The election was a win for American independence and a middle finger for the globalist agenda, you are bound to have some racist come out of the closet on both ends.

I personally am seeing much more violent racists coming from the left than from anywhere else. Sure you have a handful of tweets and FB posts which show some "racist trump supporters" talking shit to immigrants and stuff, but they could entirely be fabricated because they lack any way of proving the legitimacy of the story.

But on the flip side we have multiple videos of minorities saying stuff like "he voted for trump lets get him" and beating the shit out of some white Trump supporter for no reason other than he is white and he voted for Trump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RUv8z59EZA

Examples like this are as racist as you can get, and far exceed any of the racist words I've heard. Neither are justified, but actions are much worse than words in the case of racism.

Please man show me videos of thousands of people in the streets rioting, settings things on fire, looting, destroying cop cars after Obama's victories. This kind of new age thuggery they are calling "protesting" is not protesting it is domestic terrorism.

#663 i support checks and balances so that the majority cant just fuck over the minority
i don't just support this one becuase it helps rural white people have a say in things i don't really care what race people are im sorry my dude
i support them becuase if we just had pure democracy the majority could decide one day "hey we don't really like the minority" so lets pass this law to fuck them and they cant stop us becuase we outnumber them
also thanks for saying i only believe what i believe because im racist gj my dude

I don't think it's a fair comparison given that the political climate back in 2008 was much more sane and toned down than it is now. A better comparison would be a hypothetical if Clinton won, what would Trump supporters do?

Spoilers: probably the same, if not worse since Trump insinuated he wouldn't accept the election results (ala 3rd debate). Shitty people on both sides, what a surprise

rip murica

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw83dxwWIAAw4p-.jpg

we are so fucked

http://nypost.com/2016/11/02/meet-the-militia-monitoring-voting-sites-for-fraud/

telling globalism to fuck off is only a win if you're in the bottom 25% of america

The rest of our economy depends entirely on service work propped up by managing overseas manufacturing
American independence is all well and good but we aren't any more autonomous than before. We're probably less independent now since closing trade relations means we lose political leverage but w/e
\\

Black people beating up white trump supporters isn't racist (nor is white people beating up black people for supporting clinton)

//

we all know what thuggery means. you can say nigger if you want. we already know you're a racism apologist so it doesn't really matter speak your heart

this is a case where a minority fucked over a majority though. Is that really better? What these results say is that the states making the least amount of money and contributing the least to the economy are more important than places like New York, Texas, and California which collectively have basically no political input but bankroll the flyover states that are nowhere NEAR self sustaining

How is that fair?

it was revealed by wikileaks that members of the DNC were hiring people to go to trump rallys and protest/incite violence. while he doesn't have proof that the protesters are hired in this case its kinda reasonable for him to have this suspicion

Without a doubt there would be angry people on the right, and surely there would be protests. That was honestly bound to happen given the candidates that we were given. Had different candidates been selected, this would have been a completely different story, but hypotheticals about the past are meaningless at this point.

Now there would have certainly been someone (or some people) that would have ended up getting so upset that they decided to go out and riot against the results. In today's political atmosphere, it would have been bound to happen. I'm all for peaceful protesting, since it's a part of the first amendment. But those who are so incapable of accepting the reality of things as they appear are, unfortunately, the problem.

I'm actually thinking of writing a nerd essay later about a theory that my history prof my freshman year gave to my history class about the general political leaning of America, and it's a rather interesting one considering how he used the party affiliations and leanings of our past presidents to make his claim. I can't do it now since I have homework to finish but I might afterwards if I'm feeling up to it

you're saying California has no political power but they have 55 electoral votes which is a bit more than 10 percent of the total and they have a bit more than 10 percent of the population that seems to me like they have the appropriate amount of power

California represents 15% of the US's GDP and is overwhelmingly democrat. Yet the state that the US depends on the most to actually function is being governed by a government that is as diametrically opposed to them as is possible in US politics. If California seceded it would be the 6th largest GDP in the world and the US would fall from #1 to #2 as far as GDP goes (if you count the EU as a single trading entity). California's tax burden ends up being the vast majority of states that have citizens that hate california's politics. California is now being governed by a congress, president, and soon SC that will limit the rights of its citizens when possible.

