[Maru]

This is a good read. I'm a big fan of the clear and constructed thought pieces that are not laid out in crazy Youtube commentator fashion and without typical partisan banter. It's hard to find reasoning that doesn't pander solely to the politics of feelings (disclosure of personal experiences aside) and using divisive arguments of voting good versus evil (liberal versus conservative). Just a laying out of their points that the reader is free to agree or disagree without leaning on mainstream talking points to make their argument(s). So rare these days

I personally did not vote for him, but I understand this type of reasoning as it's what I've heard from people in person in the US... nice to see it in a written form anyway.

Enjoy.

Except the title... that is clearly clickbait

Columbia University made me vote for Donald Trump
by Benjamin Sweetwood

I understand that social justice warriors will call me a racist, sexist, bigot, and more. Consider me unaffected. I’m way past tired of their ****. I give you permission to hate me. I have had enough of the regressive left and this is the only reason I need to vote for Donald Trump.

On the other hand, I can’t possibly vote for a candidate like Hillary Clinton that would most likely advance the intellectually stifling PC culture of the left. I want ideas and discourse; they want riots and book burnings.

The left is a bunch of bullies. It shouldn’t be hard to see that as conservative speakers are blocked from speaking on campuses around the country, as a homeless woman is verbally and physically abused for holding a sign in support of Trump, and as GOP offices are firebombed.

At Columbia, I started out as a nice boy. I probably wouldn’t have supported Trump back then. But everywhere I turned with my moderate conservative opinions, I was made out to be an extremist and a bigot. Even as a member of the College Republicans I faced regressive pushback. I once held a presentation for the group on the dangers of communism and progressivism, to which the future president of the group would respond, “You know, Hitler was right-wing.” Brilliant. Often, fellow students would parse my words down to the syllables, checking for privilege and/or racism. I just wanted to get along, and they looked to divide. At every step of my educational career I was ostracized for my political views. So, I just voiced my opinions louder.

Columbia gave me the willpower to stand alone in my beliefs. Now I’m honored to say: “I’m With Him.”

Trump does not support the regressive left and their anti-intellectual spin on the reality of the world, turning hero to villain and vice versa. Nor does he give PC book-burning culture a damn second of his time. On the other hand, Hillary embraces the narratives of the regressive left, pandering to Black Lives Matter and other regressive movements that vilify the West as the world’s great evil.

These are some of the reasons I will be voting for Donald J. Trump on November 8th.

Let’s look at the first presidential debate. When Lester Holt brought up the issue of race relations in America, here’s how Trump responded: “We have a situation where we have our inner cities, African-Americans, Hispanics are living in hell because it’s so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot.”

And Hillary’s response: “Well, I’ve heard – I’ve heard Donald say this at his rallies, and it’s really unfortunate that he paints such a dire negative picture of black communities in our country.”

This response by Hillary is extremely problematic, because rather than address the true state of things, she pleases the liberal ear and scores political points. We don’t need any more of this political hack behavior at the helm of our country. People are suffering. You might not like facts, but they are what they are: facts. I am sickened by the suffering of people in this country and in this world. It’s not right that Tyshawn Lee‘s name is unknown to the American people while a violent robber like Michael Brown is heralded as an angelic hero. Trump spoke the truth, whether you hate him or not.

There were over 500 homicides in Chicago between January 1st and September 8th of this year. Do you want to know how many were killed by cops? Six. And Chicago is just one of many cities with this kind of violence, violence that disproportionally affects the black community. I am not okay with the holocaust happening in urban black communities around the country.

Trump pointed out the reality of the situation. Hillary attacked him, because it’ll get her votes.

Then there is the violence coming out of the Islamic world. But Hillary won’t do much in the way of calling out “radical Islam” and she won’t condemn the abuse of gays and women in the Islamic world at large. The Clinton Foundation takes money from countries like Saudi Arabia which viciously abuses gays and women. Additionally, people around Hillary, like John Podesta have more than close ties to despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia. There is simply too much political interest at stake for Hillary to be able to deal with these countries in an honest way. Maybe I wouldn’t say that if she spent more time condemning the abuse that goes on in these countries, but instead, like the rest of the left, she is mostly silent on the issue.

Trump seems to recognize that people in this world are suffering, rather than sweep it all under the rug and paint an attractive picture for personal political gain. Cue Trump from the third debate: “It’s a criminal enterprise. Saudi Arabia given $25 million, Qatar, all of these countries. You talk about women and women’s rights? So these are people that push gays off business, off buildings. These are people that kill women and treat women horribly and yet you take their money.” Not eloquent, but totally right.

Back in July, Pakistani social media star Qandeel Baloch was strangled to death by her brother for the pictures she was posting online. I am not OK with staying silent when it comes to the murder of women.

And back in April, a video came out showing ISIS throwing a gay man off a roof and beheading another. I am not OK with gay people being murdered in the name of Islam.

According to WaPo, there are 10 countries where people can be legally executed for being gay. Every single one of those countries is Islamic. I am not OK with the legalized murder of gay people.

I just don’t trust that Hillary will address any of this in any sort of meaningful way. We are told by the left that associating Islam with these crimes against humanity won’t help matters because we need to be friendly and work with Islamic nations. I bought that with President Bush, I bought that with President Obama. Nothing has changed. I’m not buying that anymore. Nor do I know what it means anymore to “be presidential,” except for that it seems to mean, “Do the robot and disconnect from humanity.” I want someone who seems human, someone who sees the bad things I see, and addresses them.

