Why the left hates Trump so intensely

[agent00f]

It's a fact of life that going up the intellect scale the ratio of conservatism drops off a cliff. I mean christ, even the smartest business folks tend to be liberal. Trust fund types and wannabes not so much, and no great mystery why.

 

[werepossum]

I'm sure you'll be cheering as more & more Americans are put in that very position so that the richest people in the solar system can have even more.

We have President Trump specifically because more and more Americans are being put in that position.

 

[SNC]

i tell you what i did with the real Frankie; real Frankie assisted to the Trump to be elected and now is the President of this great country,now is time to work to make America Great Again and leave aside this political crappy fight between Democrats and Republicans that do not lid to nowhere,so we all should give hands and work in behalf of American people,hope democrats follow this thought and not to continue these riots that do not lid nowhere,because there's nothing you can do to revert the political situation for the next 4 years.

Is this a new mindset or have you always advocated for the peaceful transition of power and the coming together of parties after an election?

 

[Brainonska511]

That's your lie Vic, it's not conservatives trying and succeeding in violently shutting down free speech on college campuses, it's authoritarian lefties just like you.

You act like the left has some sort of monopoly on speech suppression; you're wrong. The right has its own version of speech suppression, they just wrap it up in the flag to hide their intent. You even see it here with some of the nincompoop posts from Frankieboy and the latest clown, vampiredoucheface. But I'm sure you'll conveniently ignore any contrary information because having an honest discussion goes against you're constant troll routine.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...-its-just-as-stifling/?utm_term=.d64326efe253

 

[Jhhnn]

We have President Trump specifically because more and more Americans are being put in that position.

I've often compared it to battered spouse syndrome.

 

[xthetenth]

That's your lie Vic, it's not conservatives trying and succeeding in violently shutting down free speech on college campuses, it's authoritarian lefties just like you.

I'm sorry, what's that?

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article128185274.html

Oh, it's just the sound of a Republican state senator proposing legislation to silence protestors by hitting them with five year prison sentences. Nothing major, just trying to use the apparatus of state to silence dissent. Perfectly normal conservative thought.

Also, why are you demanding that colleges promote political speech in bad faith? Do you think that just because someone agrees with your ideology colleges should be forced to give them a platform to speak with the tacit approval of the university? Should colleges be forced to give straight up Maoists a platform to speak with the tacit approval of the university? Or does the university have a responsibility to bring in speakers whose discussion will contribute to the intellectual development of the students rather than give conservatives intellectual affirmative action?

 

[jayzds]

I'm sorry, what's that?

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article128185274.html

Oh, it's just the sound of a Republican state senator proposing legislation to silence protestors by hitting them with five year prison sentences. Nothing major, just trying to use the apparatus of state to silence dissent. Perfectly normal conservative thought.

Also, why are you demanding that colleges promote political speech in bad faith? Do you think that just because someone agrees with your ideology colleges should be forced to give them a platform to speak with the tacit approval of the university? Should colleges be forced to give straight up Maoists a platform to speak with the tacit approval of the university? Or does the university have a responsibility to bring in speakers whose discussion will contribute to the intellectual development of the students rather than give conservatives intellectual affirmative action?

The article states that this is about making it a crime for those who want to threaten, intimidate, retaliate, etc...that is not protesting. Anyone who is trashing a businesses, vehicles and assaulting people with bricks/weapons deserve to be arrested. If it was just for peaceful protesting, then I would have problem with any law prohibiting that.

 

[Brainonska511]

I'm sorry, what's that?

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article128185274.html

Oh, it's just the sound of a Republican state senator proposing legislation to silence protestors by hitting them with five year prison sentences. Nothing major, just trying to use the apparatus of state to silence dissent. Perfectly normal conservative thought.

Also, why are you demanding that colleges promote political speech in bad faith? Do you think that just because someone agrees with your ideology colleges should be forced to give them a platform to speak with the tacit approval of the university? Should colleges be forced to give straight up Maoists a platform to speak with the tacit approval of the university? Or does the university have a responsibility to bring in speakers whose discussion will contribute to the intellectual development of the students rather than give conservatives intellectual affirmative action?

