Chris and President Trump
I know this isn't the most appropriate place to talk about this--but damn, I hope Chris goes ape shit over the election results. In all likeliness, he'll probably just let out a few stress sighs and then completely move on.--Galilean (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
You got that right Hurtful. Like, HOLY SHIT. I'm pretty sure making a DEATH THREAT to the PRESIDENT-ELECT of the U.S. would land Chris into serious trouble (I know that making such a threat to the current President is a class E felony, not so sure about the President-Elect, but thinking it's the same deal). --Windows OS (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Here's the full legal code for threats against a President-elect - it's covered under the same section as threats to the President, so probably a class E as well.
- Right now, I'm apprehensive about declaring this a Pmurt Saga. If his outbursts ended here, I'd say this doesn't deserve such a title. It's nearly impossible to accurately predict how Chris will react-- but I'm still under the impression that Chris will soon neglect all the politics and resume his miserable life--not that he stepped out of it at all.
- There is of course, another possibility... Chris may have found a new crutch--something to blame all the failings of his life on. The next time Chris complains about his financial situation, or being "discriminated against", he likely could push all culpability to President Donald Trump. In which case, we might be witnessing the beginning of a new magnitude of Chris sidestepping personal responsibility--then again, his attention span is really short. Only time will tell.
- My position is that we should wait until Trump's inauguration.--Galilean (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Alright. His hatred of Pmurt has been simmering for a while, though. He's made anti-Pmurt videos since September and he's publicly supported Clinton since February. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- This definitely has the potential to be a saga--the warning signs you listed are a clear indication of this--but I think it would need to go on just a little longer. I know we have less content in the Stackhouse saga, but you have to remember--nothing overlaid with it (other than his troubles with Megan). If Chris suddenly were to stop talking about President Trump tomorrow, I think these events would be seriously overshadowed by the Financhu Saga--which, like the Tomgirl, has no apparent end. --Galilean (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I also say we should. This month has definitely saw the biggest launch of the saga. I bet there's a lot more where that came from.
I also agree on waiting it out before declairing the "Political Saga". However, I do see the potential of this becoming a new saga. Lets just wait and see... --Windows OS (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Now the inauguration has happened i don't think we need a Pmurt Saga. While Chris has been posting about Trump pretty consistently, a lot of it isn't particularly original or long. Unless, Chris starts throwing tantrums on the scale of the post election week again, I think this page and "Chris and Politics" have this topic covered. --Princess Celestia (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Should the article consistently use either the Trump or Pmurt name? Right now, there's a mix.
I think the Pmurt name should be left to the opening paragraph and the Meaning of the name section, and that every other section should use Trump. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I really like your suggestion, the article should remain consistent. But all the citations we have of Chris using Pmurt should continue to use Pmurt. Otherwise, the default should be Trump or Donald Trump--unless it's funny or appropriate to use Pmurt (which depends on a case by case basis).--Galilean (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Probably not. It's not like there was ever a need for an article about Joe Biden.--Galilean (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- What would you have on a Pence article? Someone did make a Pence page, but I redirected it to Pmurt. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Is this page Pro-Pmurt (lol)?
Seriously though, is this page neutral with regard to opinions about Trump? The last paragraph of the article is suspect to me but I want to hear others' thoughts before attempting to neutralize it.--Kewlkat101 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Certainly not. Simply highlighting the blatant stupidity of Chris's arguments does not in any way promote President Donald Trump. If anything, I think this article illustrates the sheer neutrality of the CWCki.--Galilean (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- I still think that it's important to remind the users of the CWCki to be careful though, given that Kiwi Farms is a blatantly pro-Trump forum.--Kewlkat101 (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Kiwi Farms is just not blatantly anti-Trump and has a fair share of Trump supporters. It's not really a pro-Trump forum on the whole, it's more that a lot of lolcows (most, I'd even venture) are irrationally anti-Trump like Chris is. Level-headedly explaining why Chris and similar idiots are wrong incidentally looks like Trump support. Nathan (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Where Does Chris's Animosity Towards Pmurt Come From?
Are there any working theories on why Chris has developed such a strong dislike of Pmurt? Chris doesn't seem to have ever had a strong interest in politics and his understanding of all things political is demonstrably atrocious, which makes me wonder why he feels such strong emotions over this. --Byzantium (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Chris has been legally able to vote since February 24th, 2000. There is no indication that he's ever voted for a losing candidate in a presidential election before. My guess is that he's mostly just upset that his favored candidate didn't win this time, but he's following a LGBT blog with a hard anti-Trump bias so he's getting a huge dose of far-left kool-aid on top of his existing stupidity.--MoarLurk (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Chris view of politics begin and end with Chris. Chris was probably hoping Hillary's policies would have given him enough free money to solve all of his financial woes, which is a stupid but Chris believed that anyway. Furthermore Chris has shown that he tends to pick his candidates based on who he can identify with more, and its basically impossible for Chris to identify with Trump. Then you have to factor in Chris's brand loyalty mentality. Once Chris picks a side on something he will defend that side no matter what. This is time his side has actually down and out lost so Chris feels he must do something about it. --Princess Celestia (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- To add on the brilliant comments made by MoarLurk and Celestia, Chris is an absurdly impressionable fellow; since popular culture and media-outlets tend to have an unfavorable opinion of Donald Trump, it makes sense that these attitudes naturally trickle down and get adopted by Chris.--Galilean (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's all very interesting. I feel like we should add a section about this under "Opposition to Trump." Chris's stated reasons for his opposition don't sound very compelling, like those are just things he's parroting from the articles he barely reads. I'm fairly new, but I could take a crack at writing a few paragraphs explaining the situation. --Byzantium (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Good idea. I already posted my opinion on this on the CWCki Club, but I'll repost it here: "IMO, it is a combination of [Princess Celestia's consept (that is shared by Mariposa Electrique on the Club) and his Tomgirl conversion leading him to fringe liberal sites that pretty much features "Trump is Hitler, Somebody Kill Him!" crap regularly." -Windows OS (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, sweet, I'll give it a shot. A fairly big addition to the page is presently in the works.--Byzantium (talk) 2:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Great job on the edits. I wanted to mention that someone once asked Chris for reasons to support Clinton. His response seems to confirm some of the speculation, like him voting for her because he thought her policies would help him out of debt and that she is a woman. Should it be incorporated into the Opposition to Trump summary? Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, totally. Any additional detail that's conducive to us understanding Chris's simmering rage is welcome.--Byzantium (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)