people's right to exist

To explain this scary and freaky behaviour to my American friends here:

It's the biggest illness in Germany that there are many People who think that everything they don't agree with is literally Hitler. These people are seeing Nazis everywhere like people using drugs are seeing flowers. Big problem and very embarrassing for me as a normal German, but well...

[ApatheticAustrian]

in a country without a far-right party (which wasn't part of the hard fringe) for decades, the recent success of the AfD is of course more disturbing for the society than good FPÖ numbers are in austria....a country which preserved far-right policies since the nazi era.

[BoAtlantis]

Sorry to hear you were disrespected.

Every election, some will end up right and some will end up wrong. Trump was a heavy underdog enough that anyone who picked him out of guts and anecdotal experience will feel tempted to have some bragging rights.

I don't condone disgusting behaviors from both sides. But people shouldn't take election results to claim moral victory. I certainly wouldn't have if Hillary won as an underdog.

[ApatheticAustrian]

would be hard for trump claiming moral victory, since you need some kind of morality for that in the first place.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I wouldn't say that people predicting Trump would win were right about everything, but yes, in the case of the election result, you guys were right. There's no denying that. I'm not going to defend everything that every Clinton supporter on this forum said; no doubt, many inappropriate and inexcusable things were said. While I was relentless in my criticism of Trump, I tried to stay away from attacks on individual users. With that said, one of the reasons many of us on the left may have been particularly "passionate" is because of how much we believed was at stake in this election. It wasn't just about being afraid of a Republican winning. Many of us felt threatened, or knew people who felt threatened by the (then) possibility of a Trump presidency. The idea of someone who got so much attention from launching insults, often directed at the most vulnerable members of society, becoming president was unthinkably awful to us. Even if most of us knew that there was a chance that the polls could be wrong, we didn't want to get into it, because the implications of a Trump victory were legitimately frightening to us.

Alas, here we are. You want accolades, here you go. You won this battle, and we lost. We're not going away, though (most of us, at least), and whenever Trump does something that we strongly disapprove of, we won't be shy about voicing our dissent. I would quickly respond to what FuzzyBear said by saying that this is not just about losing an election. Yes, disappointment is part of it, but this is not how I, for one, felt in 2000 or 2004. I felt as if many people who I love the most have been told that they don't deserve to live in this country or be considered American. I'm not saying that everyone who voted for Trump believes that, or wanted to send that message, but there are many who have done and said terrible things in the name of Trump. Those people feel emboldened by his victory. Understand that this isn't just a case of people being sore losers. Most of us have accepted the results, but "getting over it" and "getting behind Trump" would involve putting aside fears that are very much grounded in reality.

If you are an illegal alien who is a "dreamer", in that you were (A) brought here by your parents or other adults, (B) have lived here since a very young age, and (C) know nothing of life in your native country, then I do have empathy for your plight.  I hope that something can be worked out that would allow them to stay in the US without granting a general amnesty or on terms that gives others incentive to enter our country illegally.

As for adults who came here illegally, they (A) don't deserve to be here, (B) are NOT American, (C) are NOT my countrymen, and (D) deserve deportation.  Those who are here illegally, who came here as adults illegally, deserve every bit of angst and insecurity they may be experiencing right now.  They brought it on themselves, period.  Those who give them sanctuary, who thwart the law, deserve every bit of the same angst and insecurity.  I can't think of a nation that any person would want to emigrate to that wouldn't take the same posture.

A fear of deportation on the part of an illegal alien is a fear that the illegal alien ought to experience.  They don't belong here.

I was referring more to some of my Muslim friends. But what about people who were lured here by employers under false pretenses, and only come to understand after the fact that there are here illegally? Some of them are treated terribly by their employers, but can't speak up about it because of their status. I'm not saying that there should be no consequences for people in these situations, but why does all of the vitriol go their way, rather than toward their employers, who are knowingly breaking the law for profit?

I have no problems with hitting up employers with stiff sanctions.  That's a separate issue, but I'm all in favor of that.  Employers should be no less held accountable to the rule of law then illegal aliens would be.

On the other hand, these folks know that they are illegally entering the US.  Most of them, anyway.  They are in collusion with their employer, and when you make a deal with the devil, it's the devil you're dealing with.  I am sure that there are honest-to-goodness victims in that scenario, but I am also sure that there are many who fully knew what they were doing, in terms of illegality, and did not care about the rule of law.  I get it that the rule of law may be a nicety that dirt poor folks form the third world may not see as a benefit to them, but I would suggest that many of their nations are in the straits they are in BECAUSE they do not have the rule of law.  And regardless of that point, WE IN AMERICA have the rule of law; it is one of the things that make us both a GREAT nation and a GOOD nation.

