Serious question.
Why can't liberals explain why they dislike Trump?
They say, "He's sexist" or "He's racist" but the second you ask, "Why?" They go apeshit and are absolutely flabbergasted that you'd even consider asking for an explanation for their reasoning.
Just go on omegle and try it. A solid 19/20 times, they will go into an autistic fit of rage and will be unable to answer you.
Can anyone explain this phenomenon?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
engadget.com
finance.yahoo.com
forbes.com
theatlantic.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
When they actually list real criticisms, you ignore it.
i don't know why he's racist or sexist either - the way he was brought up i assume, possibly some traumatic experience in his formative years. could be many reasons really...
well he bragged about forcing himself onto a married woman on a tape, so I can see why some would think he's sexist.
Is being a dick to women sexist? Like saying this women "is a fat piece of shit", or that women is only good for washing dishes? Because those are the only arguments ive heard and neither of those are suggesting women are inferior to men which is what sexism is defined as
I honestly try to keep an open viewpoint, and there are times some people make somewhat valid arguments where we just agree to disagree based on personal values.
But it's overwhelming how many people just don't answer "why" and start flipping a tit. Again, not everyone, but goddamn is it one hell of a minority.
Lurking libtard here.
Here you have him advocating a war crime.
But hey we're on Sup Forums so I don't think anyone cares about stuff like this.
youtube.com
No, you proxy leaf nigger. He said that she let her grab that pussy because women love famous men.
>avoiding context
Here's the full video.
youtube.com
>“One of the problems that we have and one of the reasons we’re so ineffective, they’re using them as shields,” Trump explained.
Right. ISIS uses their families as meat shields and in turn we're forced to kill them. How is that a war crime when we are forced to do something?
>Why doesn't everyone rationally take time out of their day to debate me any time I wish to discuss something that they are not interested in?
You're a child saying "but why" and, not being your mommy, no one cares to indulge you. How do we know he' a racist and sexist? From the racist and sexist things that he says and does. You have an internet connection kiddo: google it.
>He said that she let her grab that pussy because women love famous men.
>let
>consent
In libworld it's rape to look at a woman unless you have a signed, notarized document granting explicit permission.
Because they cannot handle having their beliefs challenged. Must be why they see Muslims as kindred.
>women is only good for washing dishes?
>neither of those are suggesting women are inferior to men
How do you make the first statement and then, one sentence later, make the second one and not recognize that the second thing you said contradicts the first?
Are you just stupid?
> You're a child saying "but why" and, not being your mommy, no one cares to indulge you.
You're comparing different case scenarios that have nothing in common... at all.
> From the racist and sexist things that he says and does. You have an internet connection kiddo: google it
I never knew immigration reforms were racist, nor that talking about women letting you grab pussy was sexism, and don't get me started on insulting Rosie O'Donnell, easy target with that fat.
>But I want you to pick specific examples and then sit and debate with me whether or not I consider those things racist and sexist
Yes, user: everyone is aware that this is what you wanted from the start.
But your arguments are wrong and those things are racist and sexist. And no one cares to indulge your stupidity by arguing with you about whether or not you think they count.
>In libworld it's rape to look at a woman unless you have a signed, notarized document granting explicit permission.
The problem is that when men actually go along with these rules, assuming they will get sex for respecting the women, the shitlib woman's pussy dries up like the fucking Sahara.
Just search around feminist discussion groups, lots of them even admit they don't like dating male feminists.
if you cant give a propper explanation to an answer you don't deserve to be taken seriously
Because their group think can be purchased.
He wasn't saying the families are necesary collateral damage. He was saying that if the lives of their faimilies are at stake they will think twice about commiting terrorist acts.
Or do you really believe that they use their own families as a meat shield? Hell they have a lot of other civilians to use as a meat shield.
No they do, you just sorry out and link to some site that looks like it was designed in 1995 explaining some illuminati shit
He's talking about a particular woman, not all women.