The left wing at Columbia and its social justice warriors spend their time calling themselves victims, defaming people they don’t like, and patting themselves on the back for solving phantom problems. And all the while they ignore true victims and refuse to even acknowledge many serious atrocities. Where are those Barnard feminists from my political theory class when women across the world are brutalized by real oppressive societies? Nowhere. But they were happy to bash J.S. Mill for his 1869 essay, “The Subjugation of Woman,” which, of course, espoused equality among the sexes. The narratives of the regressive left, including that of “the evil West,” “the white male patriarchy,” and the “racist police” are not ones I will ever embrace. Trump doesn’t give those narratives the time of day.

I remember when a student I worked with at Columbia lamented how racist her political science seminar was. “Why?” I asked. “Too white,” she responded, kind enough not to make my ignorance too obvious. Often she explained to me her plight of being in classes with “racists.” Of course, Columbia is teeming with those too, in every class. I learned from her that “racist” just means “anyone who disagrees with me.” This term is very convenient for left-wing students, there’s no need to use it sparingly.

Finally, yes, Trump has said a lot of things I could never imagine myself saying. Yes, Trump started off his campaign by being too general about illegal immigrant crime and he certainly overreached by supporting a temporary ban on Muslims from entering the country to stop terrorists from getting in (an idea by the way, that is in no way racist). But he has evolved on those issues and they are after all, issues that are real and worth discussing. And in any case, “Donald Trump says mean things” is not a thought that factors into my voting decision. I don’t need to like him even. I’m voting for him because I believe he will make a better President than Hillary Clinton, and by light years.

As for Trump’s notorious Access Hollywood video, I say this: Trump’s comments are at best reflective of the type of talk that goes on among men all too frequently. It is the type of speech I have heard often and have never been comfortable with, and should not be considered acceptable anywhere at any time. That said, I am not going to vote for the person who makes less bad comments, I am going to vote for the person who I think can best address the problems in the world.

So, while most of my fellow Ivy League conservatives virtue signal their way leftwards in a giant show of appreciation for themselves and in an effort to gain the affections of “the party of love,” I’m voting Trump. I want to do what I believe is right, not what will allow me the platform to bask in a cesspool of back-patting about the divine limits of my own morality.

#DonnyandMike2016

Source: http://thetab.com/us/columbia/2016/1...ald-trump-3286

[kirklancaster]

Another brilliant contribution from you Maru.

I recognise EVERY point which he makes and agree with the same.

Will ANY of these points resonate with many on here - the ACTIVE majority - I think not.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Another brilliant contribution from you Maru.

I recognise EVERY point which he makes and agree with the same.

Will ANY of these points resonate with many on here - the ACTIVE majority - I think not.

Oh yeah, I fully expect some people will have issue with some of his arguments, but I think it's as close as you would get to an argument for Trump that isn't based entirely on media bias and common partisan vitriol. Both are dire, but I can accept why some vote for him... even though I do not support him.

Originally Posted by Jonnii

I totally agree with that man. Might share this on Facebook as most of my friends on there think I'm insane for supporting him.

You are. (kidding) But seriously, do share... it's rare to hear such an explanation in the media and people will be people... I think there's as many good reasons to vote for him as there are bad... both candidates are very divisive/hyperbolic in their own way...

[LaLaLand]

I totally agree with that man. Might share this on Facebook as most of my friends on there think I'm insane for supporting him.

[jennyjuniper]

A very well thought out and insightful piece of writing. I agree with him.

[Shaun]

I can see where he's coming from with the comments against Hillary but I'm not sure he's connected the dots between where Donald offers a solution to any of these problems. That he'd be some sort of sudden change of foreign policy, telling the rest of the world to treat gays and women with respect, as if no one's doing that already. Also, a large portion of this reads as "I don't like the people I went to college with", and if that were a solid ground for what I went on to vote for I...wouldn't vote.

I guess from an outsider's perspective the only reason to vote for either of these two candidates is "to stop the other one". There's been no concrete policies from either candidate, plenty of empty promises and a handful of shady activity dolloped on top.

Trump himself - I don't particularly understand him and don't believe a word he says. I'm more wary of what his supporters think. The idea that political correctness is the worst thing in the world. The idea that you can say whatever you like and punch whoever you like at a rally and no one's going to call you out on it. The convenience that all of the country's money problems have been caused by migration and social welfare rather than... (remember?) the banks.

I've seen a lot on here of Hillary's hellbent vision - she's going to start World War 3, she's going to declare war on Russia, she's going to bukkake her way through every Saudi whim in exchange for oil, whatever - and to be honest I'm not entirely sure Donald doesn't feel the same way about China, a war with whom would be equally cataclysmic - and I can imagine tensions and hostilities will escalate, that seems inescapable at the moment with the USA as a major diplomatic power. But... oh god I don't know... it just seems like everything she can do he can do better (I need musical numbers in times like these), and whichever way the vote goes there's going to be financial depression, war, the poor getting poorer and democracy getting dirtier. So in that case: yeah I know why people are voting for him and why I think he'll win. Just begs belief that people think a billionaire from TV is a man of the people, let alone a man with a plan.

Just going to keep flogging my "WHY DIDN'T THEY PICK BERNIE?" horse until I die (presumably in 3 years).

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Shaun

I can see where he's coming from with the comments against Hillary but I'm not sure he's connected the dots between where Donald offers a solution to any of these problems. That he'd be some sort of sudden change of foreign policy, telling the rest of the world to treat gays and women with respect, as if no one's doing that already. Also, a large portion of this reads as "I don't like the people I went to college with", and if that were a solid ground for what I went on to vote for I...wouldn't vote.

