Donald Trump is moving to the White House and Liberals put him there.

originally posted by: rickymouse
His wife will look very good in the White House. The color will look good on her.

I've never liked her, Never thought she was pretty.

And that's from way back when they first got married.

a reply to: Annee

Who cares.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: TechniXcality

Tech,

You served who, exactly, in war? The people?

No. I am afraid not. You served globalist agendas way above the pay grade of your commanding officers commanding officer, some of them above the pay grade of the presidents you served under. You believed in what you were doing while you were doing it no doubt, but can you say with hindsight in mind, that what you did served your nations people?

And further, you are simply wrong to lump all SJW together. There are social justice warriors out there advocating for your right to bear arms. There are social justice warriors out there advocating for your right to have and voice opinions which are not popular. There are social justice warriors insisting on maintaining all manner of rights that you have under the constitution, but you do not call them social justice warriors, because for some reason, you fail to identify them as such.

And no, nihilist persons do not generally get motivated to change what is around them to suit their agenda, because nhilism is a total lack of an agenda, which is patently obvious if you look into nhilism as a way of life. I know plenty of nhilists, and not a one of them gives a brass plated damn for politics of any sort, left or right, capitalist or communist.

Sorry to interject into this discussion but I found it interesting.

You seem to criticize Tech definition of social justice warriors which is fine. Labels are always difficult. But it seems in the context of this thread Tech is discussing the regressive people that seek to stifle all free speech and deem everyone who disagrees with them as evil bigots. This wide spread mindest has partially driven people to put Trump in the white house.

You say social justice warriors are what this country has fought for, I disagree. One of the most important rights in this country is the right to free speech. SJW's or whatever you want to call them, the group of people that seek to stifle all discussion that disagrees with their far left agenda are exactly the type of demgogues this country sought to escape from.

You want to discuss trans rights, thats fine by me. But to call anyone who disagrees with you a bigot and seek to shut down their speech, that is not what this country is about. Just look at campuses all across this country,; safe spaces, conservatives speakers shut down, etc. Look at how many people criticized anyone who disagreed with Obama as a racist. Look at how they said if you voted for Trump you were a bigot.

This is the mindset that has angered so many people, and drove them to Trump.

You criticize Tech for lumping SJW's together, yet you lump him and all soldiers together and "globalists" together saying he was unwittingly fighting for their agenda. Well many of those globalists, such as George Soros, are the ones behind the finacing of these SJW's that seek to divide us all and stifle free speech.

So maybe you are as guilty of fighting for a "globalists" agenda by attacking Tech for his stance on SJW's as you claim he is for joining the military.

a reply to: TechniXcality

Tech,

Hey great to see your doing better, and it seems a very
good day to thank you for your service to our country.

You have my gratitude!

originally posted by: Grambler

Sorry to interject into this discussion but I found it interesting.

You seem to criticize Tech definition of social justice warriors which is fine. Labels are always difficult. But it seems in the context of this thread Tech is discussing the regressive people that seek to stifle all free speech and deem everyone who disagrees with them as evil bigots. This wide spread mindest has partially driven people to put Trump in the white house.

I find it interesting that you use the term regressive. Regression is defined generally speaking, as taking steps back, retreating from an advanced position. Examples include throwing away a smartphone and picking up a 1930s, wall mounted, two piece setup instead, or selecting a musket rather than a modern, magazine fed rifle for preference. I would agree with you that there are certainly groups who use unethical tactics to make their modern, advanced, and future friendly points. But I would not agree with you that their use of those tactics makes them regressive. The positions one adopts and supports, dictate whether a person or group is regressive, and whatever else might be said about the groups he refers to, they are far from regressive.

You say social justice warriors are what this country has fought for, I disagree.

No, I did not say that. What I said was, that social justice warriors fought for the nation, and without them there would be no nation known as the United States of America. The founders of the country, the framers of its constitution were most certainly fighting for increased social justice and a fair shake for their countrymen, and they also told everyone who did not want any freedom, to essentially sod off. They put it more politely, but the message was clear.

One of the most important rights in this country is the right to free speech. SJW's or whatever you want to call them, the group of people that seek to stifle all discussion that disagrees with their far left agenda are exactly the type of demgogues this country sought to escape from.

I am pretty sure the first settlers did not leave the UK, because they were upset that to few homosexuals were being hung, or oppressed. That would have been very much written down in bald terms if it had been the case, since the period in which the exodus occurred was not genteel enough to sugar coat such a thing. It certainly was not progress to which the settlers were objecting, if I recall my history correctly.

You want to discuss trans rights, thats fine by me. But to call anyone who disagrees with you a bigot and seek to shut down their speech, that is not what this country is about. Just look at campuses all across this country,; safe spaces, conservatives speakers shut down, etc. Look at how many people criticized anyone who disagreed with Obama as a racist. Look at how they said if you voted for Trump you were a bigot.

This is the mindset that has angered so many people, and drove them to Trump.

