[R] 2016 US Election Political Nicknaming Report Megathread

[The Archregimancy]

ModEdit: We've designated this the Megathread for reports of political nicknaming relating to the 2016 US presidential election.

So let's remember... No 'Drumpf', no 'Shillary', no 'Republicunts' or 'Democraps'. Disagree with each other all you want; just try and be civil about it. And please, turn off your Drumpfinators when posting in NS

He's basically pulled an "it's just a prank, bro."

In actual real life.

This is a thing that actually happened.

America, y do u want a clown to have control over nukes?

Fuckface Von Clownstick appears to have an unfortunate ability to get people to feel that the lies and vitriol he spews is just "telling it like it is". Some people seem to like his whole "facts are the enemy of truth" schtick.

[Luna Amore]

Addressed.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Another post in the same thread, you guys should really make a megathread for these around election time.

I only wish that progressives had turned out in 2010 and 2014 because then the Teadiots wouldn't have had such a disproportional influence and the GOP not such huge majorities in the House and control of so many state legislatures. And that is a real life example of exactly what you will get if you do the "my way or the highway". See North Carolina for an example of just that. Change usually comes in increments and what Bernie has already achieved is that "socialist" is no longer considered some kind of pejorative by most people (except the radical right of course, but they love the fascist Trump so their views on socialism are to be expected).

[FacistHamsters]

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=376936&p=28762518&hilit=drumpf#p28762518

Bernie Sanders did believe that the Nevada Party was at fault, that's why it wasn't as harsh as you wanted it to be. He still condemned the violence, that's my point. And I have absolutely no idea how you can come to the conclusion that Sanders is potentially as dangerous as Drumpf; it's like comparing a firecracker to a nuclear weapon. One can potentially do damage (as you believe) but can easily be amended, but the other will decimate a country.

Edit: Typos.

[The Archregimancy]

Full ruling:

viewtopic.php?p=28772317#p28772317

[Washington Resistance Army]

Half day bumpity bump since I probably won't remember later.

[The Archregimancy]

Another post in the same thread, you guys should really make a megathread for these around election time.

I only wish that progressives had turned out in 2010 and 2014 because then the Teadiots wouldn't have had such a disproportional influence and the GOP not such huge majorities in the House and control of so many state legislatures. And that is a real life example of exactly what you will get if you do the "my way or the highway". See North Carolina for an example of just that. Change usually comes in increments and what Bernie has already achieved is that "socialist" is no longer considered some kind of pejorative by most people (except the radical right of course, but they love the fascist Trump so their views on socialism are to be expected).

Warning issued: viewtopic.php?p=28772385#p28772385

A megathread isn't a wholly bad idea; let's have a think about that.

[Unpredictable Galaxy]

Lmao, someone got a nerve hit. I applaud you, but I'm going to take action my own way as well by reporting anybody with the mentioning of "Shillary's" or "Lyin' Ted's" or anything that is truly political nicknaming if "Drumpf" is going to be censored. Thank you for bringing this idea to my mind, and I will be looking forward to posts in the future.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm going to take action my own way as well by reporting anybody with the mentioning of "Shillary's" or "Lyin' Ted's" or anything that is truly political nicknaming if "Drumpf" is going to be censored.

Please do.

I assure you that we treat any and all cases of political nicknaming seriously; given our inability to read every single post made in the forums, we rely on our player base for help in identifying cases. If anyone is referring to the likely Democratic Party nominee as 'Shillary', we would certainly warn for that too.

In the meantime, I would advise you to familiarise yourself with the NSG forum rules and broader forum culture.

[Purpelia]

Our of curiosity what nicknames would you tolerate? Basically I tend to call Trump "Big D." because I feel that immediately draws attention. Is that fine or would you hit me over the head for it?

[The Archregimancy]

Our of curiosity what nicknames would you tolerate? Basically I tend to call Trump "Big D." because I feel that immediately draws attention. Is that fine or would you hit me over the head for it?

This is a report thread - that sort of question is best directed at a discussion thread.

Do please feel free to start a discussion thread for this topic.