the level of need the US has for California is far far far far far far far far far far far greater than the amount of political representation California gets.

that's why the Electoral college is bullshit. It tells the loser states they're more important than the people who actually make America matter

so what your saying is California should get more votes because they make alot of money... are you sure your not actually in support of fascism

what i'm saying is that the US's democracy gimps it by reducing the voting power of most of its most important states. Letting North Dakota have proportionally more control of the US than California makes the US weaker as a whole

also neither candidate got more than 50% percent of the vote so the neither is a majority

does the definition of a democracy have an asterisk where you pick the #2 guy in a plurality?

if there was then hillary would be president
knock knock this system has been in place for 200 something years but oh i dont like this guy so i guess things need to change NOW

you are missing the point that it is literally only possible for this to happen to democratic candidates with the way modern demographics are, any republican candidate that got the popular vote would win automatically, because only liberal areas are disenfranchised

there's a reason this happened twice in 16 years, both to dems

I mean based on Trump's voter demographics I find this unlikely, as older working-class men and women don't have the time or energy to protest as violently as Clinton supporters are right now.

It doesn't have to be about race; the fact that we care more about what "side" we're on and how hard we can cause violence in the wake of an outcome we don't like (or like) is the problem. We need to have actual discussion between both sides and not just mindless aggression to each other because at the end of the day we're all living in the same country and we have to work together to try to benefit all of us.

trying to have a rationale discussion with a party that bases their policy on feelings and moral dogmas isn't feasible

until the GOP wants to start applying some actual methodology or reasoning to what they do that is actually supported by people who understand government we'll have a continual deadlock.

that's only a valid argument if I supported the EC when it didn't benefit me.

I think trying to band-aid brain-drained areas by giving them unequal control of the government isn't fair to anyone.

I'm not sure if you actually understand the globalist agenda. I'm not talking about American trade independence where we make most of our own stuff and don't trade with the world, that has nothing to do with it.

The globalist agenda is more about the promotion of a one world government with a global currency, global laws, open borders, global culture, a decrease in religious liberty, personal freedoms, a decrease in capitalism, and more global control over virtually every aspect of our lives. Brexit was about England maintaining its own sovereignty and rejecting globalism. Russia has also rejected globalism by putting some of these globalist bankers in prison.

Not only that but 1/3 of the population voted. So less than 1/6th of people actually voted for the winning party. But that is pretty normal in this country.

>I'm not sure if you actually understand the globalist agenda

apparently not. Sorry for not knowing all the facets of your Illuminati conspiracies

>The globalist agenda is more about the promotion of a one world government with a global currency, global laws, open borders, global culture,

How are any of those bad? Increased trade and more efficient transmission of resources + people around the globe is good for humanity as a whole

>a decrease in religious liberty, personal freedoms

Trump is in favor of banning muslims and reinstating bans on gay marriage. Seems like you voted for the wrong guy

>a decrease in capitalism

By trying to artificially limit what businesses can do in america?

>more global control over virtually every aspect of our lives

So instead you vote for the candidate that promises a reduction in nationally granted freedoms out of fear of some shadow entity in the future that you have no proof or cognizance of reducing your freedoms instead?

> Brexit was about England maintaining its own sovereignty

and as a result England is still going to be bound to the whims of the EU in regards to trade but now has no control over EU policy. England is now more under the hand of globalism than before

> Russia has also rejected globalism by putting some of these globalist bankers in prison

Russia is a dictatorship with a failing economy. Do you REALLY want america to follow suit?

Saying that either party bases all of their policy on feelings/morals is not really true. Both the Democrats and Republicans base a lot of their policies on moral issues (such as abortion for the right and lgbtq issues for the left). And again, both sides contest each other's "moral" issues with moral responses. There are also numerous "non-moral" issues that both sides tackle (the economy for both sides). You can't just say that one party is morally driven and the other isn't.

And are morals necessarily a bad thing? The whole idea of "rights" have a base in morality itself. It is hard to escape "moral politics" because it really spreads into a lot of issues.