Or how about conservative lawmakers in Wisconsin that want to interfere in what classes can be offered?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...wisconsin-whiteness-class-20161228-story.html

 

[Brainonska511]

The article states that this is about making it a crime for those who want to threaten, intimidate, retaliate, etc...that is not protesting. Anyone who is trashing a businesses, vehicles and assaulting people with bricks/weapons deserve to be arrested. If it was just for peaceful protesting, then I would have problem with any law prohibiting that.

Those things are already illegal. Why do you need an ambiguous law to specifically protect state officials from a protest?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I'm sorry, what's that?

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article128185274.html

Oh, it's just the sound of a Republican state senator proposing legislation to silence protestors by hitting them with five year prison sentences. Nothing major, just trying to use the apparatus of state to silence dissent. Perfectly normal conservative thought.

Also, why are you demanding that colleges promote political speech in bad faith? Do you think that just because someone agrees with your ideology colleges should be forced to give them a platform to speak with the tacit approval of the university? Should colleges be forced to give straight up Maoists a platform to speak with the tacit approval of the university? Or does the university have a responsibility to bring in speakers whose discussion will contribute to the intellectual development of the students rather than give conservatives intellectual affirmative action?

From your article
" “make it a crime to threaten, intimidate, or retaliate .........."
Yeah.

 

[ivwshane]

Did they call this the safe space bill? Or was it called snowflake preservation enforcement act?

 

[disappoint]

It's not Trump, it's the loss of control.

A lot of the left, especially those with emotional filter-less outbursts like that of Sportage's rants following the election results were the result of poor training.

Imagine if you will a child walking through a mall with their mom. The child spots an ice cream shop and upon remembering how yummy ice cream tastes tugs on their mother's pantsuit and says "Ooo I want ice cream." The mother tells the child no, you can't have ice cream right now because we're having dinner in an hour and it will spoil your appetite. You can have ice cream after dinner.

But the child really wants ice cream, and he wants it now, he doesn't want to wait. So he raises his voice and exclaims "But I want ice cream now!"

The mother reiterates that he can't have that right now. The child throws a temper tantrum and creates a scene screaming at the top of his lungs to get his way. The mother notices people are starting to stare wondering what is going on and she feels embarrassed at her child's inappropriate behavior.

So she gives in and takes the child to get an ice cream cone to stop the temper tantrum and lo and behold of course it works. The child is happy because he got what he wanted, and the mother is happy because the child is behaving now and she no longer is embarrassed now that he is behaving. At least for the time being.

This is a critical mistake.

When you give in to such bad behavior with a reward of giving the child what they want they get the message that throwing a temper tantrum will cause them to get their way every time they want something they can't have.

Often this is subconscious. Go ahead and ask Sportage why he had an emotional breakdown and see if he can tell you. More often than not the answer will be some form of "I don't know nor care, (notice now he changes the subject now) but don't you see how this election's outcome is the worst thing ever because...xyz... and world war III and..!@#$$% rant mode on...#$%@!.. you idiot you're trying to distract us from the real problem this is a disaster of global proportions the end of the world is coming don't you see? How can you be so naive and believe everything that orange monster tells you #$%@ you are so f^&^ing gullible...$%^#$%^!!!..."

More ranting ensues to everyone's dismay or enjoyment.

He has literally been trained to act this way when emotional basketcase behavior was likely reinforced in early childhood by parents, guardians, teachers, friends, and/or family.

I could go into how people influence each other in other ways to exhibit bad behavior but that's enough typing for today.

Gotta wonder how much hot water or mildly tepid water Madonna has gotten herself into with that "blow up the Whitehouse" or whatever she said recently emotional basketcase rant she just displayed from similar influence from those around her.

edit: I forgot to add: The job of a parent is not to be their child's friend, but to train them to handle life properly. They don't have to take it to the extreme of being a drill instructor unless they want their child to be prepared to literally fight a war, but they have an obligation to at least prepare their child to not turn into an emotional basketcase unless they want hilarity or tragedy to ensue later on in their life.

edit II: TLDR; Don't reward bad behavior but don't tell your kids they are so ugly they could be a modern art masterpiece either.