I guess from an outsider's perspective the only reason to vote for either of these two candidates is "to stop the other one". There's been no concrete policies from either candidate, plenty of empty promises and a handful of shady activity dolloped on top.

Trump himself - I don't particularly understand him and don't believe a word he says. I'm more wary of what his supporters think. The idea that political correctness is the worst thing in the world. The idea that you can say whatever you like and punch whoever you like at a rally and no one's going to call you out on it. The convenience that all of the country's money problems have been caused by migration and social welfare rather than... (remember?) the banks.

I've seen a lot on here of Hillary's hellbent vision - she's going to start World War 3, she's going to declare war on Russia, she's going to bukkake her way through every Saudi whim in exchange for oil, whatever - and to be honest I'm not entirely sure Donald doesn't feel the same way about China, a war with whom would be equally cataclysmic - and I can imagine tensions and hostilities will escalate, that seems inescapable at the moment with the USA as a major diplomatic power. But... oh god I don't know... it just seems like everything she can do he can do better (I need musical numbers in times like these), and whichever way the vote goes there's going to be financial depression, war, the poor getting poorer and democracy getting dirtier. So in that case: yeah I know why people are voting for him and why I think he'll win. Just begs belief that people think a billionaire from TV is a man of the people, let alone a man with a plan.

Just going to keep flogging my "WHY DIDN'T THEY PICK BERNIE?" horse until I die (presumably in 3 years).

A brilliant and detailed contribution.

[Ammi]

...I just don't understand why an 'explanation' as such should ever be necessary or felt that it should be given because in voting for an anti establishment, it should be self explanatory...no justification should be needed because that anti-establishment should represent the anti of everything not so good with government and establishment and Trump just doesn't...so far as corruption is concerned, well he has no history and he has nothing to gage on so that's an unknown but what is a known is his character and how much more negative he brings with him in all of his prejudices, in his lack of integrity, in his I couldn't care less what I say/which world leader I upset, type ways...

..I'm fairly sure he'll win..(and YAY TS because he deserves lovely things with his bet..)..but it's been like a car crash/disaster in slow motion..that helplessness of just watching...


...it's been unfortunate that Hilary has represented the very worst in corruption type establishment, the Clintons are not well liked..(well probably fairly much hated in the USA in terms of politics.....)...so there has been a real focus on exposing with them because Bill wasn't a good 'front man' and Hilary wouldn't be a good front woman either...but I personally do wonder, is government corruption any different no matter who is the front, it's just that an illusion has to be created of someone with integrity in the lead and in the hotseat..this is where the irony comes really because no, no we can't have Hilary she's not a good representative so we'll have Trump instead, I mean what a guy, eh.....it's just the most ridiculous situation in world leadership sags in the whole history of, surely...


...anyways, the Clintons are just seen as the black sheep of political families, the wayward children..the USA likes to be represented by someone who is seen as representing their values..Ronald Reagan, the good old boy and his Nancy or Obama, the great family man and a man with integrity..(my feelings are that there would still have been the same corruptions very virulent during their reign because sadly it's just so deep and a part of any establishment in politics..)..but with them and similar presidents, their 'frontman' countered and hid and smoke-screened etc...it's all about appearances, isn't it...so we'll justify Trump because it's all we have, it's all we're left with...but the problem for me is that the corruption and inherent issues will still be there in the establishment plus he'll bring in extra negatives/prejudices as well..he'll bring them in with him and also bring them out in some public as well and just create new issues...he won't be a saviour because I doubt anyone could be, government corruption is too established and too determined and too in control...


...anyways, for me the 'why I would vote Trump over Hilary' things are just not relevant because people supported Trump before it became just between him and Hilary...which is the worry for me and why anything he represents should not be given validation as being acceptable...

[Ammi]

..I honestly am having little interest or enthusiasm left with any of it because it's going to happen which ever way that at a time of extreme frustration in the USA, at a time of extreme world frustration...it'll just be like a Brexit thing in that so many will still feel so disheartened an keep their frustrations, only probably increasing them..if Trump, a whole portion of Americans feeling flat and deflated and if Hilary, a huge portion of Americans feeling flat and deflated...it's always been a lose/lose, whoever the win because there never was a win for the USA or for the world...that was removed from the table when the last reasonable candidate left the room...(obviously Bernie..)...

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I honestly am having little interest or enthusiasm left with any of it because it's going to happen which ever way that at a time of extreme frustration in the USA, at a time of extreme world frustration...it'll just be like a Brexit thing in that so many will still feel so disheartened an keep their frustrations, only probably increasing them..if Trump, a whole portion of Americans feeling flat and deflated and if Hilary, a huge portion of Americans feeling flat and deflated...it's always been a lose/lose, whoever the win because there never was a win for the USA or for the world...that was removed from the table when the last reasonable candidate left the room...(obviously Bernie..)...

Absolutely. The only thing that helps me sleep at night is knowing that we still be a democracy. I may not agree with the condition of things as it is now, but should Trump or Hillary make some unforgivable mistake or prove their opposition correct (which I feel will happen anyway)... perhaps it will end or at least mitigate our desire to look to extreme spectrums of thoughts for our agents of change... and instead focus on each other instead of looking for easy solutions (wildcard candidates)... and maybe move the needle more towards the middle on social issues that do need to be addressed... one would hope.

