Why the left hates Trump so intensely

[Lash444]

The "left" hates President Trump because they hate anyone that disagrees with them and despise anyone they can't bully or intimidate. The new "left" in America are the biggest bunch of authoritarian fascists that this country has ever had to endure.

You really do sound like a Russian plant.

Reminds me of the pump and dump crew on the yahoo stock message boards.





Sent from my LG-VS980 using Tapatalk

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

The "left" hates President Trump because they hate anyone that disagrees with them and despise anyone they can't bully or intimidate. The new "left" in America are the biggest bunch of authoritarian fascists that this country has ever had to endure.

EL FUCKING OH EL
remind me again who wants to regulate a woman's body... or ban a religious group from entering the country, or restrict the press's access... I'll wait..

 

[agent00f]

you and roflmouth should pen a book, well maybe a short story, ok, maybe a haiku...

With the white powers of black genocide + muslim genocide combined, american conservatives won't be able to resist temptation (or at least seemingly obligatory draft) of the ethnofacism defense force.

EL FUCKING OH EL
remind me again who wants to regulate a woman's body... or ban a religious group from entering the country, or restrict the press's access... I'll wait..

The standard defense mechanism of that crowd is to hunt down the Real(tm) versions of what they are. The Real racists, the Real haters, the Real tards, and now the Real fascists.

Speaking of fascism, while this may be a new phenomenon to the US, it certainly has some precedent. See if these quotes from history ring any bells:

On fake news:

In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and nothing was true. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness."

Fill in the blank:

"At the outset they have chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease they feel as a result. How futile and frivolous discussions appear to them. If out of courtesy they consent for a moment to defend their point of view, they lend themselves but do not give themselves. They try simply to project their intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse.
Never believe that ______ are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The ____ have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors.
They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. If then, as we have been able to observe, the ____ is impervious to reason and to experience, it is not because his conviction is strong. Rather his conviction is strong because he has chosen first of all to be impervious."

I'm sure chucky/londo and co will come up with some cogent arguments as to why ____ = leftards, the Real losing side of history.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

He we have a member accusing someone of using a term they have never used. Then again angry people do this all the time. What a shame they must act this way to impress their friends in an attempt to be part of the clique.

 

[interchange]

The standard defense mechanism of that crowd is to hunt down the Real(tm) versions of what they are. The Real racists, the Real haters, the Real tards, and now the Real fascists.

Speaking of fascism, while this may be a new phenomenon to the US, it certainly has some precedent. See if these quotes from history ring any bells:

Any particular idealization/devaluation can only last for so long. On the one hand, this makes me certain that it will all come crashing down. On the other hand, history as you pointed out doesn't protect the world from the horrors that become possible under such a regime. To what degree do you think our founding fathers' checks and balances will mitigate things?

But I do think there is a problem here. Just because the right (exemplified by an outsider no less) is the ones heading this regime, it does not make this phenomenon inherent to nor a product of the party's philosophy itself. Should we not direct our attention toward the badness without assenting to causation when we only see correlation? After all, this very cognitive error has been a major player in supporting the idealization/devaluation in the first place.

 

[agent00f]

He we have a member accusing someone of using a term they have never used. Then again angry people do this all the time. What a shame they must act this way to impress their friends in an attempt to be part of the clique.

Keep in mind this is how the aggro high-T crowd impress their peers:

Oh Fail...lol...

LMAO!!!! You're suffering from massive butthurt syndrome.

Think sp33dy and these best efforts to emulate him.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

EL FUCKING OH EL
remind me again who wants to regulate a woman's body... or ban a religious group from entering the country, or restrict the press's access... I'll wait..

Remind me who shuts down free speech at colleges and Universities? Remind me who wants to kill viable babies at 9 months? Remind me who allows illegal and criminal entries into the United States and gives them drivers licences? I hope you wait, hold your breath.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Remind me who shuts down free speech at colleges and Universities? Remind me who wants to kill viable babies at 9 months? Remind me who allows illegal and criminal entries into the United States and gives them drivers licences? I hope you wait, hold your breath.

you first, big boy

 

[agent00f]

Any particular idealization/devaluation can only last for so long. On the one hand, this makes me certain that it will all come crashing down. On the other hand, history as you pointed out doesn't protect the world from the horrors that become possible under such a regime. To what degree do you think our founding fathers' checks and balances will mitigate things?

I think for the most part the republic will survive though diminished and set back some number of years. Not a great fan of Hegelian history as a "theory", but there's something to be said about the resulting expectation of progress that influential idea has rooted in the west. Most of us just prefer to make that progress within our limited lifespan instead of hopes passed onto future generations.

I wouldn't put it past Trump & loyalists to attempt some kind of dictatorial takeover, but the popular support for such isn't there yet so chance of success fortunately low. The real risk is in building up a new handout regime equal to the military in pursuit of the southern rust belt strategy, which could cement conservative control of the legislative for the foreseeable future.