Calling one particular woman a useless cunt isn't misogynistic, calling one particular black dude a thug or one particular muslim a radical terrorist isn't racist, and calling one particular tranny a horrifying freakshow isn't transphobic.
Then don't take them seriously. Where do you get the impression that anyone is seeking your approval, from? No one cares about your feelings, user. You want to start a stupid argument that you'd either A) lose because your beliefs are wrong B) continue until the other person gets fed up and stops talking to you because your beliefs are stupid. No one is interested in having those conversations with you, because you're wrong and stupid, and the rest of us are content to allow you to continue to be that.
But you can always get on a forum and circle jerk with other basement dwellers who would never have these discussions without the cover of anonymity.
Because he isn't a racist or a facist. They are just dirty labels they are used to throwing and having the target bow down. Either to escape the verbal assault or defending why they aren't. Which vilifies their accusation.
Ignoring their labels or asking for a reason forces them to actually explain why they used those terms which, surprise, they have no idea.
The point is he immediately starts kissing them, committing sexual assault. I'm sure there were plenty who didn't want it that he wouldn't mention because he's a narcissist. Furthermore, he is often their boss and insanely rich with powerful lawyers, it's a hard road to go down with "he said she said".
No wonder why your ID is "2wat/twat", dense motherfucker. Thinking that the truth that slapped you in the face is bad and calling things out as some label because you have no time to explain why YOU think it is wrong. Now why it IS wrong.
>He wasn't saying the families are necesary collateral damage. He was saying that if the lives of their faimilies are at stake they will think twice about commiting terrorist acts.
Even better. Stop the problem before it starts.
>Hillary clinton starts civil wars across the middle east
>Barrack Obama drone strikes hospitals and US citizens
>but what we're most concerned about is what Trump said without any actual military advisement around him.
>He's talking about a particular woman, not all women.
You don't understand how the shitlib mind works. If you refer to one particular member of an oppressed group, you must be referencing the whole group. Thus, you are a Racist! Sexist!
Meanwhile, if one white male does something wrong they have no problem claiming that all of masculinity is toxic. White people need to die out, etc. It will be great once white people are a minority, etc.
It's all about dat Marxism oppression ladder.
>But you can always get on a forum and circle jerk with other basement dwellers who would never have these discussions without the cover of anonymity.
On a related note, why would you come here to virtue signal where you're anonymous and no one can see how moral and righteous you're being?
>Thinking that the truth that slapped you in the face is bad and calling things out as some label because you have no time to explain why YOU think it is wrong. Now why it IS wrong.
See you're lying, there, though.
You're not interested in evidence or proof.
You are interested in someone indulging your desire to argue about why you don't think that evidence should count. And you'll continue arguing about it until the other person stops talking to you, and then you'll proclaim yourself the victor. And no one is interested in indulging you.
Eh. I shit post on Sup Forums while waiting for worthwhile threads on boards that aren't /trash/ to update.
Yeah because that totally works.
Ask Hitler how did bombing of London totally terrify the UK and made them to surrender.
>you'll continue arguing about it until the other person stops talking to you
And if you ever are demonstrated to be wrong irrefutably, you'll just stop posting in this thread and start the exact same thread over again. Or hop into one of the other twenty threads that are exactly the same thing.
So why should anyone indulge you? What you are doing is masturbatory, and the pretense that you're actually looking for evidence is a load of shit. Particularly when you can google "trump sexist" and find a few hundred pieces of evidence in seconds.
Hey fellow Americans, where can I sign up to work rebuilding the nations infrastructure and or the border wall?
I want to tell my grandchildren that I helped build the wall or something cool
Hilter almost beat the UK, they just bombed the wrong targets and the US got involved
One thing is when you really fuck up and hit a hospital by accident.
The other thing is when you are planning to deliberately bomb civilian families to stop the other guys from doing what they're doing.
That's the point. The only thing bombing London did was that it united the UK against him.