[AiliailiA]

viewtopic.php?p=28711856#p28711856
viewtopic.php?p=28750123#p28750123

Calling Donald Trump "Donnie"

[The Blaatschapen]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=28711856#p28711856
viewtopic.php?p=28750123#p28750123

Calling Donald Trump "Donnie"

Are you reporting yourself here?

[American Imperial State]

And? It just shows that we have two ass clowns in the race and both have supporters that can't handle anything of short of their guy being crowned King of the populist revolution.

The difference between the two "ass clowns?" One ass clown actually condones the violence and believes that some protestors should be "roughed up" and the other alleged "ass clown" condemned the violence.

Edit: It goes to show that Drumpf supporters are the violent and vitriolic group after repeated events of violence at events, whilst the Bernie Sanders supporters at Nevada just blew a gasket at that time; a mistake we've all made.

[American Imperial State]

Bernie Sanders did believe that the Nevada Party was at fault, that's why it wasn't as harsh as you wanted it to be. He still condemned the violence, that's my point. And I have absolutely no idea how you can come to the conclusion that Sanders is potentially as dangerous as Drumpf; it's like comparing a firecracker to a nuclear weapon. One can potentially do damage (as you believe) but can easily be amended, but the other will decimate a country.

Edit: Typos.

Drumpf is an empty suit. He is a shit candidate. But will not decimate the country. He sometimes pretends to be dangerous and his supporters like that. But he is not actually dangerous. He admitted His whole primary shtick was a lie just to get past the primary.

He changed it to trump in a later edit, but original wording still exists in quotes.

[American Imperial State]

Feel the Johnson

Indeed, anything better than super PAC Shillary.

[American Imperial State]

They both lie a lot, it's almost comical.

Trump's lies are well documented (by Politifact ea), but what are Hillary's lies? Because as far as I see, its nothing but empty right wing rhetoric that has never been made to stick (ie baseless).

Trump will win in the end thankfully. Hillary has a very dark past that will come to haunt her, her lead will grow smaller and smaller until she falls behind Trump.

And Trump's endless lies and shady business dealings won't catch up with him? And again, what specific shady things has Hillary done that the right wing propaganda machine can actually back up with facts, unlike the last 24 years when they have made nothing stick (because there is nothing there).

Relavent to this thread, Hillary has put out her first attack ad on Trump, and it's pretty brutal. That she can basically make a pretty eviscerating point this way shows the weakness of the Trump candidacy:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ever-trump

Its a good start. Play this stuff over and over again Hillary. And the one with other Republicans calling him liar/dishonest/fraud etc... as well. Non stop. On a loop. Until election day.

Its not lying Ted, its Donald the liar, the #1 fraud in the 2016 campaign.

Or he just says whatever random shit he thinks of at the time.

But yeah, he does sound Nixony.

He's the candidate of the National Enquirer Party.

What exactly do you agree with her on? Her plans most involve throwing more money at things. Which does not work.

Proven false. The GOP is continuously trying to gut the VA budget (to make it fail so they can privatize it). Constantly gutting government departments is the thing that doesn't work. And privatizing healthcare doesn't work either because the GOP and their pals won't pay for healthcare if your future earnings are less than the costs of any healthcare you might need (that's the "free market" at work there).

Anyway, I'm gonna vote for whoever is the Dem candidate because Donald the dishonest, bigoted racist liar cannot be allowed anywhere near the WH except as a guest (and he shouldn't be on any president's guest list either).

[American Imperial State]

Bumperooni

[AiliailiA]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=28711856#p28711856
viewtopic.php?p=28750123#p28750123

Calling Donald Trump "Donnie"

Are you reporting yourself here?

Yep.

I meant it disparagingly (of Trump) but I'd be surprised if it makes anyone angry.
I could assure you it wasn't my intention to make anyone angry, but why should you believe me?

Obviously I don't WANT to be warned, I just want to know where the line is and which side of it my posts were on.

[Imperializt Russia]

Our of curiosity what nicknames would you tolerate? Basically I tend to call Trump "Big D." because I feel that immediately draws attention. Is that fine or would you hit me over the head for it?

Such a wonderful discussion thread now exists!
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=378708

[Gauthier]

Which side are you on?

