Another thing Trump supporters hate: the Constitution

As they should. That stupid piece of paper and its stupid articles and amendments, which spell out a range of civil liberties and protect civil rights, is only going to get in the way of the upcoming Trumptatorship with its dumbass  checks and balances scheme and (vague) limitations on executive power.

A group of protesters at Donald Trump's rally here on Thursday stood up silently during the Republican nominee's speech and held up pocket copies of the Constitution.
They were quickly ejected by campaign staffers and drew fierce boos and jeers from the roughly 1,800 Trump supporters packed into the auditorium, the capacity of the venue.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/04/politics/donald-trump-protests-constitution/

Have you ever thought about that whole "we don't like the whole pc culture and want to get rid of it!" Thing?

They think they are promoting free speech... But really, they are currently able to say whatever the hell they want. They can say it. But people might say mean things back to them. So they want to say mean things, but the problem is that they don't want people to say mean things back to them. Really, the issue is that they hate free speech and they are also massive fucking pussies who don't really stand for what they believe in and are unwilling to deal with the consequences.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Have you ever thought about that whole "we don't like the whole pc culture and want to get rid of it!" Thing?

They think they are promoting free speech... But really, they are currently able to say whatever the hell they want. They can say it. But people might say mean things back to them. So they want to say mean things, but the problem is that they don't want people to say mean things back to them. Really, the issue is that they hate free speech and they are also massive fucking pussies who don't really stand for what they believe in and are unwilling to deal with the consequences.

They're referring to free speech as a concept, not the first amendment. Unless you're referring to a specific incident I'm unaware of, the situations I've seen where people complain about PC culture as a concept within certain media monopolies (like Twitter, Facebook, etc). When you're shadow banned or outright banned on a platform that has achieved a model where it's a requirement for sharing opinions.... that's what they're talking about.

But, like I said, if you have an example in mind you're referring to that I'm unaware of then that's on them. I haven't heard anyone that complains about PC culture having their ideas challenged. They're concerned about being silenced.

I really truly don't think that people are specifically voting for a lunatic like trump because of just Twitter. Maybe that happens. But I think people are mostly upset that they can't call people "n*****" without backlash. Or using the R word on this site without being banned for being an insensitive asshole. Or going on a rant about how they hate Asians then not getting hired for a job.

I think really they just want to say whatever racist bullshit they want without backlash. That's what they want. They want no one to challenge them on it. Like they had it back in the 1820s.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I really truly don't think that people are specifically voting for a lunatic like trump because of just Twitter. Maybe that happens. But I think people are mostly upset that they can't call people "n*****" without backlash. Or using the R word on this site without being banned for being an insensitive asshole. Or going on a rant about how they hate Asians then not getting hired for a job.

I think really they just want to say whatever racist bullshit they want without backlash. That's what they want. They want no one to challenge them on it. Like they had it back in the 1820s.

I guess we just frequent different corners of the internet or geographical locations. I've never encountered these people you speak of and I'm not sure who you're referring to that has said they want to be able to use racial slurs and not be challenged for doing so.
I have seen people state they should be able to use racial slurs without being assaulted for doing so be excused in society; "Yeah, he did beat that man into the hospital, but he did call him a ******, so it's understandable..."
I also have never encountered anyone that uses racial slurs, either. So I'm willing to admit I might be the sheltered one. Where I grew up and where I've lived, I've seen what you've described but just the polar opposite and there was never any backlash from teachers or peers or anyone else. You see that in the claims of groups like Black Lives Matter where "only white people can be racist" and similar ideas. Moving to the area I moved to this past year, I figured it'd be a 180 switch but I haven't gotten that vibe yet. I've yet to hear a racial slur or the now expanded "slur vernacular" (i.e. "those people", "them", etc).

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I really truly don't think that people are specifically voting for a lunatic like trump because of just Twitter. Maybe that happens. But I think people are mostly upset that they can't call people "n*****" without backlash. Or using the R word on this site without being banned for being an insensitive asshole. Or going on a rant about how they hate Asians then not getting hired for a job.

I think really they just want to say whatever racist bullshit they want without backlash. That's what they want. They want no one to challenge them on it. Like they had it back in the 1820s.

I think it cuts both ways.

You are right. Most of the people complaining about PC killing American simply want to be racists, sexists, and bigots without consequence. As you point out, they want to have the right to say whatever and be shielded from any backlash. A lot of Trump's support can be summarized as "peak white male entitlement," where a whole lot of white males are feeling anxious about their place in American society and feel what is owed to them will soon be in short supply.

