The comment was made in jest.

Ah, my bad.

lou next time you want to publicly gloat about the deaths of human beings just imagine that each Russian soldier is an inner city CVS

Will do.

Donald Trump: The New Normal

Your candidate was calling the election rigged before even seeing the results.

Pretty much everything you complain about from the other side is 10x worse on your side. But you don't care, because like all Trump supporters you have zero shame.

Has anyone from the media yet asked Trump how he won if the vote was rigged against him?

He called out the rigging before it could happen, and scared off the riggers. L D O

lol I hope they don't because his answer is very obvious. They tried, but the people wanted him so badly that their votes overcame the rigging. If it hadn't been rigged, he would've won by 15 points in the popular.

EDIT: In fact, he already said something like that. He would've won the popular if not for millions of illegals voting.

This is less than ideal.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fake-new...kistan-israel/

Well at least ours won't be the only government that unquestioningly believes anything it reads online.

My position is that you are playing a game you are destined to lose. Trump is an incredible ahole, and his credibility is very low among normal people, but it's apparently very high among his supporters. You have been welcoming incredible aholes like Fly into the fold for too long, cheering them on, and they seem to be pretty credible in small bubbles such as this, but to normal people they're nothing but hoaxters, like plane boy. Like Trump.

Instead of keeping the high ground, you have slowly abandoned truth and rationality, liberalism, and resorted to the sorts of games that work better on the right, fighting on their turf, so to speak. You're engaged in a tribal battle against them, one they will always win because they're much more loyal and tribal in nature.

later

It is just small bubbles who do more than tolerate fly though isn't it? It's not representative of the Democrats or liberals at large, who on the whole do not want to go down the hateful path.

It is our nature to be tolerant, in the end it is one of liberalism key strengths. I've written before about the problem of liberalism which is that it appears weak at time and that that invites trouble. It's part of the package we have to accept.

Many of the liberals who frequent forums like this are not tolerant, and I'm not sure they're even liberal. It was fun watching the Republican party tear itself apart, and a bit less fun watching the Democrats do the same. But move along, I'm trying to pin this all on Fly.

I'm still backing liberalism to triumph. It seems to be the nature of small forums to become dominated by some marginal group one way or the other but how many people are we really talking about?

It's a scary world but not this one. It's christmas - aren't the stories supposed to be cheery?

Like, not even a month ago you were posting completely fake bull**** about Islamic "no-go zones" in the UK.

I'm still wondering what hoaxes people like me have been running.

Just like LowKey accusing me of knee-jerk defending white supremacists, don't let the facts get in the way of your posting.

First, I am on the record itt calling Donald Trump a moron etc and explicitly stating I voted for Hilldawg b/c #neverTrump. Moreover, feel free to check my posting history the night of the election where I live blogged my level of Shookness that DT may actually win.

The point I made re: coup de tat is unassailable. A fact that, on some level at least, you acknowledge b/c you don't attack my argument on the merits. Instead you head straight to the old standby ad hominem.

I'm right; you're wrong. Twas ever thus.

But that's besides the point.

The larger issue that you, LowKey, and some others itt apparently learned approximately nothing from this election. Why do you think most people itf, myself included, were that ****ing wrong re: Drumf?

Or why any disagreement re: strength of Hillary as a candidate was shouted down at every turn?

Here's a hint: It involves the way dissenting opinions are treated itf.

I mean you love to mock Chiefs Planet for being a racist, ignorant, echo chamber......'like how can they be that stupid...do they actually beleive that!!!!' 'roflcopter, spike the football bitches....ECHO CHAMBER!!!'

Thing is, if you replace racist with liberal, and ignorant with like uppity or something, they think the same exact thing about us here!!!!

And as long as elections are decided by getting a majority of people on your side you will have a hard time winning people to your cause, and therefore effecting the change you want to see in the world, if you constantly view everyone who doesn't agree with you as THE OTHER. If instead of empathizing and understanding each other, you choose to deride and mock.

Put another way:
You know, like I'm doing right here.

Labeling the people that don't agree with you as THE OTHER seemed to work pretty ****ing well this election cycle.

It worked swimmingly for Hillary when she alienated a large part of the electorate by calling them deplorables.

only the illiterate ones who didn't understand what she said

but yeah, she told the truth instead of fear-mongering and lying, it didn't work well for her. Trump on the other hand....

Except no fair reading of what she said did that. But whatever, the point is that if you and your supporters are mostly white it seemed to work fine.

re: fair reading; she said half of Trump's supporters. So she is willingly alienating ~1/4 of the electorate. Doesn't seem optimal to me. Like the hardcore deplorable vote is never coming out for Hilldawg, but doesn't need to actively dissuade them from doing so.

Besides, it's not like fair reading is the standard by which political sound bytes are judged. She called a huge part of the country a basket of depolorables...who in the campaign thought that was a good idea?

Whatever, we are derailing here.