@686

You are so naive it amazes me:

"How are any of those bad? Increased trade and more efficient transmission of resources + people around the globe is good for humanity as a whole"

Oh how is that bad. Yea well lets just go ahead and join hands and be ruled by a basket of countries including North Korea, China, Russia, and all the extremist middle eastern countries that still put gay's to death, and allow men to beat their wives under the law. Like are you serious man? How is that bad? Because I (and most people in this country) want our country to make up the laws of the land, not some group of globalists.

"Trump is in favor of banning muslims and reinstating bans on gay marriage. Seems like you voted for the wrong guy"

Did you hear that one on the Clinton News Network? He is in favor of extreme vetting and possibly a temporary immigration ban on people from terrorist prone countries, he has revised his position. Ban's on gay marriage, wrong. He said let the states decide.

"By trying to artificially limit what businesses can do in america?"

No by having the globalist government telling people who can start a business and who can't. And just having overreaching control on private corporations.

"So instead you vote for the candidate that promises a reduction in nationally granted freedoms out of fear of some shadow entity in the future that you have no proof or cognizance of reducing your freedoms instead?"

What on earth are you even talking about, what freedoms does Trump want people to give up?

"Russia is a dictatorship with a failing economy. Do you REALLY want america to follow suit?"

How you came to the conclusion that that is what I was implying is beyond me.

Please try to familiarize yourself with the globalist agenda. Do some reading. Maybe pick up a book on the topic before trying to argue then maybe you can sound like you are informed on the subject.

The idea of a singular global government means that individuals matter less. Smaller government allows for issues facing a minority of people to actually matter.
If the EU does things to fuck over and bully the UK it would be hurting itself. If countries in EU see the UK getting fucked over they may also be inclined to leave. The reason for this is the UK is a major trade partner for most members of the EU so in order to hurt the UK these other countries would also be harmed, if they leave they would be able to make there own deals.
England left the EU because they didn't want to accept economic migrants because they could see the damage it was doing in germany. (I say economic migrants because there is nothing to show that the majority of the people are refugees from syria or other war torn countries)

"So instead you vote for the candidate that promises a reduction in nationally granted freedoms out of fear of some shadow entity in the future that you have no proof or cognizance of reducing your freedoms instead?"

What on earth are you even talking about, what freedoms does Trump want people to give up?
also curious about this my dude