I voted in some Libertarians on some of my down ballot after reading their platform, with the thought they are not only financially responsible (more like to be accountable) but they also share gentler views on social discourse. I'm hoping that by supporting third parties, though they may not win in every case, perhaps they can somehow be a viable party.... although... some of the candidates, like from the Green party, frankly scare the crap out of me.

We need to get away from a two party system. The banter/vitriol is too much like watching spectators at an American Football game.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Maru

Absolutely. The only thing that helps me sleep at night is knowing that we still be a democracy. I may not agree with the condition of things as it is now, but should Trump or Hillary make some unforgivable mistake or prove their opposition correct (which I feel will happen anyway)... perhaps it will end or at least mitigate our desire to look to extreme spectrums of thoughts for our agents of change... and instead focus on each other instead of looking for easy solutions (wildcard candidates)... and maybe move the needle more towards the middle on social issues that do need to be addressed... one would hope.

I voted in some Libertarians on some of my down ballot after reading their platform, with the thought they are not only financially responsible (more like to be accountable) but they also share gentler views on social discourse. I'm hoping that by supporting third parties, though they may not win in every case, perhaps they can somehow be a viable party.... although... some of the candidates, like from the Green party, frankly scare the crap out of me.

We need to get away from a two party system. The banter/vitriol is too much like watching spectators at an American Football game.

...well I think that's the same for most countries, we're the same really..it's always just two parties who are serious contenders...any others are just really in to present a possible alternative/the possibility of taking the best of both in a dreamworld..but realistically I doubt the 'dream' will be in your or my lifetime if it ever did come about...or probably not our children's either...(the dream might turn into a shambles of a nightmare in reality anyway..)...

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...I just don't understand why an 'explanation' as such should ever be necessary or felt that it should be given because in voting for an anti establishment, it should be self explanatory...no justification should be needed because that anti-establishment should represent the anti of everything not so good with government and establishment and Trump just doesn't...so far as corruption is concerned, well he has no history and he has nothing to gage on so that's an unknown but what is a known is his character and how much more negative he brings with him in all of his prejudices, in his lack of integrity, in his I couldn't care less what I say/which world leader I upset, type ways...

..I'm fairly sure he'll win..(and YAY TS because he deserves lovely things with his bet..)..but it's been like a car crash/disaster in slow motion..that helplessness of just watching...

...it's been unfortunate that Hilary has represented the very worst in corruption type establishment, the Clintons are not well liked..(well probably fairly much hated in the USA in terms of politics.....)...so there has been a real focus on exposing with them because Bill wasn't a good 'front man' and Hilary wouldn't be a good front woman either...but I personally do wonder, is government corruption any different no matter who is the front, it's just that an illusion has to be created of someone with integrity in the lead and in the hotseat..this is where the irony comes really because no, no we can't have Hilary she's not a good representative so we'll have Trump instead, I mean what a guy, eh.....it's just the most ridiculous situation in world leadership sags in the whole history of, surely...

...anyways, the Clintons are just seen as the black sheep of political families, the wayward children..the USA likes to be represented by someone who is seen as representing their values..Ronald Reagan, the good old boy and his Nancy or Obama, the great family man and a man with integrity..(my feelings are that there would still have been the same corruptions very virulent during their reign because sadly it's just so deep and a part of any establishment in politics..)..but with them and similar presidents, their 'frontman' countered and hid and smoke-screened etc...it's all about appearances, isn't it...so we'll justify Trump because it's all we have, it's all we're left with...but the problem for me is that the corruption and inherent issues will still be there in the establishment plus he'll bring in extra negatives/prejudices as well..he'll bring them in with him and also bring them out in some public as well and just create new issues...he won't be a saviour because I doubt anyone could be, government corruption is too established and too determined and too in control...

...anyways, for me the 'why I would vote Trump over Hilary' things are just not relevant because people supported Trump before it became just between him and Hilary...which is the worry for me and why anything he represents should not be given validation as being acceptable...

Very good points, Ammi.

It's the same question I was posed by some people when I told them I would vote for Obama for 08'... why in the world I would vote for Obama aka why would I vote someone in who is all about social movements/grand speeches and lacks a record?

Partisanship has become the status quo in more recent elections. I remember a time when the Clintons were heralded and how many remarked at how amazing it felt to live in the US during those times... I think over the years, the Clinton family resume has been damaged significantly by scandal, all the while talks of getting Hillary into the presidency have been waiting in the wing (before she even took position in the senate). So in my mind, it had been pounded into my head from those days, that she was only taking office to be able to run for president of the US... which does still seem to be the case. Her candidacy feels very forced in retrospect. Though I appreciate and admire the work ethic and extreme professionalism she does show, at least in public.

On the other hand, I don't mind a Trump candidacy, because it's allowing some discussions of certain narratives in the background to occur to natural expose themselves and discourse to occur. Otherwise certain discussions felt and were treated as taboo by some in the public and in the media. Anyway, since 9/11, there's been a lot of partisan bickering over the years that has been exhaustive... and pandering to those groups which would help give rise candidates such as Obama/Trump... their candidacies, a result of some underlying disconnect between the people and American politics.

Obama actually had received significant resistance here from many people for his lack of a resume as far as a US presidential candidacy was concerned...like Trump, why are we voting in someone into the presidency based on a speech . One notable criticism being that he would not give straight yes/no answers to congressional votes... he would often vote "present"... if he was even available. Apparently this was a bad attendance record compared to most people in his position in Congress. Although his resume is far better than Trump's will ever be with regards to politics and delving into social issues.... but I digress.