As for Muslims:  I would suggest that the principles of Sharia Law are, on their face, un-American.  I would suggest that there is no place for folks who believe in "honor killings" in American society.  And I would suggest that the left refrains from criticizing the Muslim community for its misogyny because they are now part of the Democratic Party base.  Islam is not a monolith, but it is a religion with a philosophy, and that includes positions on the correct form of government, positions on tolerance in free expression, free exercise of religion (or refraining from same), and equality under the law regardless of creed or gender that run counter to the principles needed to maintain and sustain a Republic with democratic features.  We have a number of Muslims in this country now, legally, and as long as they're not breaking laws, I'm OK with them staying, but if someone isn't in agreement with the idea of living under a liberal secular democracy, and are OK with using the system to overturn it and attempt to establish a Caliphate, or, at a minimum, bastions where Sharia Law holds sway, then letting those people into our country is something that undermines our democracy.  They hold to un-American ideals, and we don't have to let them in, Constitutionally.  And we shouldn't.

[Beet]

Trump never was going to ban Muslim immigration and his supporters know it. They just wanted to be able to debate it rationally but they always knew political correctness would prevent this. Even though Islam has shown itself to be an exceptionally violent religion. Forget the West. India, Russia, China, the Philippines, Malaysia... almost everywhere there are Muslims, there is violence. Trump was vindicated by multiple terrorist attacks in late 2015 and 2016. Yet you can't say anything bad about Muslims because the mainstream media and SJW enforce taboos against it. Even Bill Maher was called an Islamophobe. The point wasn't to ban Muslim immigration but to break through the PC circumvention of the First Amendment (sure, it's legal to say, but you'll lose your job, etc.) by taking a 'radical' position and then getting elected to the presidency.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump never was going to ban Muslim immigration and his supporters know it. They just wanted to be able to debate it rationally but they always knew political correctness would prevent this. Even though Islam has shown itself to be an exceptionally violent religion. Forget the West. India, Russia, China, the Philippines, Malaysia... almost everywhere there are Muslims, there is violence. Trump was vindicated by multiple terrorist attacks in late 2015 and 2016. Yet you can't say anything bad about Muslims because the mainstream media and SJW enforce taboos against it. Even Bill Maher was called an Islamophobe. The point wasn't to ban Muslim immigration but to break through the PC circumvention of the First Amendment (sure, it's legal to say, but you'll lose your job, etc.) by taking a 'radical' position and then getting elected to the presidency.

This.

[ApatheticAustrian]

"debating" about banning muslims is like debating about banning jews.

to be "open-minded" about this topic is to "broaden" the possible debate in ways which are not desirable to a classical-liberal society.

[PresidentSamTilden]

"debating" about banning muslims is like debating about banning jews.

to be "open-minded" about this topic is to "broaden" the possible debate in ways which are not desirable to a classical-liberal society.

110%. Everywhere there are Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus...there is violence. Humans are violent. It's fundamentally stupid to blame a religion of 1 >>BILLION<< people for all of the violence in the world.

I mean, who started the two world wars? Was that the fault of Muslims as well somehow?

[BoAtlantis]

Trump never was going to ban Muslim immigration and his supporters know it. They just wanted to be able to debate it rationally but they always knew political correctness would prevent this. Even though Islam has shown itself to be an exceptionally violent religion. Forget the West. India, Russia, China, the Philippines, Malaysia... almost everywhere there are Muslims, there is violence. Trump was vindicated by multiple terrorist attacks in late 2015 and 2016. Yet you can't say anything bad about Muslims because the mainstream media and SJW enforce taboos against it. Even Bill Maher was called an Islamophobe. The point wasn't to ban Muslim immigration but to break through the PC circumvention of the First Amendment (sure, it's legal to say, but you'll lose your job, etc.) by taking a 'radical' position and then getting elected to the presidency.

Electing him may have given you a bit of comfort but the first thing Republicans have to realize is that speaking the so-called "truth" is not the point.

Speech has time and place for everything, just like you don't randomly go up to your boss and say his wife looks like a pig. Remember when Trump supporters threatened Megyn Kelly over her questioning of his remarks about women? Think about why they blasted her.

[Xing]

I wouldn't say that people predicting Trump would win were right about everything, but yes, in the case of the election result, you guys were right. There's no denying that. I'm not going to defend everything that every Clinton supporter on this forum said; no doubt, many inappropriate and inexcusable things were said. While I was relentless in my criticism of Trump, I tried to stay away from attacks on individual users. With that said, one of the reasons many of us on the left may have been particularly "passionate" is because of how much we believed was at stake in this election. It wasn't just about being afraid of a Republican winning. Many of us felt threatened, or knew people who felt threatened by the (then) possibility of a Trump presidency. The idea of someone who got so much attention from launching insults, often directed at the most vulnerable members of society, becoming president was unthinkably awful to us. Even if most of us knew that there was a chance that the polls could be wrong, we didn't want to get into it, because the implications of a Trump victory were legitimately frightening to us.