At the same time, doctrinaire progressives have gone way too far in imposing their values. Remember when Black Lives Matter protesters got on stage at a Bernie Sanders rally and took the mic from him? Not too long ago, student protesters at Depaul shutdown a talk by Milo Yiannopoulos. While I dislike human hate machine Yiannopoulos quite a bit, and think he is a know-nothing hack, his right to speak should be respected so long as he is not making an appeal to violence. Interestingly enough, the Yiannopoulos incident has led DePaul to now deny Ben Shapiro from appearing on a panel discussion on campus. I always welcome protest, but so long as it is not making an appeal to violence it is best to let a person or persons expose themselves as a moron.

Overall, we are at this point where a whole lot of people want to impose themselves on everybody else. Trump supporters want to impose their authoritarianism on everybody, while some on the left want to impose their values on everybody as well. We are caught in the middle trying to make sense of it all.

Ben Shapiro is one of the louder voices in the "anti-PC" movement, too. He regularly gets into heated debates at events with attendees and seems to welcome it.

Milo is just a troll... I think he's hilarious, but I'm also a Bobby Sak kind of guy, too... so what I find funny apparently is in the minority. It makes sense why Milo supports Donald Trump.

Milo was just recently banned by Twitter for life for calling someone he was arguing with 'fat'.

Black Lives Matter and other leftist groups have shown up to quite a few events of Milo's and Ben's and block people from entering, by force.

So, if Ben Shapiro or Milo is who you're talking about, Travis... I've seen quite a bit but never seen them state they should be able to use racial slurs and no one should be able to challenge those beliefs. I have seen them state they should be able to say those things and not be forced from holding public events.

Yeah...they actually banned him because they associated him with a campaign of racist tweets directed at a black actress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/technology/twitter-bars-milo-yiannopoulos-in-crackdown-on-abusive-comments.html

I know. Never let details get in the way of a good story.

Turtleneck wrote:Yeah...they actually banned him because they associated him with a campaign of racist tweets directed at a black actress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/technology/twitter-bars-milo-yiannopoulos-in-crackdown-on-abusive-comments.html

I know. Never let details get in the way of a good story.

I won't let the details get in the way. But which details would those be? The news story you posted doesn't indicate his racist tweets towards her. I've seen a few interviews with Sky and NBC but they never mentioned him being racist towards her... just referencing his references to her appearance (of the non-racial variety).

I would think those details would be pretty important to the story if the narrative is Milo was banned because he's a racist fat-shamer.

I can't seem to find the tweets in question. I saw screenshots before at one point and all I remember seeing was him calling her fat and made fun of her haircut.

I've seen him tweet about Black Lives Matter chants and then refer to crime stats in the same tweet before and then his usual tweets about his love of black men in a sexual context. But that's all I've seen him tweet with regards to race.

Edit: I'd quote Breitbart but I get the sense that's a source that you don't find credible. Not to mention the conflict of interest.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I really truly don't think that people are specifically voting for a lunatic like trump because of just Twitter. Maybe that happens. But I think people are mostly upset that they can't call people "n*****" without backlash. Or using the R word on this site without being banned for being an insensitive asshole. Or going on a rant about how they hate Asians then not getting hired for a job.

I think really they just want to say whatever racist bullshit they want without backlash. That's what they want. They want no one to challenge them on it. Like they had it back in the 1820s.

I think it cuts both ways.

You are right. Most of the people complaining about PC killing American simply want to be racists, sexists, and bigots without consequence. As you point out, they want to have the right to say whatever and be shielded from any backlash. A lot of Trump's support can be summarized as "peak white male entitlement," where a whole lot of white males are feeling anxious about their place in American society and feel what is owed to them will soon be in short supply.

At the same time, doctrinaire progressives have gone way too far in imposing their values. Remember when Black Lives Matter protesters got on stage at a Bernie Sanders rally and took the mic from him? Not too long ago, student protesters at Depaul shutdown a talk by Milo Yiannopoulos. While I dislike human hate machine Yiannopoulos quite a bit, and think he is a know-nothing hack, his right to speak should be respected so long as he is not making an appeal to violence. Interestingly enough, the Yiannopoulos incident has led DePaul to now deny Ben Shapiro from appearing on a panel discussion on campus. I always welcome protest, but so long as it is not making an appeal to violence it is best to let a person or persons expose themselves as a moron.

Overall, we are at this point where a whole lot of people want to impose themselves on everybody else. Trump supporters want to impose their authoritarianism on everybody, while some on the left want to impose their values on everybody as well. We are caught in the middle trying to make sense of it all.