>He wasn't saying the families are necesary collateral damage.
So explain >“One of the problems that we have and one of the reasons we’re so ineffective, they’re using them as shields,” Trump explained.
It's exactly what he's saying.
He's saying:
"You have to take out their families. They care about their lives. Don't kid yourself."
Why would he say this if the terrorists are using their families as meat shield?
Also as I said: Do you really believe they use their own families as a meatshield? Come on
Most people don't go walking around with a compendium of citable shit they've seen, ready to read it off when some dumb fuck who hasn't been paying attention or troll asks them about it.
Further, not paying attention or being a troll puts you on the exact same footing as the average delusional/inattentive trumpie, so they'll assume you are one.
Plus "why?" questions are always percieved as attacks, and people get defensive when they feel attacked.
That's probably where the autistic fits of rage come from.
Personally, it takes a lot more effort to correct a bumbling retard than to tell him whatever fucking bullshit you want in order to get him to do shit for you.
And Trump tells a LOT of bullshit.
Aside from half of his policy positions (the ones we actually know for certain, that is), its the sheer amount of bullshit he & his angry band of mislead idiots spew on an HOURLY basis that really gets them a special seat on the rage chair.
>"You have to take out their families. They care about their lives. Don't kid yourself."
Which he said “One of the problems that we have and one of the reasons we’re so ineffective, they’re using them as shields,” about 2 sentences earlier.
>Do you really believe they use their own families as a meatshield? Come on
Remember who you're dealing with. These are religious fanatics. They are the people who decapitate children, burn men alive, execute prisoners of war by the hundreds, and drown them in cages. I can guarantee there are soldiers who are willing to put their lives and the lives of their families on the line in order to serve the greater good for allah or whathaveyou. I mean, these are also the same people who strap bombs onto their children and send them into crowded areas and blow them up.
>I didn't know immigration reforms were racist
Remember when he said all 'but some' mexican immigrants were rapists & drug-dealers sent here by their government?
Can't speak for liberals, but as an investor...
1. He's in favor of allowing packet throttling. Buy Comcast shares and short shit like Netflix, move to S. Korea. engadget.com
2. He picked a guy who didn't know what the dept. of energy does to run the DoE. We're gonna have a field day with energy trades. finance.yahoo.com
3. Keeps congratulating himself and jabbing at his enemies instead of stating actual policy decisions, like exactly how wall will be funded, what ACA will be replaced with/how. The killing we're gonna make on misspent construction and labor savings as the workers are deported will be EPIC.
4. Said he'd get rid of "insiders" - put them in positions to advise him or act on his behalf instead. The rest don't seem to know anything about what they'll be doing. So much win here.
4.1. Rex Tillerson, Exxon shareholder and former CEO, stands to benefit if Trump lifts sanctions against Russia. Which is kinda nice for me. forbes.com
5. Thinks vaccines cause autism. Biotech, medical treatment, and insurance companies are going up, up, up. theatlantic.com
6. Wants to remove regulations that were put in place to prevent 2008 from happening again. Which is a mixed blessing - I get to make a lot of money in the shortterm you kids will have to pay for. I'm excited for the opportunities Steven Mnuchin will be providing for us.
So, if you've got a few million to play with, come on in. The water is just warming up.
The amount of "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I" that goes on near trump & the alt-right is astounding.
Doesn't south korea actually lag behind now?
Yeah they were early adopters but iirc they've let it stagnate for more than a decade.
Looks like we won't agree on what he said so here you have another video where he comfirms that he wants to go after their families.
youtube.com
I guess I'm kind of a liberal but I fucking hate all these liberal college kids. They're violent fucking apes.
They're still the fastest in the world, by far. Their shitty cafe wifi feels like US fiber.
wow ur so smart and rich
Also, what fucking regulations to prevent 2008?
That bill was hamstrung before it was ratified, and the republicans have made a sport of cutting off more pieces ever since.