Alas, here we are. You want accolades, here you go. You won this battle, and we lost. We're not going away, though (most of us, at least), and whenever Trump does something that we strongly disapprove of, we won't be shy about voicing our dissent. I would quickly respond to what FuzzyBear said by saying that this is not just about losing an election. Yes, disappointment is part of it, but this is not how I, for one, felt in 2000 or 2004. I felt as if many people who I love the most have been told that they don't deserve to live in this country or be considered American. I'm not saying that everyone who voted for Trump believes that, or wanted to send that message, but there are many who have done and said terrible things in the name of Trump. Those people feel emboldened by his victory. Understand that this isn't just a case of people being sore losers. Most of us have accepted the results, but "getting over it" and "getting behind Trump" would involve putting aside fears that are very much grounded in reality.

If you are an illegal alien who is a "dreamer", in that you were (A) brought here by your parents or other adults, (B) have lived here since a very young age, and (C) know nothing of life in your native country, then I do have empathy for your plight.  I hope that something can be worked out that would allow them to stay in the US without granting a general amnesty or on terms that gives others incentive to enter our country illegally.

As for adults who came here illegally, they (A) don't deserve to be here, (B) are NOT American, (C) are NOT my countrymen, and (D) deserve deportation.  Those who are here illegally, who came here as adults illegally, deserve every bit of angst and insecurity they may be experiencing right now.  They brought it on themselves, period.  Those who give them sanctuary, who thwart the law, deserve every bit of the same angst and insecurity.  I can't think of a nation that any person would want to emigrate to that wouldn't take the same posture.

A fear of deportation on the part of an illegal alien is a fear that the illegal alien ought to experience.  They don't belong here.

I was referring more to some of my Muslim friends. But what about people who were lured here by employers under false pretenses, and only come to understand after the fact that there are here illegally? Some of them are treated terribly by their employers, but can't speak up about it because of their status. I'm not saying that there should be no consequences for people in these situations, but why does all of the vitriol go their way, rather than toward their employers, who are knowingly breaking the law for profit?

I have no problems with hitting up employers with stiff sanctions.  That's a separate issue, but I'm all in favor of that.  Employers should be no less held accountable to the rule of law then illegal aliens would be.

On the other hand, these folks know that they are illegally entering the US.  Most of them, anyway.  They are in collusion with their employer, and when you make a deal with the devil, it's the devil you're dealing with.  I am sure that there are honest-to-goodness victims in that scenario, but I am also sure that there are many who fully knew what they were doing, in terms of illegality, and did not care about the rule of law.  I get it that the rule of law may be a nicety that dirt poor folks form the third world may not see as a benefit to them, but I would suggest that many of their nations are in the straits they are in BECAUSE they do not have the rule of law.  And regardless of that point, WE IN AMERICA have the rule of law; it is one of the things that make us both a GREAT nation and a GOOD nation.

As for Muslims:  I would suggest that the principles of Sharia Law are, on their face, un-American.  I would suggest that there is no place for folks who believe in "honor killings" in American society.  And I would suggest that the left refrains from criticizing the Muslim community for its misogyny because they are now part of the Democratic Party base.  Islam is not a monolith, but it is a religion with a philosophy, and that includes positions on the correct form of government, positions on tolerance in free expression, free exercise of religion (or refraining from same), and equality under the law regardless of creed or gender that run counter to the principles needed to maintain and sustain a Republic with democratic features.  We have a number of Muslims in this country now, legally, and as long as they're not breaking laws, I'm OK with them staying, but if someone isn't in agreement with the idea of living under a liberal secular democracy, and are OK with using the system to overturn it and attempt to establish a Caliphate, or, at a minimum, bastions where Sharia Law holds sway, then letting those people into our country is something that undermines our democracy.  They hold to un-American ideals, and we don't have to let them in, Constitutionally.  And we shouldn't.

I would point out that many illegal immigrants entered the country legally, but have overstayed their visas. Many of them know very well the consequences of "coming out of the shadows", especially if they have a family. For those that knowingly broke the law, of course there should be a penalty for them. I remain unconvinced that mass deportations are a productive solution, though. And in many cases, people immigrated here illegally because of the mess that is our legal immigration system. I know many people who did it the "right" way, and depending on your country of origin, it can be an immensely time-consuming and expensive hassle. Immigration reform may not eliminate illegal immigration entirely, but I'd bet a large sum of money that it would reduce it. Yes, we are a nation of laws, and there should be consequences for breaking the law, but there are few cases where I believe the harshest punishment is the best.

