Vicetrailia
Member
"Oppose" as in advocate against? They probably wouldn't vote republican. Now if you mean that they're against racism but don't really lift a finger against it, well that's pretty standard affair in the republican party.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Do the Democrats have a viable candidate who can beat Trump?
- Thread starter pramod
- Start date
"Oppose" as in advocate against? They probably wouldn't vote republican. Now if you mean that they're against racism but don't really lift a finger against it, well that's pretty standard affair in the republican party.
LegendOfKage
Member
To better get an idea of where you're coming from, what do you feel is the difference between politically right and alt-right?
And how do you lift a finger against racism beyond verbally opposing it? Perhaps you could provide some examples from your own life.
Spheyr
Banned
Uh, January 20, 2025, that's not really a secret.
TheShadowLord
Member
oprah perhaps? I am sure she could people who are young to vote for her
Last edited:
Frozen Bagel
Neo Member
Lol. You keep riding that Amtrek son. Don’t be surprised when it derails
bucyou
Member
Vicetrailia
Member
On this site socially, the alt-right would be noticeably antagonistic. More so than general insensitivity/occasinal jokes, milkshake duck, and accidental outings would bear. Rightists pushed for an opinion may disappoint you, but they're not the alt-right.
I associate the alt-right with people who would be caught saying cuckservative. They're intellectual racists, race realists, etc. But they're far-far beyond what 98% of posters on here exhibit on the forum.
As for what I've done, I'm an advocate, especially offline.
Spheyr
Banned
Spoiler: There's likely a lot of alt-right here who know there'd be crying and banning if they were open about their beliefs.
LegendOfKage
Member
Some of your answers left me with more questions, if you don't mind.
What are intellectual racists (aside from seemingly an oxymoron) and race realists?
I sometimes refer to statistical racism, which I feel accurately describes people who use statistics to form racist opinions. "Many impoverished high crime areas tend to be filled with high a population of black people" becomes "a large portion of black people live in high crime areas" becomes "black people commit a lot of crime" becomes "I see a black person over there, that criminal better stay away from my family."
Literal prejudice formed by the mental manipulation of statistics, rather than seeing people as individuals, and not judging people by the color of their skin.
Would that description refer to either intellectual racists or race realists, or are those something different entirely?
And I'm still lost on the difference between advocacy and verbally opposing racism.
I'd hope there wouldn't be many alt-right posters here, at least if means what I've come to think it means. In my view, the definition of the alt-right seems to be genuinely racist conservatives. Or would you say that's somehow an over-simplification?
Seeing as you seem to be one of the more conservative posters here, I'd be interested to hear your perspective. What do you feel is the difference between the right and the alt-right?
pramod
Banned
Wikipedia has a pretty non-sensical definition of "Alt-Right":
Basically their definition of alt-right is bundling together the entire spectrum of philosophies that COULD be associated with racism. From the blatant KKK white supremacists, to people who are just populists, or anti-illegal immigration advocates. It seems to be a term the left has made up so they can conveniently attack and dismiss a whole range of opinions that they don't agree with. For some on the left(and a lot of people on that other forum), they don't see a difference between all these people, ie they are all Nazis.
Basically their definition of alt-right is bundling together the entire spectrum of philosophies that COULD be associated with racism. From the blatant KKK white supremacists, to people who are just populists, or anti-illegal immigration advocates. It seems to be a term the left has made up so they can conveniently attack and dismiss a whole range of opinions that they don't agree with. For some on the left(and a lot of people on that other forum), they don't see a difference between all these people, ie they are all Nazis.
Last edited:
Watching some of their videos you could probably come to the same conclusion. Some batshit insane stuff.
Corrik
Member
"Sure".
It is confirmed to have been said. Hillary has acknowledged it was said. She claimed it was about the environment or economics.
It is clearly about environment, trade, and borders. She is talking about a hemispheric entity that has no borders, common markets, common regulations. Basically she is talking about a Western Hemisphere American EU.
She would never do it, but she was caught talking about open borders to people who she gauged wanted to hear it.
It was something she said that she thought would never get out.
Last edited:
Vicetrailia
Member
Race realists and the like believe that biology divides humans by race. They like the bell curve, and/or try to find ways to divide races amongst one another by abilities and behaviors.
Stereotyping. The media also reinforces these thoughts. You may never meet a black person but you still have a mental perception of them. A race realist will try to use crime statistics to show that blacks are genetically different than whites, and that these statistics and associated behaviors are unique. But it's all bullshit anyway.
In real life I go to events and occasionally meetings showing support. I am open to expanding my world view, and read up on history. I support targeted policy, and won't knowingly vote for someone who supports regressive policies.