Nothing was going to stop another crash anyway- one of the few good things about trump winning.
They MIGHT have trouble shifting the blame to democrats again.
...
Don't hate, join. Live the american dream.
That'd be the blacks & the females unfortunately.
The white guys are too emasculated to do anything.
It's all right there for you. If this board didn't call everyone ctr if you oppose him, it might be crystal clear.
He's a narcissist that was expected to make horrible choices for our country. You may be someone that grew up great in a well developed subdivision with all the time and money for everything, but not everyone has that.
Not everyone is on board with shitting on people that arent doing as well. (Some of the biggest things I've seen libs on facebook speak of).
Also back to the poor decisions for our country thing, literally what the fuck is up with that cabinet?? Can anyone defend anyone other than Mad Dog?
The American Dream is For Whites Only, remember?
The same reason they can't explain anything they believe.
Literally just had this happen.
>hurr durr he's awful
Why?
>hurr durr because Trump's a racist, and he mocked that reporter, and he's a mysoginist
Prove it
>it's obvious, if you don't already know it, you are just living under a rock.
>Why can't liberals explain why they dislike Trump?
Because asking them to explain their position is itself opposition. They live in a bubble where their position is always right, without shadow of doubt, and supported. It is as right to them as the sun rising/setting. The moment you ask them to explain themselves no matter how kind and tactfully you do it it is offensive because it causes cognitive dissonance. It took years of disassociation from facts, logic, and evidence to get this far.
It's the same as making a REAL rape/torture victim explain themselves. They use mental disassociation to block the events so they don't go insane and commit suicide. Making them explain themselves can be detrimental to their health.
To a liberal, facts, logic, and evidence IS THE RAPE itself. Demanding them explain themselves is detrimental.
this was intended to be an omegle thread, i think
these are some of the best threads but it has been totally sidetracked
I guess it's debatable. He never explains what he means by this, so there is no definite answer. But I don't remember this happening. Thanks for sharing.
True, but Title XIV of Dodd-Frank makes a lot of the things that contributed specifically really hard to work around. Getting rid of it will reduce costs.
>Dogswhistles don't exist
>Poor whites
>DaMN you PC JEW HITLERS
But in all seriousness, people are only marginally informed on both sides. Most Trump voters don't get further than MAGA
>real reason: they simply hate him
They just don't want to look bad so hide behind muh racistm, sexism etc. I've gone and just started asking people to admit they hate him instead of hiding behind false bullshit.
raise ur hand if u hate ur mom that's all of us right guis?
Liberal who likes to get everyone's rational perspective here.
I do believe Trump is somewhat racist. Take his discussion on Islamic immigration. He seems to discuss it as if everyone who uses the Koran is a radical terrorist, when clearly some of them are not. Similarly, there are also some terrorists who would have nothing to do with Islam, even to the point of despising it. As such, I feel a better solution would be to analyze the way prospective immigrants behave and talk as well as their educational and working background to see whether or not they threaten national security or believe in violence as a solution. Trump's vision seems to be too clouded to look at this solution. Trump does seem to be sexist in the way he talks about women, but I'm not so sure how much it'll affect his policy.
Also, Trump seems to need to exert control over too much (such as the way the press covers him or what certain people say), which runs a bit contrary to a nation founded on liberty.
I'm glad he seems to be dropping the wall, at least.
For the most part, yes. If it's largely because of the race, religion, gender, or LGBT status in question (which I'm sure it isn't always) then it is intolerant.
It matters less whether he is racist or not and more how he uses racism to martial support and justify disinvestment from places where less white people live.
Or how he uses racism to justify unnecessary (or even necessary) investment in the military and police, as well as loosening oversight.
Liberal colleges. They're not used to have their opinions challenged.