It's a shame we were so partisan (party and public) now that we weren't able to take advantage of his experience in things such as social issues... as he did seem to carry at times, a centrist viewpoint of things (but I think his party changed him)... though I would argue, he has shown a similar record of being less visible compared to other presidencies. At least from what I have seen over the years.

The good thing you can say about Trump. Is he won't hide in his castle. You'll get to see way too much of him for the next four years... and he won't let you forget it either. I guess from that viewpoint, it's refreshing to have someone from that vantage point so eagerly involved with the people and actually properly (banter and all) representing the realistic tendencies of the platform's base. (Though I'm not too entirely sure myself what that will end up doing to the US over time--morale-wise.)

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Maru

Very good points, Ammi.

It's the same question I was posed by some people when I told them I would vote for Obama for 08'... why in the world I would vote for Obama aka why would I vote someone in who is all about social movements/grand speeches and lacks a record?

Partisanship has become the status quo in more recent elections. I remember a time when the Clintons were heralded and how many remarked at how amazing it felt to live in the US during those times... I think over the years, the Clinton family resume has been damaged significantly by scandal, all the while talks of getting Hillary into the presidency have been waiting in the wing (before she even took position in the senate). So in my mind, it had been pounded into my head from those days, that she was only taking office to be able to run for president of the US... which does still seem to be the case. Her candidacy feels very forced in retrospect. Though I appreciate and admire the work ethic and extreme professionalism she does show, at least in public.

On the other hand, I don't mind a Trump candidacy, because it's allowing some discussions of certain narratives in the background to occur to natural expose themselves and discourse to occur. Otherwise certain discussions felt and were treated as taboo by some in the public and in the media. Anyway, since 9/11, there's been a lot of partisan bickering over the years that has been exhaustive... and pandering to those groups which would help give rise candidates such as Obama/Trump... their candidacies, a result of some underlying disconnect between the people and American politics.

Obama actually had received significant resistance here from many people for his lack of a resume as far as a US presidential candidacy was concerned...like Trump, why are we voting in someone into the presidency based on a speech . One notable criticism being that he would not give straight yes/no answers to congressional votes... he would often vote "present"... if he was even available. Apparently this was a bad attendance record compared to most people in his position in Congress. Although his resume is far better than Trump's will ever be with regards to politics and delving into social issues.... but I digress.

It's a shame we were so partisan (party and public) now that we weren't able to take advantage of his experience in things such as social issues... as he did seem to carry at times, a centrist viewpoint of things (but I think his party changed him)... though I would argue, he has shown a similar record of being less visible compared to other presidencies. At least from what I have seen over the years.

The good thing you can say about Trump. Is he won't hide in his castle. You'll get to see way too much of him for the next four years... and he won't let you forget it either. I guess from that viewpoint, it's refreshing to have someone from that vantage point so eagerly involved with the people and actually properly (banter and all) representing the realistic tendencies of the platform's base. (Though I'm not too entirely sure myself what that will end up doing to the US over time--morale-wise.)

..I'm not entirely sure about that Maru, my thoughts are that 'the establishment' which is really the voice of the USA president will want him talking as little as possible because of his Trump in mouth tendencies...but there again, that will depend on the strength of his own input/the strength of any president input because they really are just the frontman with all speeches prepared and the story already written for them.../will Trump break free of establishment with his own words, that remains to be seen as yet...I don't think any of us can say yet because it's only in the theory stage...


...I think 9/11 is good to mention as well as you have because so much terrorism has been so prevalent in recent times and with that, it breeds so much helplessness/frustration/fear and loss of control etc...and the feeling of 'back in the day values' being something to strive for to bring a counter to all of the bad stuff...the problem is though that Trump only represents everything negative about 'back in the day'.../he isn't progression and moving forward, he's regression and a back step....is my opinion...

[Northern Monkey]

Brilliant post which reflects exactly what i see going on in American universities at the moment on countless videos.
These are the places and types of agendas that invented the 'safe space'.Literally an area where you're not even allowed to challenge any views that the social justice warriors hold.Only this spreads accross the whole university and speakers with a different perspective are banned from speaking because these idiots will protest and riot and complain and cause unrest until they get their way.This has happened in the UK aswell,It's not just confined to America.
They coined the word 'triggered' so if you say something they don't agree with they will say that you've 'triggered' them and they'll remind you that you're in their safe space.Or they will very loudly go and retreat to their safe space and tell all their SJW friends about the awful event that just took place.(you couldn't make this shet up).
The people who invented the term 'check your privilege' if you dare be white and especially white and male and dare to have your own opinion.
The people who look for anything they can to try to paint themselves as some kind of victim or minority so they can blame everyone else instead of taking responsibility for their own failures.
It's a disease that's finally starting to get called out and pushed back against.These gullible people don't realise that they're doing so much more harm than good and are stuck in this little bubble with no life experience and their head filled with the crap that gets pedalled in modern university.
These people will do their very best to oppress you in the name of 'equality'.
If you're not white you can't be wrong.
It's no wonder young people who aren't infected by this will vote Trump when they're surrounded by this crap daily with these idiots promoting Clinton like she's some kind of whiter than white angel and not seeing any of her faults.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