But I do think there is a problem here. Just because the right (exemplified by an outsider no less) is the ones heading this regime, it does not make this phenomenon inherent to nor a product of the party's philosophy itself. Should we not direct our attention toward the badness without assenting to causation when we only see correlation? After all, this very cognitive error has been a major player in supporting the idealization/devaluation in the first place.

First, Trump or specifically his message isn't really an outsider to the ideology, ethnofascism is nothing new to the right. I've also mentioned before that conservatism/traditionalism naturally fits with certain strategies/methods/processes, particularly those employing authoritarian loyalty above all, a la party before country, race before society/ethics, trump before jesus, etc. Granted right wing movements aren't the only ones who've ever used similar processes (though those also had an audience of similar types), but it's pretty obvious even from the archetypes above that certain people are particularly prone and it comes as no surprise that susceptibility correlates with level of conservatism.

 

[Starbuck1975]

EL FUCKING OH EL
remind me again who wants to regulate a woman's body... or ban a religious group from entering the country, or restrict the press's access... I'll wait..

Except none of those things are happening. The right uses simple sound bytes to rally its base and Trump took that to an extreme.

As the reality of a Trump presidency is starting to take shape, you are starting to see a more moderate tone emerge.

I think the far right will end up despising Trump and end up more disappointed than the middle or left.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Looks like someone is angry and still massively butthurt. Most likely will last 4 or more years.

 

[ivwshane]

Except none of those things are happening. The right uses simple sound bytes to rally its base and Trump took that to an extreme.

As the reality of a Trump presidency is starting to take shape, you are starting to see a more moderate tone emerge.

I think the far right will end up despising Trump and end up more disappointed than the middle or left.

Good god you are willfully blind!

The Gop at the state level most certainly has been pushing for more restrictions on women and they most certainly support a businesses right to tell employees (specially women) how they can use their health care. Some have been successful and some have not.

Sure no one right now is trying to ban people of a certain religion from entering the country but the man who was just elected president certainly made that one of his things to do.

Restrict press access? Sure, maybe not but he's doing much worse. Delegitimizing the press, demonizing anyone that reports unfriendly things about him, and him openly stating he wants to strengthen libel laws are all causes of concern.

But hey! Don't worry about that, you just keep your eye on the ball, those evil progressives, that you seem to be unable to name.

 

[Ranulf]

nd they most certainly support a businesses right to tell employees (specially women) how they can use their health care. Some have been successful and some have not.

This argument means nothing as long as the Federal government controls healthcare and healthcare insurance. They own your body from cradle to grave in that system. They are already telling people what to do with their bodies. I'll take the feminist argument over "her body, her choice" seriously the day they stop demanding everyone pay for their abortions or birth control let alone "obamacare".

 

[interchange]

Not a great fan of Hegelian history as a "theory", but there's something to be said about the resulting expectation of progress that influential idea has rooted in the west.

I was really thinking of the psychological construct of idealization/devaluation, although from what I can tell the concept related to Hegel's ideas if it were applied to a society instead of individually, but I know very little to comment further.

but it's pretty obvious even from the archetypes above that certain people are particularly prone and it comes as no surprise that susceptibility correlates with level of conservatism.

I agree in general concept, but speaking more to the last line, how is this not the same slippery slope as categorically discriminating against Muslims for their likelihood of terrorist association, etc.? One should not be punished for their susceptibilities. More importantly, that susceptibility does not invalidate Islam, and neither does that susceptibility invalidate conservatism. I would agree that it invalidates the Republican party as it stands, but this invalidation is on basis of the actions of its leaders and nothing more. I do think it is important to be explicit in this.

 

[agent00f]

Except none of those things are happening. The right uses simple sound bytes to rally its base and Trump took that to an extreme.

As the reality of a Trump presidency is starting to take shape, you are starting to see a more moderate tone emerge.

I think the far right will end up despising Trump and end up more disappointed than the middle or left.

Why would anyone think so when they're already making excuses for why he won't need to fulfilled any concrete promises, like the wall at the core of his campaign for starters.

Looks like someone is angry and still massively butthurt. Most likely will last 4 or more years.

At first I thought that if it's shown the klan+ lot concurred with your & peers on just about everything, the embarrassment might have some positive effect, but then I remembered people this simple likely don't possess such a faculty.

 

[MrPickins]

Looks like someone is angry and still massively butthurt. Most likely will last 4 or more years.

This continually trolling is really starting to make you look bad.

I used to have some respect for you and consider you to be a fellow independent, but now I'm not so sure.

 

[Paratus]

Remind me who shuts down free speech at colleges and Universities? Remind me who wants to kill viable babies at 9 months? Remind me who allows illegal and criminal entries into the United States and gives them drivers licences? I hope you wait, hold your breath.