I guess I see the latter more as isolated incidents rather than the norm and they turn out to be an unfortunate excuse to further the former... One side is screaming "too much PC is killing everything!" On a daily basis, where as on the other side you had to hand pick one or two examples....

The Khan speech would be fading memory a week later but Trump refused to let it go and now some of his supporters won't let it go keeping it in the news.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I think it cuts both ways.

You are right. Most of the people complaining about PC killing American simply want to be racists, sexists, and bigots without consequence. As you point out, they want to have the right to say whatever and be shielded from any backlash. A lot of Trump's support can be summarized as "peak white male entitlement," where a whole lot of white males are feeling anxious about their place in American society and feel what is owed to them will soon be in short supply.

At the same time, doctrinaire progressives have gone way too far in imposing their values. Remember when Black Lives Matter protesters got on stage at a Bernie Sanders rally and took the mic from him? Not too long ago, student protesters at Depaul shutdown a talk by Milo Yiannopoulos. While I dislike human hate machine Yiannopoulos quite a bit, and think he is a know-nothing hack, his right to speak should be respected so long as he is not making an appeal to violence. Interestingly enough, the Yiannopoulos incident has led DePaul to now deny Ben Shapiro from appearing on a panel discussion on campus. I always welcome protest, but so long as it is not making an appeal to violence it is best to let a person or persons expose themselves as a moron.

Overall, we are at this point where a whole lot of people want to impose themselves on everybody else. Trump supporters want to impose their authoritarianism on everybody, while some on the left want to impose their values on everybody as well. We are caught in the middle trying to make sense of it all.

I guess I see the latter more as isolated incidents rather than the norm and they turn out to be an unfortunate excuse to further the former... One side is screaming "too much PC is killing everything!" On a daily basis, where as on the other side you had to hand pick one or two examples....

I did not just handpick a couple of isolated incidents. I pulled three samples from a decent sized pool.

I know it from personal experience, Travis. While the "too much PC is killing everything" crowd often speaks in hyperbole and exaggerates their claims, I have also seen liberals become more militant and less tolerant of diverse viewpoints. The liberal intolerance is not as widespread as many claim, and it is not as pervasive on college campuses as they like to claim, but it is real and not something that can be reduced to a couple of isolated incidents.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I guess I see the latter more as isolated incidents rather than the norm and they turn out to be an unfortunate excuse to further the former... One side is screaming "too much PC is killing everything!" On a daily basis, where as on the other side you had to hand pick one or two examples....

I did not just handpick a couple of isolated incidents. I puledl three samples from a decent sized pool.

I know it from personal experience, Travis. While the "too much PC is killing everything" crowd often speaks in hyperbole and exaggerates their claims, I have also seen liberals become more militant and less tolerant of diverse viewpoints. The liberal intolerance is not as widespread as many claim, and it is not as pervasive on college campuses as they like to claim, but it is real and not something that can be reduced to a couple of isolated incidents.

Yeah, but you did handpick some incidents. That's literally what you did. See, I say "the anti pc crowd" and that's all I need to say. You felt the need to point to three specific incidents, also known as hand picking, to make your point.... thats exactly what I'm saying. "Oh I can't say the n word but this one time, three thousand miles away, someone just like me was silenced by evil Blm people so we need to be able to say the n word and they shouldn't be able to reply to my hatred!"

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I did not just handpick a couple of isolated incidents. I puledl three samples from a decent sized pool.

I know it from personal experience, Travis. While the "too much PC is killing everything" crowd often speaks in hyperbole and exaggerates their claims, I have also seen liberals become more militant and less tolerant of diverse viewpoints. The liberal intolerance is not as widespread as many claim, and it is not as pervasive on college campuses as they like to claim, but it is real and not something that can be reduced to a couple of isolated incidents.

Yeah, but you did handpick some incidents. That's literally what you did. See, I say "the anti pc crowd" and that's all I need to say. You felt the need to point to three specific incidents, also known as hand picking, to make your point.... thats exactly what I'm saying. "Oh I can't say the n word but this one time, three thousand miles away, someone just like me was silenced by evil Blm people so we need to be able to say the n word and they shouldn't be able to reply to my hatred!"

nm, I'm out.

So now providing examples - so we can add some context for our thoughts and provides points of reference- is off limits? If I would have left out the examples, we would be in agreement? Let me tell you how much sense that makes, Travis:

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Yeah, but you did handpick some incidents. That's literally what you did. See, I say "the anti pc crowd" and that's all I need to say. You felt the need to point to three specific incidents, also known as hand picking, to make your point.... thats exactly what I'm saying. "Oh I can't say the n word but this one time, three thousand miles away, someone just like me was silenced by evil Blm people so we need to be able to say the n word and they shouldn't be able to reply to my hatred!"