 

[Jhhnn]

From your article
" “make it a crime to threaten, intimidate, or retaliate .........."
Yeah.

Protester- "Screw You, asshole!"

Judge- "Five years, boy!"

 

[realibrad]

Those things are already illegal. Why do you need an ambiguous law to specifically protect state officials from a protest?

Right, which is the same reason we don't have hate crime laws. Its already illegal to assault someone so it would be redundant to punish beyond oh wait...

 

[JockoJohnson]

Right, which is the same reason we don't have hate crime laws. Its already illegal to assault someone so it would be redundant to punish beyond oh wait...

Murder by gun is also illegal yet we continue to try and restrict guns.

 

[realibrad]

Murder by gun is also illegal yet we continue to try and restrict guns.

For that to be the same, then you would be restricting hate, and hate crimes do not restrict hate. If the laws were trying to restrict the tool used to perpetrate a crime, then they would make sense. For guns to work, you would have to be punishing crimes after a crime, which is also done. Restricting guns does not punish post act.

 

[nakedfrog]

Murder by gun is also illegal yet we continue to try and restrict guns.

Murder is what's illegal, not "murder by gun". Doesn't matter what you use to commit the murder, as it's not the defining attribute of the crime.

 

[agent00f]

A lot of the left, especially those with emotional filter-less outbursts like that of Sportage's rants following the election results were the result of poor training.

Imagine if you will a child walking through a mall with their mom. The child spots an ice cream shop and upon remembering how yummy ice cream tastes tugs on their mother's pantsuit and says "Ooo I want ice cream." The mother tells the child no, you can't have ice cream right now because we're having dinner in an hour and it will spoil your appetite. You can have ice cream after dinner.

But the child really wants ice cream, and he wants it now, he doesn't want to wait. So he raises his voice and exclaims "But I want ice cream now!"

The mother reiterates that he can't have that right now. The child throws a temper tantrum and creates a scene screaming at the top of his lungs to get his way. The mother notices people are starting to stare wondering what is going on and she feels embarrassed at her child's inappropriate behavior.

So she gives in and takes the child to get an ice cream cone to stop the temper tantrum and lo and behold of course it works. The child is happy because he got what he wanted, and the mother is happy because the child is behaving now and she no longer is embarrassed now that he is behaving. At least for the time being.

This is a critical mistake.

When you give in to such bad behavior with a reward of giving the child what they want they get the message that throwing a temper tantrum will cause them to get their way every time they want something they can't have.

Often this is subconscious. Go ahead and ask Sportage why he had an emotional breakdown and see if he can tell you. More often than not the answer will be some form of "I don't know nor care, (notice now he changes the subject now) but don't you see how this election's outcome is the worst thing ever because...xyz... and world war III and..!@#$$% rant mode on...#$%@!.. you idiot you're trying to distract us from the real problem this is a disaster of global proportions the end of the world is coming don't you see? How can you be so naive and believe everything that orange monster tells you #$%@ you are so f^&^ing gullible...$%^#$%^!!!..."

More ranting ensues to everyone's dismay or enjoyment.

He has literally been trained to act this way when emotional basketcase behavior was likely reinforced in early childhood by parents, guardians, teachers, friends, and/or family.

I could go into how people influence each other in other ways to exhibit bad behavior but that's enough typing for today.

Gotta wonder how much hot water or mildly tepid water Madonna has gotten herself into with that "blow up the Whitehouse" or whatever she said recently emotional basketcase rant she just displayed from similar influence from those around her.

edit: I forgot to add: The job of a parent is not to be their child's friend, but to train them to handle life properly. They don't have to take it to the extreme of being a drill instructor unless they want their child to be prepared to literally fight a war, but they have an obligation to at least prepare their child to not turn into an emotional basketcase unless they want hilarity or tragedy to ensue later on in their life.

edit II: TLDR; Don't reward bad behavior but don't tell your kids they are so ugly they could be a modern art masterpiece either.

