2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Political candidates don't typically pay for their candidacies, to be sure, but Trump isn't a political candidate, he's a media mogul masquerading as a political candidate. He has conned GOP donors into funding an advertising campaign, not a political campaign. Are you really falling for the ludicrous notion that he actually wants to be the President and fulfill the responsibilities that come with that office?Quote: RonCTrump isn't paying for his candidacy. Is Hillary paying her own way?
Quote: MathExtremistPolitical candidates don't typically pay for their candidacies, to be sure, but Trump isn't a political candidate, he's a media mogul masquerading as a political candidate. He has conned GOP donors into funding an advertising campaign, not a political campaign. Are you really falling for the ludicrous notion that he actually wants to be the President and fulfill the responsibilities that come with that office?
Bless your little heart...
I am not "falling" for anything. Everyone knows that Hillary only wants to be President for all of the right reason and the other guy really doesn't want to be President.
If he is trying to lose, he could actually do a much better job of it...I would give him an "F" so far if that is his real intention. maybe he will get better at it!!
Quote: RonCBless your little heart...
I am not "falling" for anything. Everyone knows that Hillary only wants to be President for all of the right reason and the other guy really doesn't want to be President.
If he is trying to lose, he could actually do a much better job of it...I would give him an "F" so far if that is his real intention. maybe he will get better at it!!
Trump can easily “lose” by simply quitting the race. But by quitting outright in a blatant manner, he will become irrelevant in the future political process. Trump does not want the POTUS title, but his ego wants him to be in the political spotlight.
Knowing that he cannot blatantly losing the race and still remain relevant, Trump only remaining alternative is losing the race subliminally in order to fool his supporters into believing that he is not blatantly trying to quit the race. IMO, Trump has successfully fooled his supporters in this regard, and therefore, Trump deserves an A+.
And on the topic of “fooling”, here is a trivial question for all, who said these "I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, 'Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!'" and “I’m still undecided on Trump?
One answer is in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A , and the other answer is buried in numerous places in this 2016 Election thread.
Okay, just so we're clear on your idiom here:Quote: RonCBless your little heart...
Quote: Urban Dictionary: Bless your heart1) A euphemism for "fuck you" commonly used by people who live in the southern United States.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bless%20your%20heart&defid=8095555
You personally may not be falling for Trump's charade but an awful lot of people are. Hillary wants to be President so she can govern according to her political vision and policy goals. You may not like her political vision and policy goals, but you don't doubt that she's accurately stating what those are and intends to work toward them. But with Trump, it's the opposite. You may like his blustery bigoted claptrap, but you don't believe for a moment that he wants to get into office so he can institute a deportation squad or ban Muslims or expand a money-losing natural gas industry or give rich people enormous tax breaks.Quote: RonCI am not "falling" for anything.
If you actually do believe that, then yeah, you really are falling for it.
Quote: MathExtremistOkay, just so we're clear on your idiom here:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bless%20your%20heart&defid=8095555
Not clear at all; obviously not the meaning I intended at all, either.
In the context of this discussion, I think that you are listening to reports on Trump that you would never entertain if they were about Hillary. It is as if I read all of the crap fed daily by various far right organizations and actually believed it. People claiming to "know" Trump wants to lose are just as lost as those who "know" that Hillary is very sick. Either may be true, but there is no concrete proof of either out there.
This is kind of like the other word you got so offended by--you got to the meaning that is the worst possible in regards to you and think it is much more of an insult than it really is; in that case, of course, NO ONE meant it as an insult. In this case, it was a dig. I respect you too much to use that other term.
It's not a valid equivalence. Nobody would ever accuse Hillary of running a charade campaign just to bolster her commercial brand value because she doesn't have a commercial brand value outside of politics. In fact, nobody's ever accused any other (legitimate) political candidate of doing that. Trump is unique in this regard. There is ample evidence that Trump started his campaign as a tactic for negotiating with NBC for a better deal for "The Apprentice." That tactic failed because *they* fired *him* (how ironic) -- but at that point he was committed and couldn't back out without being called a quitter.Quote: RonCIn the context of this discussion, I think that you are listening to reports on Trump that you would never entertain if they were about Hillary.
And I don't think Trump wants to lose per se. Losing is antithetical to his brand image. But you can't look at his body of work over the past year and tell me he really wants to be President even if he wins. Trump is an aging version of the popular high-school jock/bully who runs for class president because he thinks it's cool, and then wins on the strength of his popularity and denigration of the nerds running against him -- who dutifully take the positions of vice president, secretary and treasurer. Except then he goes to the first meeting (mandated by the school's assistant principal) and gets the list of things he's supposed to do. "What is this crap?" he says. "I've got sports to play, I don't have time for this B.S. Let the nerds take care of it."
It is the bully's revenge, driven in part by voters who pine for the days of high school when bullies were higher on the pecking order than nerds like me. What they don't tell you in high school is that nerds rule the modern adult world. Of course Trump loves the poorly-educated. He promises them an easy boost to their self-esteem. But there's no easy path -- it's hard work learning to succeed in today's world, and promising a snake-oil quick-fix remedy is an impossible promise to fulfill. He won't be able to, of course, but that's not stopping him from making the promise anyway. Trump is turning the ethics of earnest, hard work on its head by demonstrating to the world that, yes, you can be a bully as a grown man and beat down your neighbors to get ahead. That's the hallmark of Trump, Inc. -- and has been proven as such by numerous lawsuits and fines -- but that's not the right message to teach to our kids.