Travis, he could have just said "the PC crowd". He specified in order to give you examples of what he's describing from the other side.

He felt like he needed to do that.... What I'm saying is that one is a much much much more pervasive opinion than the other. He's hand picking random offshoots to make his point. I'm speaking about every single uneducated white male in the country and some of the educated white males as well.

Turtleneck wrote:So now providing examples - so we can add some context for our thoughts and provides points of reference- is off limits? If I would have left out the examples, we would be in agreement? Let me tell you how much sense that makes, Travis:

See my other post then apologize

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:So now providing examples - so we can add some context for our thoughts and provides points of reference- is off limits? If I would have left out the examples, we would be in agreement? Let me tell you how much sense that makes, Travis:

See my other post then apologize

I will not apologize for adding context to my post.

I see the point you are making...but you are doing a really shitty job of making the point. Maybe you can find somebody to fill in for you in this thread. Maybe call in a relief poster from your bullpen.

Or we could get back on topic and talk about how Trump supporters - who for nearly eight years have complained about Obama undermining the Constitution - now support a candidate who does not care about the Constitution.

Edit: I already said one is far less pervasive than we are led to believe, which means there is some overlap in our points, which means I do not know what you're arguing about.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

See my other post then apologize

I will not apologize for adding context to my post.

I see the point you are making...but you are doing a really shitty job of making the point. Maybe you can find somebody to fill in for you in this thread. Maybe call in a relief poster from your bullpen.

Or we could get back on topic and talk about how Trump supporters - who for nearly eight years have complained about Obama undermining the Constitution - now support a candidate who does not care about the Constitution.

Edit: I already said one is far less pervasive than we are led to believe, which means there is some overlap in out points, which means I do not know what you're arguing about.

I'm not really sure either and am sort of mailing in the posting tonight. I can keep arguing and pulling random points out of my ass if you want to though. I'm tired turtleneck. It's been a long week.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Travis, he could have just said "the PC crowd". He specified in order to give you examples of what he's describing from the other side.

He felt like he needed to do that.... What I'm saying is that one is a much much much more pervasive opinion than the other. He's hand picking random offshoots to make his point. I'm speaking about every single uneducated white male in the country and some of the educated white males as well.

Okay.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I will not apologize for adding context to my post.

I see the point you are making...but you are doing a really shitty job of making the point. Maybe you can find somebody to fill in for you in this thread. Maybe call in a relief poster from your bullpen.

Or we could get back on topic and talk about how Trump supporters - who for nearly eight years have complained about Obama undermining the Constitution - now support a candidate who does not care about the Constitution.

Edit: I already said one is far less pervasive than we are led to believe, which means there is some overlap in out points, which means I do not know what you're arguing about.

I'm not really sure either and am sort of mailing in the posting tonight. I can keep arguing and pulling random points out of my ass if you want to though. I'm tired turtleneck. It's been a long week.

I had more time for posting today. You can have your board back tomorrow.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I'm not really sure either and am sort of mailing in the posting tonight. I can keep arguing and pulling random points out of my ass if you want to though. I'm tired turtleneck. It's been a long week.

I had more time for posting today. You can have your board back tomorrow.

It's your board more the mine turtleneck :)

This thread is a bit off the rails. Tighten it up fellas.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:This thread is a bit off the rails. Tighten it up fellas.

As long as Trump doesn't win we know the Constitution will remain intact under Hillary like it has under Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton and so on and so forth.

/thread

xsanguine wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:This thread is a bit off the rails. Tighten it up fellas.

As long as Trump doesn't win we know the Constitution will remain intact under Hillary like it has under Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton and so on and so forth.

/thread

Not the point. The point is that for eight years, many of Trump's supporters have been complaining about Obama running the Constitution through a shredder in the Oval Office. For eight years, many of Trump's supporters played the role of ardent defenders of the Constitution and blasted everything the Obama administration did as horrible big government social engineering. Now they have turned their back on the Constitution. Now they embrace a big government candidate who could not care less about limitations on government authority. Why? Probably because it was all bullshit to begin with. So again, you're missing the point.

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

As long as Trump doesn't win we know the Constitution will remain intact under Hillary like it has under Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton and so on and so forth.