Brilliant post which reflects exactly what i see going on in American universities at the moment on countless videos.
These are the places and types of agendas that invented the 'safe space'.Literally an area where you're not even allowed to challenge any views that the social justice warriors hold.Only this spreads accross the whole university and speakers with a different perspective are banned from speaking because these idiots will protest and riot and complain and cause unrest until they get their way.This has happened in the UK aswell,It's not just confined to America.
They coined the word 'triggered' so if you say something they don't agree with they will say that you've 'triggered' them and they'll remind you that you're in their safe space.Or they will very loudly go and retreat to their safe space and tell all their SJW friends about the awful event that just took place.(you couldn't make this shet up).
The people who invented the term 'check your privilege' if you dare be white and especially white and male and dare to have your own opinion.
The people who look for anything they can to try to paint themselves as some kind of victim or minority so they can blame everyone else instead of taking responsibility for their own failures.
It's a disease that's finally starting to get called out and pushed back against.These gullible people don't realise that they're doing so much more harm than good and are stuck in this little bubble with no life experience and their head filled with the crap that gets pedalled in modern university.
These people will do their very best to oppress you in the name of 'equality'.
If you're not white you can't be wrong.
It's no wonder young people who aren't infected by this will vote Trump when they're surrounded by this crap daily with these idiots promoting Clinton like she's some kind of whiter than white angel and not seeing any of her faults.

...'the safe space' I presume you mean, the protection of human rights NM...and yes, it's very important so as not to go back to a time when there was no existence of rights or humanity for some minorities.../to when they were considered and treated as 'lesser than'.../lesser than humans....so social justice will always be there for a very good reason and so there will always be 'warriors' for its cause...but people are allowed to challenge, of course they are..they're allowed to challenge, they're allowed to reason, they're allowed a perspective to be listened to and they're allowed understanding as much as all views are etc....but what shouldn't be allowed or tolerated I should say...is their unreasonable/their extreme/their prejudices/their intolerances if and when those are applicable to them and if and when they infringe on human rights of others...

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...'the safe space' I presume you mean, the protection of human rights NM...and yes, it's very important so as not to go back to a time when there was no existence of rights or humanity for some minorities.../to when they were considered and treated as 'lesser than'.../lesser than humans....so social justice will always be there for a very good reason and so there will always be 'warriors' for its cause...but people are allowed to challenge, of course they are..they're allowed to challenge, they're allowed to reason, they're allowed a perspective to be listened to and they're allowed understanding as much as all views are etc....but what shouldn't be allowed or tolerated I should say...is their unreasonable/their extreme/their prejudices/their intolerances if and when those are applicable to them and if and when they infringe on human rights of others...

I don't think that you're quite grasping how batshat crazy these militant SJW's are(i don't blame you btw as it's beyond rational beleif) but the book burnings should give you a clue.
They're nuts and no in the their 'safe space' only their opinions are permitted and their 'safe space' is anywhere on campus that they're protesting or making speaches and they'll physically force you away.
Another thing when one of them is speaking about all the things that have 'triggered' them recently in the 'safe space' and they want to show appreciation they don't allow clapping as it could upset or 'trigger' them so they all snap their fingers instead.
I honestly don't blame students like the one in the op being turned to Trump when they have to live with this crap every day and the ridiculousness they see from Hilary supporters.
SJW's are the perfect ad for Trump.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

I don't think that you're quite grasping how batshat crazy these militant SJW's are(i don't blame you btw as it's beyond rational beleif) but the book burnings should give you a clue.
They're nuts and no in the their 'safe space' only their opinions are permitted and their 'safe space' is anywhere on campus that they're protesting or making speaches and they'll physically force you away.
Another thing when one of them is speaking about all the things that have 'triggered' them recently in the 'safe space' and they want to show appreciation they don't allow clapping as it could upset or 'trigger' them so they all snap their fingers instead.
I honestly don't blame students like the one in the op being turned to Trump when they have to live with this crap every day and the ridiculousness they see from Hilary supporters.
SJW's are the perfect ad for Trump.

What's an SJW? ... ( Why don't I know anything?)

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

What's an SJW? ... ( Why don't I know anything?)

Social Justice Warrior.

[Ammi]

...I'm not sure either NM what the Social Justice Warriors are exactly..but they're 'crazy' college students../..a section of them...doesn't Donald Trump believe that armed weapons should be allowed in schools/colleges/campuses etc...a vote for someone who supports armed weapons in the hands of 'bat**** crazy' doesn't sound like a good move to me.../and not something to vote for...

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

I don't think that you're quite grasping how batshat crazy these militant SJW's are(i don't blame you btw as it's beyond rational beleif) but the book burnings should give you a clue.
They're nuts and no in the their 'safe space' only their opinions are permitted and their 'safe space' is anywhere on campus that they're protesting or making speaches and they'll physically force you away.
Another thing when one of them is speaking about all the things that have 'triggered' them recently in the 'safe space' and they want to show appreciation they don't allow clapping as it could upset or 'trigger' them so they all snap their fingers instead.
I honestly don't blame students like the one in the op being turned to Trump when they have to live with this crap every day and the ridiculousness they see from Hilary supporters.
SJW's are the perfect ad for Trump.

I think these situations at best hint to undercurrents of dogma that does need to be addressed, but that doesn't mean that liberal positions themselves are inherently bad or just leftist propaganda. I think both sides offer discourse that is very helpful to the development of our democracy. Being left-leaning doesn't always immediately lead to communistic/"dangerously progressive" movements... as cited by the article/blog writer. There are plenty of stable-minded, well reasoned and educated liberals who have good sound reasons for their platforms.