Verbal support is not engaging in racist behavior, not being antagonistic, treating people by the content of their character, and thinking about confronting that racist family member, and sometimes you do, but ultimately you prefer peace than hostility. Or you may feel like you treat everyone equally, but don't worry about regressive policy too much because it doesn't affect you. You'd possibly vote for someone who does to get other things, but may not be racist yourself. Generally you treat people as equals, and while no one is perfect you're willing to speak up, but won't exactly shake things up.
The alt right embraces implicit or explicit racism, or even white supremacy. They tend to feel that mainstream conservatives do not advocate for the interests of white people enough as a group, and act too PC. On the surface level they're race infused, where as the conservative mainstream act race blind.
Last edited by a moderator:
Vicetrailia
Member
Why don't you go read up on the actual science?
WEW
appaws
Banned
Obviously, you are right factually AranS....I don't think many people would dispute that certain physical characteristics evolved differently in different regions. Skin pigmentation being the most obvious, along with other physical characteristics like hair texture, facial features, vulnerability to certain diseases, etc.
The question is what we do with that fact, and whether the traits involved are divergent enough to make humans from different regions unable to coexist in a modern society? My answer would be no, and believe me I am no liberal. But my belief that people deserve to be judged as individuals and not as groups is the centerpiece of my vision of a just society.
I really can't wait for the meltdown from guys like yourself when Trump gets impeached/resigns before he can be impeached.
Hotel Security
Member
Folks need to get over the impeachment thing. It just doesn't happen. And you need a two-third majority in the Senate to do it and the Dems don't even have 50% there...and that's assuming every Dem votes to do it.
And then there's the logistics of it. I don't even know what nonsense grounds folks would impeach Trump over but the evidence would be hearsay and he-said/she-said kind of stuff. We had Bill Clinton being caught committing perjury right there on the stand...a very clear crime being committed...and they STILL couldn't kick the guy out.
Trump haters, I get that you don't like the guy but the impeachment is not happening. The debate is really whether Trump even WANTS to run for another term. I can totally see him being sick of the constant scrunity and battling and just wanting to go on a publicity tour with a tell-all book instead.
--
As for the Dems? No, I have no faith in them producing a decent candidate. In the last four elections, the Democratic Party have pushed horrendous candidates in Al Gore, John fricking Kerry and Hillary Clinton not once but twice. These are all horrible candidates with little-to-no charisma, and little in speaking skills, especially in the case of Hillary who is awful at everything to do with being a candidate and should go down as one of the worst candidates ever. (Remember, Obama was not the top candidate of the Party (they HAD to have Hillary) and won a super-close surprise victory in the primary)
(Not that the Reps have been better...Romney was a joke and the fact that Trump and Cruz were the top candidates last election tells you how bad they are). But at least they've figured out that you win elections with people with charisma...something the Dems can't seem to figure out despite seeing Obama's charisma win folks over during his entire presidency.
So, no, I assume the Dems will put out another awful and uninspired candidate and we'll be back in the same boat where no one even wants to go to the polls because the choices are horrendous...just like basically every election in my lifetime.
Last edited:
TheLaughingStock
Member
Is it that big of a deal? Because it seems like people get over meltdowns quickly and move on.
A lot of folks were shocked Donald Trump became America's president. Now presumably, a lot of the same people are salivating over how conservatives will react if Donald Trump is taken down by his enemies.
I think if you meltdown over Donald Trump becoming one of the world's most powerful people or alternatively his removal from office, then it's because you're not paying attention or don't care about what all the people who disagree with you are saying. Shouldn't happen.
Last edited:
TheShadowLord
Member
then I guessed someone like Oprah or even the Rock should be the top Democratic nominees if it ever comes down to that. Maybe even Tom Hanks, I'll vote for a President Tom Hanks.
edit: or that Corey Booker, I guess.
Last edited:
TheShadowLord
Member
once trump became president, the idea of a celebrity become president just opened up pandora's box. Not sure if it could be applied to Regan as he was a governor after finishing his acting career and before becoming president. But hey, at least they have charisma if that is what people are looking for in a president these days.
appaws
Banned
I think the Wall St./Clinton wing will find a strong candidate to try to keep anyone too far to the left from being the nominee. The problem they have is that their bench is so small after the down the ticket wipeouts they have suffered...they have so few Governors, etc. to choose from.
I imagine nearly anyone can win against him. His approval rating is pretty terrible, and he barely beat one of the most disliked politicians in your country who had the whole a lot of weight thrown behind her. Imagine that same weight thrown behind someone likeable. If anything. And with him doing really nothing for the Midwest states like he promised yea he's going to need a war or something to win in the next election.
Frozen Bagel
Neo Member
I’d probably be down with president Schwarzenegger, even under the republican docket, regardless if he wants to or not
Last edited:
NickFire
Member
He's not allowed to be president.
TrainedRage
Banned
If you say so mate.