And I am sure all that would be valid, if the majority of people who have any opinion on the matter at all, were actually saying that. But of course, they aren't. The ones that get media attention are, but of course, that is all that matters.

You criticize Tech for lumping SJW's together, yet you lump him and all soldiers together and "globalists" together saying he was unwittingly fighting for their agenda. Well many of those globalists, such as George Soros, are the ones behind the finacing of these SJW's that seek to divide us all and stifle free speech.

So maybe you are as guilty of fighting for a "globalists" agenda by attacking Tech for his stance on SJW's as you claim he is for joining the military.

I did not lump Tech together with his comrades at arms. His commanding officers, his uniform, and the fact that he went to war along with all the others, is what lumps him together with other soldiers. And to be realistic here, he did go to war. He did serve in the military. I did not do that to him, I did not invent that. He did it. And it is also a fact that the wars he would have been fighting, are wars against proxy armies purchased and controlled by western powers as tools to create fear in western homes, and destabilise the Middle East into the bargain. He lumped himself in with that, no one else.

And as for SJW getting sponsored by George Soros... Who? Anita Sarkeesian? That sort of lummox? Who the hell cares? No one pays attention to her or her kind, except to laugh at them! Get real! Look, social justice warriors who do good work do not get on the television, do not get paid to do it, and they do not want to take people's rights away. They just want people's rights to stop at the point where they infringe upon someone else's, which is actually how it was always supposed to run in the first place!

a reply to: TrueBrit

The point of a Republican using a word isn't to imply it's actual definition. It's to imply the most common thought associated with the word. This while lacking clarity itself, is redundant through most of their arguments.

Basically the idea of SJW being 'regressive' is that they are 'worse' or 'bigger meanies'(This is actually why the over-needed word "Warrior" is used. It's satire in origin.) in their attempts to express their opinions, and thus disqualifying. Who cares about breaking their message down for them and examine it? He called me a Biggot! He's a know-nothing idiot!

The content actually being progressive or not isn't going to change this massive colloquial misrepresentation. If it's "Left" it's "Regressive" to the majority extent of it's 'logic'. That's all there is to it, no actual facts.

a reply to: imjack

I am sure that there are Republican voters out there who not only know the thesaurus inside out, but use it correctly as well. However, in this case, you may be somewhat close to the mark.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: imjack

I am sure that there are Republican voters out there who not only know the thesaurus inside out, but use it correctly as well. However, in this case, you may be somewhat close to the mark.

I'll just cover my ass the same way and throw "mostly alt-right" out there as a knee jerk visual blanket statement with the exact same strategy his argument incorporates.


The point of calling someone a SJW isn't to attack the merit of the argument EVER. It's to discredit the speaker. A useless accusation that's beyond defending with no reasonable outcome, because even if you're guilty, it's for caring 'too much'.

originally posted by: DAVID64
The whining and crying that Liberals are doing now, is the very reason Trump won. We were sick of hearing that if you didn't bow to the "Cause of the Day" crowd, you are a racist, bigot.....well, you know them all. Liberals thought that they could bully and shame their way in to power and they just found out how wrong they were.

That is a yyyuuuge part of it, But I wanted someone to bring jobs back for the most part.

Nine years ago the first time in my life I was called a racist for not liking Obama or his acquaintances and policies,was the moment I knew he would be bad for America,

and BTW drain the swamp, and VOTI

a reply to: rexsblues

" But let’s not deceive ourselves. We aren’t going to win anything. What happened on Tuesday is a disaster, both for liberalism and for the world. As President Trump goes about settling scores with his former rivals, picking fights with other countries, and unleashing his special deportation police on this group and that, we will all soon have cause to regret his ascension to the presidential throne. "


That is Complete Rubbish . President Trump ran a Campaign of
" Inclusion " , Not one of the Separation of Political Idealogies .
Liberals are Welcome to take Part in this New Revolution ,but
they Will no Longer Dictate their Beliefs through the Power of
the Presidency for the Next 4 Years .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Inclusion?

My hairy arse!

He gave hell to a military family who happened to be Muslim, and whose son died fighting in an American uniform, suggested fascistic measures for dealing with Muslims, suggested Mexican immigrants were in the main rapists and drug dealers, and wants to build a wall to prevent him from having to include anyone else, all of which means that your argument in his defence is void on that front.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You can think that if you want . The Rhetoric of a Political Campaign is one thing , the Reality of a Presidency is another . Making America First means All Americans , and Inclusion is a Big Part of that .






The Scientific Basis Of Optimism Is Consistent With Human Belief

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Do not mess me about Zanti Misfit.

You said he ran a campaign of inclusion, and you are absolutely, one hundred percent wrong. His campaign was not one of inclusion, but of intolerance, hatred and division, and that is ALL it was. Now, you can accept that, or you can be talking out of your rectum about it, but there is no middle ground.

The truth has no sides, it is a single spear, driven through the heart of nonsense, and on this point, you are on the wrong end of it.

a reply to: TrueBrit

That's Your Opinion , and I can Respect that . Thank God you don't Live in America , eh ?

Cheers...