There's objective reasons and benefits for society to allow abortion though. Banning it is based on morals that say killing things that are kind of close to human are wrong. Most social issues that the GOP supports are like this.

~~~~

>Oh how is that bad

America is always going to be beholden to the interests of other countries because we live in a global economy. Fighting globalization only retards America's ability to establish itself as a global power. You can have 20 years of ignoring China now or you can have America be able to control China with political and economic leverage.

> He is in favor of extreme vetting and possibly a temporary immigration ban on people from terrorist prone countries

Which is a limit on religious freedom. He also wants to create a network that monitors domestic Muslims.

>He said let the states decide

Mustard has told you multiple times over multiple threads why letting the states decide is effectively banning it. Letting states decide just means that instead of all 50 states allowing gay marriage, only ~25 will. You will objectively have less freedom as a result of allowing states to decide marriage issues

>just having overreaching control on private corporations.

that would fall under controlling the markets. If you support actual free markets and true capitalism globalism is the logical end product. Attempting to set up an insular free market is bad for a lot of reasons that you won't believe me about because I'm just going to cite economists and historians who pretty unanimously agree that tariffs are bad

>what freedoms does Trump want people to give up

Gay marriage, 1st amendment in regards to the press, limitations on religion, freedom to have an abortion, economic freedom to conduct international business, freedom to go to the gender correct bathroom, probably more if I spend more time on this

>then maybe you can sound like you are informed on the subject

idk you seem to be getting along fine yourself

>The idea of a singular global government means that individuals matter less

how? How in the world do individuals matter more or less if the entire world cooperates? Individuals barely matter now, they'd barely matter in a globalist world. No matter what you want to pretend people are already bound to each other for international trade. You don't get to just stop being a part of Earth.

>If the EU does things to fuck over and bully the UK it would be hurting itself

The end result would be a trade war where the EU and the UK try to see who has the bigger GDPdick and the UK is gonna get fucked much much much much harder I promise you.

Your argument could also be used to say that leaving the EU hurts the UK more. If they're major trade partners and the UK gives up any ability to negotiate internal agreements then the UK is now at the whim of the EU with no way to participate

@690

"Which is a limit on religious freedom.."

So we shouldn't discriminate against ISIS from entering the US either? Many of them will tell you they are only acting out on their religion. All Trump wants to do is separate those who supporter or sympathize with ISIS and similar terrorist groups from those that do not. You probably do not know this because you've been buying the whole Islam is a religion of peace and extremists are just a small fraction of 1%. But what they don't tell you is there is a very large percentage of Muslims that believe Sharia law should be the law of the land. And under Sharia law gays are put to death and women are beat and raped. Are we supposed to be tolerant to this set of beliefs because its apart of a religion?

“He also wants to create a network that monitors domestic Muslims.”

Oh like the NSA that spies on everyone? After the terrorist attacks in France they went in and audited several mosques and shut down several after finding jihadist documents and weapons. I remember hearing that Trump said that people should report suspicious activity and not be afraid of the PC police. He said this about the San Bernardino attacks where the couple had bombs around their house and neighbors suspected something wasn’t right but never said anything because they didn’t want to feel like they were stereotyping someone.

"Gay marriage, 1st amendment in regards to the press, limitations on religion, freedom to have an abortion, economic freedom to conduct international business, freedom to go to the gender correct bathroom, probably more if I spend more time on this"

States decide, wants to keep press honest, wants to reduce terrorism, abortion isn't in the Constitution. Freedom to conduct international business? LOL? Increased import taxes for and exit taxes wouldn't infringe on peoples ability for global trade. Bathroom? He said Caitlin Jenner can use whatever bathroom they want at Trump tower, don't think he really cares that much about that.

>. All Trump wants to do is separate those who supporter or sympathize with ISIS and similar terrorist groups from those that do not

and datamine anyone in the US who is a muslim

> But what they don't tell you is there is a very large percentage of Muslims that believe Sharia law should be the law of the land

A lot of Christians want to oppress people too. I don't think discriminating against people because they believe something different is cool, sorry :(

>Oh like the NSA that spies on everyone

yeah, that's bad

>rights

you're trying to say what he's doing is good. It isn't about good or bad or w/e. You objectively have fewer rights in Trump's ideal america

@693 If you are going to continue to comment about Muslims, please address my entire post specifically the parts about those that sympathize with ISIS and those that believe Sharia law should be the law of the land. Do you think Sharia law is compatible with the laws in the US? Do you think its ok for people of the Muslim faith to ignore US law and substitute Sharia law when they live in the US?

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

"Overwhelming percentages of Muslims in many countries want Islamic law (sharia) to be the official law of the land, according to a worldwide survey by the Pew Research Center. "

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/

In Pakistan, 62% of Muslims report having a favorable view on ISIS. I would think that taking this into serious consideration before allowing people from Pakistan into the US would be a smart move? Are you in disagreement?

First off, explain how we're not a global power. I'd agree that we're not number one anymore, but we're certainly still a global power. Russia and China certainly have us beat, but afaik we're the country that follows suit behind them. Also just "ignoring" China gives them 20 years to advance their way of production, while we're still stuck 20+ years behind if we even can contend with them at the end of those 20 years.

Next, explain how we would control China with "political and economic leverage" when they are our biggest rival. As far as I'm aware, a lot of products are being made by the Chinese because they can produce it for cheaper and all we have to do is cover shipping costs. But those jobs could easily be occupied by our own workers. Rebuild some factories and improve our highways and roads (which doing that puts people to work), and then there's a likely competition of who can produce better products.

So, something that's intended to keep you and I safe, is a limit on religious freedom? Not really getting your logic here.

edit: I know I was late but sorry was busy typing nerd essay on this

edit2: just adding this since I don't want to make another post

The safety of the people should never be compromised when there is a legitimate threat whose views are extremist and anti-western. Am I saying all Muslims are terrorists? Of course not. Trump himself has said that but all that's been put on propaganda is "no more Muslims".