TrainedRage
Banned
The thing about trump that i believe the left doesn't understand is that he is a pig and everyone knows he is a pig, meaning he is covered in mud aka scandalous activities like cheating with a porn star. His supporters believe he did it and dont care because they would have believed he did it before they voted for him. The media and the left are trying to sling mud on him and its sticking, but no one cares because he is a pig and is already covered in mud.
The media is used to destroying politicians that present themselves as sheep, all white and scandal free. If you can throw mud on a sheep and it sticks the people notice and care.
That is something the left will need to deal with when bringing an opponent for trump.
The media is used to destroying politicians that present themselves as sheep, all white and scandal free. If you can throw mud on a sheep and it sticks the people notice and care.
That is something the left will need to deal with when bringing an opponent for trump.
Corrik
Member
Not a natural born American Citizen. Cannot be president.
It's Jeff
Banned
Or at the very least, understand what Trump represents and react accordingly. People voted for the man because he was the least Washinton candidate and a fair amount of Americans are tired of the status quo because they're working too much for too little.
They had a candidate, like him or not, that mirrored this sentiment and torpedoed his ass with extreme prejudice.
Don't fucking do that again, DNC. If people want change, give them what they want. Now is not the time to stand by who was here first and who's turn it is. I swear though, the Force tells me Hillary Clinton is running again.
I also have a theory that you need white voters to win and calling them privileged racist transphobe homophobes three times a day didn't help, but that's another story.
TheShadowLord
Member
i think i might be playing "but what about..." card here but hasn't trump more or less done this too by attacking other groups? Such as labeling all illegal Mexicans as rapists, drug dealers, murders, etc? Even doing the same thing earlier this year with that video about them?
George Clooney. I think he could pull off an easy Barrack Obama-esque win. A wealthy family man, a known public figure, a savvy wife who runs around championing human rights, and he can at least act presidential.
Terry Crews could also do it if he returned to the role of Dwayne Alizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, complete with flipping people off, swearing, scantily clad women, guns and maybe renaming the Navy SEALS to Team America, making it law to yell out “Fuck Yeah” every time someone mentions the term.
People on both sides of the spectrum would be so confused when Terry Crews wins.
Terry Crews could also do it if he returned to the role of Dwayne Alizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, complete with flipping people off, swearing, scantily clad women, guns and maybe renaming the Navy SEALS to Team America, making it law to yell out “Fuck Yeah” every time someone mentions the term.
People on both sides of the spectrum would be so confused when Terry Crews wins.
pramod
Banned
He never called all Mexicans rapists. And the reason so many people on the other side don't want to engage in productive arguments anymore is because people like you keep obfuscating facts and regurgitating the same tired lies about Trump over and over again.
Last edited:
Do you live in the US? What you said is basically what every news source in america was saying for 6 months. Even the day of the election "no one thought he could win". Except everyone who voted for him.
Difference being he isn't some unknown outsider anymore. Everyone sees what he's about and many of his voting block have seen that he doesn't have their interests at heart. As an example, he defunded a few programs people in the Appalachia rely on in the winter, they overwhelming voted for him. Coal industry is actually dying faster under him than Obama, so he hasn't done shit for the coal voters. Rural areas are still dying, the jobs aren't coming in for them. And especially after he caved with this latest signing he did so he could go golf smh. Then add in he won't be running against Hillary the most unliked politician in America (seriously, they could have ran an actual dog, and he'd/she'd do better than Hillary).
Not to mention all those people who stayed home because Hillary couldn't convince them to vote.
TheShadowLord
Member
Well that may be right he did not label all illegal Mexicans as rapists. In my opinion, he did label them as being dangerous where only a few of them are decent. Doing something to stop illegal immigration is fine, calling a vast majority of them criminals or being dangerous is not fine in my book.
Last edited:
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
True. He said "some, he assumed" were decent people which implies that most of the people "mexico are sending" are bringing drugs, bringing crime, and are rapists. This despite more mexicans going back to mexico than coming in.
Vicetrailia
Member
He had it the opposite: the supervast majority are good people, some are bad.
Corrik
Member
Well, it is an easy link to make that people doing something illegal could be doing the other things illegal. Though it is not always accurate.
The amount of illegal Mexican immigrants in relation to all Mexicans is a drop in the ocean. And, then implying many of that drop are dangerous is not a world beating racist comment.
It may be fearmongering, but it is not being racist against Mexicans. If anything, it is hyperbole. Overstating the issue to make a point.
Here is the problem with this. If you get to america illegal you can not work, it will be difficult to get a home. So for the first months even years you will live on the street. You often will be used by rich people doing their dirty work for a small amount of money. So to keep you always on otherwise legal way will be much more difficult then coming here legally. And this goes on even if you have a house and work later on whats with your kids? Are schooled allowed to take in illegal immigrant children if they know about it?.
So shouldn't we instead enforce border rules but also make it possible for a certain amount of people in a year getting to america on a legal way? Giving them a future instead years of hopelessness?
Similar threads
- Locked