I have no problem criticizing Muslim individuals who subscribe to sexism, and I don't in any way excuse individuals who are violent. But we should treat Muslims the same way that we treat people of any other group: As individuals. The Muslims I know are wonderful people, and they completely denounce terrorism and bigotry, and don't in any way subscribe to Sharia Law. I don't care if people call my attitude SJW-ish or "politically correct", but lumping them in with terrorists simply by religious association is wrong. Yes, we have enemies who are Muslim, but many Muslims are not our enemies, and they don't deserve blame for what other Muslims do any more than white people who have never discriminated against minorities deserve blame for everything the KKK has done.

[Klartext89]

Trump never was going to ban Muslim immigration and his supporters know it. They just wanted to be able to debate it rationally but they always knew political correctness would prevent this. Even though Islam has shown itself to be an exceptionally violent religion. Forget the West. India, Russia, China, the Philippines, Malaysia... almost everywhere there are Muslims, there is violence. Trump was vindicated by multiple terrorist attacks in late 2015 and 2016. Yet you can't say anything bad about Muslims because the mainstream media and SJW enforce taboos against it. Even Bill Maher was called an Islamophobe. The point wasn't to ban Muslim immigration but to break through the PC circumvention of the First Amendment (sure, it's legal to say, but you'll lose your job, etc.) by taking a 'radical' position and then getting elected to the presidency.

This. It's the same in Europe, but the worst are These braindead Liberals who cheer for an ideology who wants to kill them. Not sure whether it's funny or sad.

[Klartext89]

"debating" about banning muslims is like debating about banning jews.

to be "open-minded" about this topic is to "broaden" the possible debate in ways which are not desirable to a classical-liberal society.

It's not, it only shows that you haven't any clue about Islam or Judaism.

[Klartext89]

"debating" about banning muslims is like debating about banning jews.

to be "open-minded" about this topic is to "broaden" the possible debate in ways which are not desirable to a classical-liberal society.

110%. Everywhere there are Christians, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus...there is violence. Humans are violent. It's fundamentally stupid to blame a religion of 1 >>BILLION<< people for all of the violence in the world.

I mean, who started the two world wars? Was that the fault of Muslims as well somehow?

World Wars weren't started because of religion. Again a totally false comparison by a Liberal cheering for an ideology who would simply kill him.

[jaichind]

Frankly, even if Trump does really advocates for a temp ban on all Muslims and is serious about it I do not see why that is that radical of an idea. Trump's favorite country these days, Mexico, has in its Constitution:

1) Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
2) Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
3) Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and
when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
4) The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

Frankly, a temp ban on all Muslims is quite moderate proposal to what the Mexico Constitution has.  And do not get me going on Japan and ROC where I am from.

Trump should just have campaigned on "Let's copy the Mexican Constitution" which would sound reasonable on paper but would be a extremist position even by Trump standards.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

groups/people claiming to act in the name of christianity have committed dozens of bombings, murders, and other violent attacks against women's health clinics in the u.s.
they regularly call for their targets to be executed or be struck down by god or whatever
and it is not uncommon to hear politicians at any level proclaim that america's laws should be based on christianity (while advocacy for shari'a law is literally zero)

thanks bye

[ApatheticAustrian]

It's not, it only shows that you haven't any clue about Islam or Judaism.

so banning out of religious sentiments is a good idea, if there is enough.....evidence?

well...i wonder what could go wrong.

[Fuzzy Bear]

groups/people claiming to act in the name of christianity have committed dozens of bombings, murders, and other violent attacks against women's health clinics in the u.s.
they regularly call for their targets to be executed or be struck down by god or whatever
and it is not uncommon to hear politicians at any level proclaim that america's laws should be based on christianity (while advocacy for shari'a law is literally zero)

thanks bye

These folks are clearly acting against Scripture.  There is NO Scriptural justification for the acts of misguided folks, period.  And you know this; you are just being intellectually dishonest in order to justify using immigration policy to improve the demographics for your own political party.

America's laws are, indeed, based on Christianity, not in a theocratic sense, but in the sense where Christianity is a religion of tolerance.  Tolerance doesn't mean that everything is as OK as everything else, but it does mean that believers are not to return evil for evil.  It does say that every person is to "work out their own Salvation with fear and trembling", meaning that the question of who is God and what is His deal for eternity ought to be a matter taken seriously by the individual.  It is the Christian foundation of our laws which makes the tolerance of liberal democracy possible.

You know this.  Like Hillary, the real "Evergreen", you are intellectually dishonest about his, but you know this.