(4chins is the rock)
>I feel a better solution would be to analyze the way prospective immigrants behave and talk as well as their educational and working background to see whether or not they threaten national security or believe in violence as a solution
The issue is that if you look at most if not all statistics about immigration you'll find significantly higher levels of crime among all groups. Better screening will only improve those statistics so much when the issue stems from the culture of the people immigrating. To put it simply, Trump believes that the culture in Islamic countries is incompatible with Western culture and as such, we shouldn't be paying billions of dollars to import millions of 'Syrian refugees'
>Liberal who likes to get everyone's rational perspective here.
Back to rebbit, fucking faggot.
Because they're sheeple who believe everything the media tell them to believe without question.
Liberals only do labeling. No constructive arguement whatsoever.
>I do believe Trump is somewhat racist.
>Take his discussion on Islamic immigration.
>Islam
>race
Gonna have to stop you there, bud.
Haha, it's pretty awful. Just imagine if you were engaged to one of them like I am.
You're completely right, I was just giving an example.
>Trump believes that the culture in Islamic countries is incompatible with Western culture
I suppose that's a matter of opinion. I've certainly seen enough Muslims assimilate to western culture to at least justify giving a few people a chance to get out of a war zone. That may not be his experience.
>leaf
The idea that colleges today are really liberal is a fucking joke. They are neoliberal institutions that are increasingly corporatized middle-management pipelines.
>some of them
>some
Hit the nail on the head, m8
Epic meme, my good friend.
Have an upboat for your valuable contribution
Yes they do,Seen some terrible things over there that I prefer to never see again
>why can't liberals explain X or Y
It's because rather than going off of reason, they would rather virtue signal and have a holier than thou attitude. Liberal arguments are all constructed to make themselves look better
I was referring to Middle Eastern immigration, Trump was referring to it, and you know that. Probably shouldn't use those two as synonyms given that there are plenty of Muslims outside of it and Israel exists.
I think he only blocked blacks from his properties in the 1970s NOT because he was racist, but because blacks reduce property values. He did it FOR THE MONEY, not because he's racist. Greed is 1000x better than racism.
babies first political theorizing
...
The way I look at this argument is "Oh no, only some blonde people from Southern California are smart. Guess we better not accept any of them for scholarships." There's probably another layer to it I'm missing, but I just don't get it.
I do not think that someone who openly admits to avoiding paying taxes should be president. It shows that he doesn't really care about the country, as he would rather keep the money (which he has more than enough of clearly) than have it go toward spending that can help the citizens of the country (even if you think taxes are too high or the spending is often misallocated it is undeniable that some of the spending is productive) . I think he doesn't really care about the people or America at all but is doing it mainly for the power and recognition/attention.
>lacking this much self-awareness
I don't like him because everything he says he pulls out of his ass
Right and the Clintons and Obama deliberately bombed those places whereas Trump has said absolutely nothing outside of "let's torture terrorists for fuck's sake"
Neither of those people are currently the president you can't deflect criticisms by saying "B-but Hillary and Obama" anymore
And you know this how?
>blond from Southern California
Faggot stop hacking my phone
I believe that when shit hits the fan they're capable of using their families as a meat shield for their greater cause.
But if you want to protect some building from being bombarded from air it's much simpler to just fill it with disposable slaves.
>colleges aren't liberal
Maybe I should have said universities. Take from someone that actually been to university, they're liberal and full of Marxists.
>I've certainly seen enough Muslims assimilate to western culture to at least justify giving a few people a chance to get out of a war zone
I somewhat agree but my objection to the whole thing is that most 'Syrian refugees' aren't from Syria, and that they're mostly working age males. Can't fix their own countries if the US takes every capable citizen.
>the leftists argument is now just a rotting corpse in the trench.
That's not sexist though.
>the left is like an autistic child that just can't get reality into focus.
Hey pal, go read about what happened when they captured Russian ambassadors.
They demanded a ransom and instead of giving them money, Russia went after the terrorists family members. Russia then mailed the terrorists body parts fingers - and wow - just like that the terrorists said fuck that shit and released the hostages.