Who kills babies?
I'll go with Texas religious conservative lawmakers.

Survey Says!
https://www.google.com/amp/www.chro...a-country-where-would-it-rank-for-9185016.php

Between 2011-2014, the Texas infant mortality rate increased by roughly 2 percent each year. Even more worrying is the infant mortality among back infants, which show a rate two times higher than that of white and Hispanic babies....

...While the study gives no clear answer as to why, speculation points to the 82 clinics that closed after the Texas Legislature cut funding to family planning clinics by two-thirds.

 

[agent00f]

I was really thinking of the psychological construct of idealization/devaluation, although from what I can tell the concept related to Hegel's ideas if it were applied to a society instead of individually, but I know very little to comment further.

I agree in general concept, but speaking more to the last line, how is this not the same slippery slope as categorically discriminating against Muslims for their likelihood of terrorist association, etc.? One should not be punished for their susceptibilities. More importantly, that susceptibility does not invalidate Islam, and neither does that susceptibility invalidate conservatism. I would agree that it invalidates the Republican party as it stands, but this invalidation is on basis of the actions of its leaders and nothing more. I do think it is important to be explicit in this.

To understand this situation in perspective, the chucky/rolfmouth/anonymouse/etc sorts are basically the white counterpart of ISIS except more extreme in terms of violence. That lot have relative widespread support for their ideas to kill lower class browns, starting with the political expendable foreign sort. This isn't mere supposition but actually happening in large numbers. By "support" here I mean the spectrum of peers from willing to speak up for them to looking the other way, generally the same spectrum as in previous ethofascist states & such, including our own. To summarize, this isn't just condemning susceptibility but the realized behavior we see daily, same as we might condemn ISIS.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Who kills babies?

"While the study gives no clear answer as to why, speculation ............"

 

[interchange]

To understand this situation in perspective, the chucky/rolfmouth/anonymouse/etc sorts are basically the white counterpart of ISIS except more extreme in terms of violence. That lot have relative widespread support for their ideas to kill lower class browns, starting with the political expendable foreign sort. This isn't mere supposition but actually happening in large numbers. By "support" here I mean the spectrum of peers from willing to speak up for them to looking the other way, generally the same spectrum as in previous ethofascist states & such, including our own. To summarize, this isn't just condemning susceptibility but the realized behavior we see daily, same as we might condemn ISIS.

So do you condemn all citizens who have a Republican party affiliation?

And, to extend my analogy, would you also consider Muslim leaders and Muslims supporting radical Islamic terrorism because of "spectrum of peers from willing to speak up for them to looking the other way"?

 

[agent00f]

So do you condemn all citizens who have a Republican party affiliation?

Seems pretty obvious the proportion who put party above, well, anything. You would think in the kind of situation above, they'd conveniently toss chucky under the bus to save themselves, but seems the instinct is to jump in front of it to prove their loyalty.

And, to extend my analogy, would you also consider Muslim leaders and Muslims supporting radical Islamic terrorism because of "spectrum of peers from willing to speak up for them to looking the other way"?

Sure why not, but keep in mind they didn't exactly start this and if anything tend to be in a less advantageous position than even the descendants of slaves.

 

[MajinCry]

Keep in mind this is how the aggro high-T crowd impress their peers:

Think sp33dy and these best efforts to emulate him.

Whatever happened to that roided up high schooler? He was all over the forum ages ago. Did he confuse which side of the wall America would be on?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

This continually trolling is really starting to make you look bad.

I used to have some respect for you and consider you to be a fellow independent, but now I'm not so sure.

I appreciate that you considered me a fellow independent/moderate. A certain member likes to troll and pigeon hole people so I decided that the best way to deal with the person was to irritate and anger them. I will back off.

 

[Jhhnn]

But I do think there is a problem here. Just because the right (exemplified by an outsider no less) is the ones heading this regime, it does not make this phenomenon inherent to nor a product of the party's philosophy itself. Should we not direct our attention toward the badness without assenting to causation when we only see correlation? After all, this very cognitive error has been a major player in supporting the idealization/devaluation in the first place.

Wut? Of course it's a product of Repub ideology. There's even a name for it- Right Wing Authoritarianism. It's not unique to the Right but that's where it lives.

 

[MrPickins]

I appreciate that you considered me a fellow independent/moderate. A certain member likes to troll and pigeon hole people so I decided that the best way to deal with the person was to irritate and anger them. I will back off.

Yeah, I meant "moderate" when I wrote "independent". Also, it was not at all clear to me that you were trolling anyone in particular; it seemed as though you were just trolling liberals en masse. In either case, the shitck is just painting you as a partisan (whether true or not).

Thanks for being reasonable.