So what's the source of this tantrum rant? ^ I'd say a dumbshit ideology but seems you have a more interesting theory.

Right, which is the same reason we don't have hate crime laws. Its already illegal to assault someone so it would be redundant to punish beyond oh wait...

Hate crimes are a different category of law aimed at protecting vulnerable groups. This is the exact opposite, but nice job standing up for your own here.

 

[realibrad]

So what's the source of this tantrum rant? ^ I'd say a dumbshit ideology but seems you have a more interesting theory.



Hate crimes are a different category of law aimed at protecting vulnerable groups. This is the exact opposite, but nice job standing up for your own here.

How does a hate crime protect vulnerable groups? We already make attacking people illegal, so if someone is willing to break the law, how does making a law protect them? His argument was as follows...

Those things are already illegal. Why do you need an ambiguous law to specifically protect state officials from a protest?

Drop "a protest" and you get the basis of his logic which I disputed.

Also, what do you mean by a different category of law? Both are illegal acts, and the differences are in the punishments.

 

[ivwshane]

How does a hate crime protect vulnerable groups? We already make attacking people illegal, so if someone is willing to break the law, how does making a law protect them? His argument was as follows...



Drop "a protest" and you get the basis of his logic which I disputed.

Also, what do you mean by a different category of law? Both are illegal acts, and the differences are in the punishments.

Its the supposedly harsher punishments that are meant to be a deterrent.

The question is; why does this type of illegal activity need to be punished more than normal?

 

[agent00f]

How does a hate crime protect vulnerable groups? We already make attacking people illegal, so if someone is willing to break the law, how does making a law protect them? His argument was as follows...

A hate crime is by definition one against a group, particularly one that's vulnerable like lower class minorities, vs an individual. It differs because it's different kind of crime, and given the nature of the more serious crime the punishment follows.

Drop "a protest" and you get the basis of his logic which I disputed.

Also, what do you mean by a different category of law? Both are illegal acts, and the differences are in the punishments.

It's pretty obvious the shithead here is seeking the exact opposite given these are hardly crimes against public lawmakers in general, just his piece of shit ass, but I'm sure you'll find some way to portray him and maybe yourself as the Real victim.

Honestly I have no idea why I'm trying to explain anything to you; must be some brain defect.

 

[realibrad]

Its the supposedly harsher punishments that are meant to be a deterrent.

The question is; why does this type of illegal activity need to be punished more than normal?

So ask the guy that made the argument against that maybe? He asked why we needed to make another law against something already illegal.

 

[agent00f]

So ask the guy that made the argument against that maybe? He asked why we needed to make another law against something already illegal.

Try to keep in mind that you're usually the only person in the room who always has this hard of time with anything, and this happens precisely due to lack of any self-awareness which will soon be demonstrated. When not-tarded people ask why something needs a new law, a more potent law is implied since it's the only thing that makes sense.

 

[Jaskalas]

I've often compared it to battered spouse syndrome.

Pretty sure they believed in Obama 8 years ago.
Not so much battered spouse as a drowning victim desperately clinging to and clawing to grab hold of any flotsam within reach.
Status quo is failing them and no longer on their radar.

Obama was new and radical. Trump was new and radical. Whoever wins 2020 needs to be new and radical.
It's time for no holds bar economic revolution. Only then can America stop drowning. Only then can they believe in a new normal.

 

[agent00f]

Pretty sure they believed in Obama 8 years ago.
Not so much battered spouse as a drowning victim desperately clinging to and clawing to grab hold of any flotsam within reach.
Status quo is failing them and no longer on their radar.

Obama was new and radical. Trump was new and radical. Whoever wins 2020 needs to be new and radical.
It's time for no holds bar economic revolution. Only then can America stop drowning. Only then can they believe in a new normal.

Try to keep in mind that Clinton/Trump got about as many votes as Obama/Romney, respectively. There's no need to pretend that there's some great new popular support for conservatism outside of the Rust Belt strategy barely working out.