/thread

Not the point. The point is that for eight years, many of Trump's supporters have been complaining about Obama running the Constitution through a shredder in the Oval Office. For eight years, many of Trump's supporters played the role of ardent defenders of the Constitution and blasted everything the Obama administration did as horrible big government social engineering. Now they have turned their back on the Constitution. Now they embrace a big government candidate who could not care less about limitations on government authority. Why? Probably because it was all bullshit to begin with. So again, you're missing the point.

Isn't that how this always works, though?

People that were complaining about bombing the middle east to europa and back no longer gave a shit once the guy from their team was in.

That's the point I'm getting out of all of this; Everyone is a hypocrite.

I tell you what. I'll take ya up on your previous advice and leave you be from now on.

xsanguine wrote:I tell you what. I'll take ya up on your previous advice and leave you be from now on.

You're all good.

And you're right. It's all just rhetoric. But the last eight years of "he is killing the Constitution" has been especially fiery. It's also odd given that the subject matter is the Constitution, which is something people tend to be more attached and serious about.

I just don't take it seriously. They're both going to say whatever they think will get people to vote for them. After that, same politics, same bombs, same bullshit.

How do we get Americans to care about the Constitution again? Because I don't see anything changing until we get a smarter electorate... and I don't see that happening any time soon.

At least that's my excuse for not wasting my time on it (voting) anymore. As cool as Gary J and Ms. Stein seem, they ain't sniffing anything but a little more exposure for their own pet projects after the pro teams finish game 7.

The voters obviously don't care. So why would the people they're voting on care?

I realized long ago, as you like to point out every chance you get, I'm not the smartest guy in the room. I've been accused of arguing like that by many posters here before but I realize it more than anyone and I'm not insecure about it at all.
I engage to learn. I discovered long ago I can't learn from reading books and sifting through the writings of people far more intelligent than my genes would ever allow me to be. I'm just some lower middle class kid from a shit hole of a town that got lucky and made a bunch of money because I was good at plucking steel wires on a slab of wood and have a knack for making the right friends. I'm not naive about my intellectual shortcomings. But I'm smart enough to know that I don't know shit. I'm just doing it the only way I've ever known how to learn anything and that's by jumping in head first and figure it out by falling on my ass A LOT. I learn by speech; lectures, debates, discussions, etc. By watching smart people debate a complex topic. Probably why I come off as argumentative because that's how I've had to participate in order to learn things I want to learn.
So when I come into a thread and start tossing an opinion around, I'm not doing it because I think I'm some sage with ideas never thought about before or that I'm going to teach you or anyone else anything. It's my way of learning from people I know have an edge on me by putting whatever idea I may be thinking out there that sounds good to me in theory and seeing what those people who I already know are smarter than me have to say about it. Rinse, wash, and come back to try again with a twist.
I'm sarcastic and my contradictory ideas can be annoying to people that have a better grasp on these concepts than I ever will. Your average voter won't even go that far. They're just going to vote the way they were told to by their tribe. I'm not the enemy.
I'm just trying to figure this world out like everyone else.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I really truly don't think that people are specifically voting for a lunatic like trump because of just Twitter. Maybe that happens. But I think people are mostly upset that they can't call people "n*****" without backlash. Or using the R word on this site without being banned for being an insensitive asshole. Or going on a rant about how they hate Asians then not getting hired for a job.

I think really they just want to say whatever racist bullshit they want without backlash. That's what they want. They want no one to challenge them on it. Like they had it back in the 1820s.

You read too much left wing propaganda. Good lord.

The_Dude wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I really truly don't think that people are specifically voting for a lunatic like trump because of just Twitter. Maybe that happens. But I think people are mostly upset that they can't call people "n*****" without backlash. Or using the R word on this site without being banned for being an insensitive asshole. Or going on a rant about how they hate Asians then not getting hired for a job.

I think really they just want to say whatever racist bullshit they want without backlash. That's what they want. They want no one to challenge them on it. Like they had it back in the 1820s.

You read too much left wing propaganda. Good lord.

Isn't rush on right now? Aren't you busy? Or is it a commercial break?

I don't know.. banning an entire religion from the country doesn't really seem unconstitutional..

The_Dude wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I really truly don't think that people are specifically voting for a lunatic like trump because of just Twitter. Maybe that happens. But I think people are mostly upset that they can't call people "n*****" without backlash. Or using the R word on this site without being banned for being an insensitive asshole. Or going on a rant about how they hate Asians then not getting hired for a job.

I think really they just want to say whatever racist bullshit they want without backlash. That's what they want. They want no one to challenge them on it. Like they had it back in the 1820s.

You read too much left wing propaganda. Good lord.

Solid defense of Trump from the guy best known for plagiarizing the thoughts of others on an Internet message board.