I'd definatly assert he was a bad president. Not sure where I'd rank him. Alot of who we consider as bad presidents now-n-days are people who more-or-less did nothing impactful, but ultimately led the country to Civil War due to just one throwaway policy. This is something that comes out of retrospect, something that none of us have at the moment. That being said, here are my issues:

1. Boots on the ground, we should have sent ground forces. In many ways, Obama forced his own hand. He couldn't run on a campaign to end a war, then end said war just to start another one. Bombing has proven ineffective, and although Russia is mainly responsible for the next part, it has also displaced alot of people which is currently fueling both the economic and migrant crisis in Europe. If we sent troops, we could have identified drone strike targets easier. Chemical weapons are littered throughout Syria, which has made our strikes against the Syrian regime ineffective. Worse still, it gave Russia a means to enter in and defend the regime after ISIS/ISIL started spreading. The Syrian regime is here to stay, though in all honestly, I can't put 100% blame on Obama. The Arab Spring was a pretty effective movement. Obama clearly didn't want to start another war and it seemed that another civil war brought on by the Arab Spring would be just as successful in toppling the government. This was clearly a miscalculation, though I can't blame the man for holding out for some hope.

That being said, ISIS has made enemies of this state consider joint operations. In the long run, this failure may actually lead to a success further down the line. That and the USA has already committed several troops to be sent (lol, near the end of his term no less), so clearly Obama recognizes his mistake.

2. Obama Care, we all knew I was going to mention this so we might as well get it out of the way. Good bye single payer, you will never see that system here in America. The reason we got this Car Insurance equivalent to health care is because Obama could not fight that insurance money (just like he failed to end privatized for-profit schools). They had more money then he had political pull, so he compromised. Now that we all have to pay into their pockets, we will never be free of this system. "Vote for this now, get single payer down the line" was a lie. If we got this because of the influence, then how are we going to ever remove them now that we have made them more influential. . . I suspect it will require an economic collapse of this nation or a very compassionate demagogue. Dame.

3. Obama's support of Shillary Clinton will likely bite him on the ass. I mean, quite honestly, she is in a race. You know how NASCAR drivers have logos all over their cars and bodysuits. . . That's pretty much Shillary Clinton. When they eventually get this woman, and they eventually will, she will drag just about everyone within' arms reach down with her.

Welp, I have to leave for work. So I guess these are my reasons.

[Wrapper]

Are you reporting yourself here?

Yep.

I meant it disparagingly (of Trump) but I'd be surprised if it makes anyone angry.
I could assure you it wasn't my intention to make anyone angry, but why should you believe me?

Obviously I don't WANT to be warned, I just want to know where the line is and which side of it my posts were on.

I don't see how we can ding people for "non-trolly" nicknames like Donnie, Hil, Bern, Teddy, or, for that matter, Ronnie (Reagan), Dick (Nixon), Jack (Kennedy), Dubya (Bush), etc. If that makes sense.

[Gauthier]

I don't know if you're being serious or not, but it's a known fact comrade Obama is still Turkey and Saudi Arabia's bitch, and he's still on good terms with the "So-Called" (so I dont offend terrorist sympathizers) Islamic State

[USS Monitor]

I am not sure whether this is actionable or not, calling Sanders "the Messiah" sarcastically, but I'd like mods to take a look.

If there was anything even remotely constructive about Myrensis' post, I'd agree. But there isn't. It's a load of intentionally inflammatory, snarky bullshit, a.k.a. a shit-post. And that kind of crap has been coming from Myrensis with increasing frequency as the primary has gone on.

That's not what I was talking about. Are you even capable of making a post without throwing shit at Sanders supporters?

I was literally responding to a post about a Sanders supporter complaining about how Hillary's media "lapdogs" are calling the race nearly over even though the Messiah could still theoretically pull out a mathematically possible victory.

I mean, I'm sure it's winning you all kinds of brownie points with Sanders fans, but casually ignoring their constant ranting and raving and 'throwing shit' at Clinton and her supporters and the DNC and the corrupt media while accusing me of just randomly sniping isn't really all that clever of you.

[Gauthier]

Sander's opposed the coronation of the High Queen of the Democratic party. Such impudence was magnanimously pardoned by Her Grace once before, but it cannot be excused a second time.