These situations are hyper-personalized. I've run into nuts from both aisles. Having lived in Texas and in the Northeast section of country near DC/Baltimore (MD). Once spent $400 for a liberal art's history class that turned somehow into a green peace sustainability class... and she gave us rubber medical gloves to go all over campus to remove weeds/invasive plants (yay cuts )

But then I get annoyed when I hear the NRA fanatics draw overarching generalizations about the oppositions. In a lot of cases, they are completely disregarding all liberals, including my friends, who happen to be liberal only because of life experiences... which often is the main reasoning behind why one person chooses another "order" over the other.

The division is unnecessary. But powerful discourse does need to happen... which means sides need to disagree and for those arguments to run their course... the problem is the 20-30% of this country (or whatever percentage) that is anti-discourse, that is they flatly reject what doesn't fit the world they'd like and will be disrupters if needed... to me, it borders on anti-democracy and I hope that we do not head this direction.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Maru

I think these situations at best hint to undercurrents of dogma that does need to be addressed, but that doesn't mean that liberal positions themselves are inherently bad or just leftist propaganda. I think both sides offer discourse that is very helpful to the development of our democracy. Being left-leaning doesn't always immediately lead to communistic/"dangerously progressive" movements... as cited by the article/blog writer. There are plenty of stable-minded, well reasoned and educated liberals who have good sound reasons for their platforms.

These situations are hyper-personalized. I've run into nuts from both aisles. Having lived in Texas and in the Northeast section of country near DC/Baltimore (MD). Once spent $400 for a liberal art's history class that turned somehow into a green peace sustainability class... and she gave us rubber medical gloves to go all over campus to remove weeds/invasive plants (yay cuts )

But then I get annoyed when I hear the NRA fanatics draw overarching generalizations about the oppositions. In a lot of cases, they are completely disregarding all liberals, including my friends, who happen to be liberal only because of life experiences... which often is the main reasoning behind why one person chooses another "order" over the other.

The division is unnecessary. But powerful discourse does need to happen... which means sides need to disagree and for those arguments to run their course... the problem is the 20-30% of this country (or whatever percentage) that is anti-discourse, that is they doesn't fit the world they'd like... to me, it borders on anti-democracy and I hope that we do not head this direction.

You really ARE so intelligent, informed and eloquent Maru - as well as being a fast typist.

I totally agree with the text which I have emboldened.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Maru

I think these situations at best hint to undercurrents of dogma that does need to be addressed, but that doesn't mean that liberal positions themselves are inherently bad or just leftist propaganda. I think both sides offer discourse that is very helpful to the development of our democracy. Being left-leaning doesn't always immediately lead to communistic/"dangerously progressive" movements... as cited by the article/blog writer. There are plenty of stable-minded, well reasoned and educated liberals who have good sound reasons for their platforms.

These situations are hyper-personalized. I've run into nuts from both aisles. Having lived in Texas and in the Northeast section of country near DC/Baltimore (MD). Once spent $400 for a liberal art's history class that turned somehow into a green peace sustainability class... and she gave us rubber medical gloves to go all over campus to remove weeds/invasive plants (yay cuts )

But then I get annoyed when I hear the NRA fanatics draw overarching generalizations about the oppositions. In a lot of cases, they are completely disregarding all liberals, including my friends, who happen to be liberal only because of life experiences... which often is the main reasoning behind why one person chooses another "order" over the other.

The division is unnecessary. But powerful discourse does need to happen... which means sides need to disagree and for those arguments to run their course... the problem is the 20-30% of this country (or whatever percentage) that is anti-discourse, that is they flatly reject what doesn't fit the world they'd like and will be disrupters if needed... to me, it borders on anti-democracy and I hope that we do not head this direction.

Yes i totally agree that the average person on either side are not bad and are rational in their views.
There are extremist nuts on both sides of the political spectrum.The thing is that for years atleast over here we've heard about the right wing extremists no end.We know about everything there is to know about their racism and xenophobia but have heard virtually nothing of leftist extremism.That is starting to come out now and show its ugly side including the anti-semitism and civil unrest and racism and sexism against the white male.

[Jamie89]

Hmm... I get what he's saying, and I can imagine how frustrating it must be to consider yourself right wing, and being lumped in a box with more extreme people that you disagree with. But he goes from complaining about that to then doing exactly the same thing with his comments about the left.

"The left is a bunch of bullies"
"intellectually stifling PC culture of the left"
"they want riots and book burnings"
"regressive left"

His opening statement even says that the only reason he needs to vote for Trump is because of his feelings towards the left. And I continue to have a problem with this rhetoric...

"Trump’s comments are at best reflective of the type of talk that goes on among men all too frequently."

Of course people are entitled to their own opinion, but this is so deflective because it's not offering any kind of explanation/justification for Trumps comments, it's not giving a personal opinion on his comments, it's suggesting instead that the reason it's ok is because everyone does it, and it's just a frustrating point to try and argue against because there's nothing to say really except, "you're wrong!" lol.

"It is the type of speech I have heard often and have never been comfortable with,"

The problem a lot of people had with Trumps comments wasn't just that he was being crude generally, it was specifically the way he talked about sexually assaulting women, and it's not the same type of thing. I've talked crudely with my friends when I've been drunk... and my first job was in a restaurant and I remember the kitchen staff would talk about women generally and some of the female waitresses in the most derogatory, crude, sexually explicit ways. But as a man I resent the constant suggestion that keeps cropping up that talking crudely/sexually is the same as bragging about how we've sexually assaulting people (and whether Trump actually did it or not, he still bragged about doing it and that shows his mentality on the subject).
"I want to do xxx to someone" and "I do xxx to people against their will"... sound quite similar and have a lot of the same words, but people need to stop getting confused by that because they're completely different mentalities.


And this...

"So, while most of my fellow Ivy League conservatives virtue signal their way leftwards in a giant show of appreciation for themselves and in an effort to gain the affections of “the party of love,” I’m voting Trump. I want to do what I believe is right, not what will allow me the platform to bask in a cesspool of back-patting about the divine limits of my own morality."

"I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong/bad/selfish" pretty much. Anyone voting for Hillary must be doing it for negative reasons, whereas he's voting for Trump because he's doing what's right? He's putting himself on quite a pedestal here and all that does is highlight the irony of the statement (considering it's the 'superiority' of Hillary voters that he's commenting on).


Anyway, overall this seems to mostly be why he doesn't like the left, why he doesn't like Hillary, and an offering of defenses for some of the things Trump has said in the past and defenses of being right wing (and like I said before I understand that and the frustrations of feeling like he needs to do that and he shouldn't have to, but he also doesn't have to attack the left either and contribute to the very mentality that has made him feel that way). It's a shame that it's like that, rather than it being a case of weighing up the positives of both candidates and choosing who's best... not that that's his fault, it's just because of the fact you have the 2 candidates you've got

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Hmm... I get what he's saying, and I can imagine how frustrating it must be to consider yourself right wing, and being lumped in a box with more extreme people that you disagree with. But he goes from complaining about that to then doing exactly the same thing with his comments about the left.

"The left is a bunch of bullies"
"intellectually stifling PC culture of the left"
"they want riots and book burnings"
"regressive left"

His opening statement even says that the only reason he needs to vote for Trump is because of his feelings towards the left. And I continue to have a problem with this rhetoric...

"Trump’s comments are at best reflective of the type of talk that goes on among men all too frequently."

Of course people are entitled to their own opinion, but this is so deflective because it's not offering any kind of explanation/justification for Trumps comments, it's not giving a personal opinion on his comments, it's suggesting instead that the reason it's ok is because everyone does it, and it's just a frustrating point to try and argue against because there's nothing to say really except, "you're wrong!" lol.

"It is the type of speech I have heard often and have never been comfortable with,"

The problem a lot of people had with Trumps comments wasn't just that he was being crude generally, it was specifically the way he talked about sexually assaulting women, and it's not the same type of thing. I've talked crudely with my friends when I've been drunk... and my first job was in a restaurant and I remember the kitchen staff would talk about women generally and some of the female waitresses in the most derogatory, crude, sexually explicit ways. But as a man I resent the constant suggestion that keeps cropping up that talking crudely/sexually is the same as bragging about how we've sexually assaulting people (and whether Trump actually did it or not, he still bragged about doing it and that shows his mentality on the subject).
"I want to do xxx to someone" and "I do xxx to people against their will"... sound quite similar and have a lot of the same words, but people need to stop getting confused by that because they're completely different mentalities.


And this...

"So, while most of my fellow Ivy League conservatives virtue signal their way leftwards in a giant show of appreciation for themselves and in an effort to gain the affections of “the party of love,” I’m voting Trump. I want to do what I believe is right, not what will allow me the platform to bask in a cesspool of back-patting about the divine limits of my own morality."

"I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong/bad/selfish" pretty much. Anyone voting for Hillary must be doing it for negative reasons, whereas he's voting for Trump because he's doing what's right? He's putting himself on quite a pedestal here and all that does is highlight the irony of the statement (considering it's the 'superiority' of Hillary voters that he's commenting on).


Anyway, overall this seems to mostly be why he doesn't like the left, why he doesn't like Hillary, and an offering of defenses for some of the things Trump has said in the past and defenses of being right wing (and like I said before I understand that and the frustrations of feeling like he needs to do that and he shouldn't have to, but he also doesn't have to attack the left either and contribute to the very mentality that has made him feel that way). It's a shame that it's like that, rather than it being a case of weighing up the positives of both candidates and choosing who's best... not that that's his fault, it's just because of the fact you have the 2 candidates you've got

...lovely post Jamie....you always make so much more sense than I do because my thoughts flood too much and it's hard to put them in order...


"Trump’s comments are at best reflective of the type of talk that goes on among men all too frequently."


..yeah I have huge worries with this kind of thing as well and how it's excused and I have only brothers/only sons so I've very much felt a male world through my life and I've very much felt male talk and experienced it, I know when to close the door quietly and put my earphones in... but this is not male talk, it very much disrespects males to say it reflects because it really doesn't...it's an individual's talk that shows extremely worrying character values in that individual....

[MTVN]

He makes a few decent points but I don't think it's that strong an explanation really. Especially on foreign policy he seems a bit muddled - he attacks 'the regressive left' for blaming the West for the problems in the Middle East but its Trump who has accused Obama and Hilary of 'creating' ISIS. It's crazy to think that Trump will be a beacon of moral judgement in foreign affairs as well, standing up to every repressive regime around the globe and condemning all their abuses. He's already made it clear that he wants to get on well with Putin and says he'd be happy to meet with Kim Jong-un. In practice I'm sure he'd continue America's alliance with Saudi as well because its not realistic to refuse to work with Islamic countries unless they share all your values.

His main reason for supporting Trump really seems to be as a reaction to 'the intellectually stifling PC culture of the left' and because he sees it as sticking two fingers up to those he went to college with. There's not really a positive case for a Trump presidency here. Like Trump he just relies on painting the bleakest picture possible of both the US and the world, maybe he does identify issues that Hilary avoids but if he does become President he'll soon find out that finding solutions is a lot harder than finding problems.