I appreciate that and I acknowledge that I interpreted it as more negative than you indicate.Quote:In this case, it was a dig. I respect you too much to use that other term.
One down, three to go.
Quote: MichaelBluejayRemember how I said that Trump need only turn four states red to win? Well, FiveThirtyEight now puts Ohio in his column.
One down, three to go.
1) Trump could easily lose even if he manages to win all four of those states. Many of the states that were taken as given Republican wins are in danger, such as Arizona. You're forgetting that Trump has to carry EVERY ONE of those states to even have a chance. And even if he might carry Ohio, how does that imply he'll carry any of the other three "battleground" states?
2) Being ahead in one state in one poll doesn't exactly equate to winning that state come election time, let alone winning all four.
3) The chances of Trump pissing somebody else off or making some bonehead statement between now and the election are near-certain, meaning that whatever standing he has in the polls will likely shrink.
Of course, after the first debate, when he fumbles, stumbles, shows his ignorance, makes an ass out of himself, and starts insulting Clinton, the moderators, the news media, those damned Martians, whoever...he will probably lose some of those spineless retards who are considering voting for him. He'll look and sound more like Peter Griffin of Family Guy than anybody you'd want to see in office.
Quote: MathExtremist
It is the bully's revenge, driven in part by voters who pine for the days of high school when bullies were higher on the pecking order than nerds like me.
I think you've hit the nail on the head with this analogy. Trumpers, mentally and emotionally, have never graduated from high school. We who went to college and got jobs afterward sometimes forget that for many people, high school was the absolute pinnacle of their lives--and it was all downhill from there. Trump promises to bring back those golden days when Joe Sixpack got laid more often than once every six months, could run a mile in less than forty minutes, and weighed less than 250 pounds! It's absolute bullcrap, of course, and a promise that can't be kept, but bullcrap and false promises have been the hallmarks of the Trump business model for decades.
Quote: RonCHe'll have some missteps; but so will a President Clinton...and so has every President that I can remember and more than a few before that...
Sometimes I think regular people have lost their minds. LIke you. Maybe I can think of a true Democratic equivalent of Trump. It's not Hillary.
It's like if people are realistically going to elect Carrot Top. And they act like that's normal. That's what it seems like to me.
Or if you don't understand that, it would be like someone comparing Romney and Trump and then shrugging, and saying well, they both seem pretty much the same and qualified. This is just makes me go WTF. What the hell is wrong with people? Stop drinking fluoride! The world has gone loopy.
Quote: rxwineSometimes I think regular people have lost their minds. . . .
It's like if people are realistically going to elect Carrot Top. And they act like that's normal. That's what it seems like to me.
It's not a new phenomenon. I just watched some of Bush's crazy public appearances.
I just read on Wikipedia. of GW Bush and it says "He is currently a public speaker". I need to wipe the coffee of my screen and keyboard.
Quote: rxwineSometimes I think regular people have lost their minds. LIke you. Maybe I can think of a true Democratic equivalent of Trump. It's not Hillary.
It's like if people are realistically going to elect Carrot Top. And they act like that's normal. That's what it seems like to me.
Or if you don't understand that, it would be like someone comparing Romney and Trump and then shrugging, and saying well, they both seem pretty much the same and qualified. This is just makes me go WTF. What the hell is wrong with people? Stop drinking fluoride! The world has gone loopy.
I don't think you are listening to "regular people" at all. They haven't "lost their minds"; heck, many who will vote for Trump don't really want to do so. In a vacuum, it is simple to see--he is a bad candidate and probably should not become President. "Regular people" don't buy into every conspiracy theory or every negative story about Clinton, but they do see her for what she is--a political creature who has become a millionaire many times over based simply on being a politician. She left the White House "broke" and had to borrow some china to have dishes to eat on, went to a state she hadn't been to in years and used Bill's name to be elected a Senator and then eventually became a controversial Secretary of State who didn't seem to care about the little things in life like properly handling classified material and keeping public records as they are supposed to be kept.
They aren't the same. Maybe Hillary is more qualified based on political experience; that suddenly matters to Democrats after 8 years with a President who had very little experience and defeated Hillary soundly. Even the Democrats don't really like Hillary all that much--she was the "name" in the 2008 cycle and should have won easily, yet someone we had barely even heard of took her out. So she went back and continued her work with the foundation, in addition to her time as SoS, potentially selling influence to every two bit dictator out there. She and Bill are a power couple, for sure.
You'd like to see everyone come to the realization that Hillary would be okay in spite of all the negatives and that Trump could start a Nuclear War as soon as he is handed the football. It just isn't going to happen. I've even said it--Hillary may be "more qualified" to be President...but her disqualifications outweigh that and I just can't vote for her. Some "regular people" have chosen to vote for Trump knowing he is flawed; others are considering it. In spite of the constant ramblings of a couple of mind readers here, I am still undecided. I do understand the concerns about Trump; I am just not sure all of them are valid.
Romney and Trump? Romney, easily.
McCain and Trump? McCain, easily.
It is just that is not who we are looking at this year...
Quote: MichaelBluejayRemember how I said that Trump need only turn four states red to win? Well, FiveThirtyEight now puts Ohio in his column.
One down, three to go.
Ohio still shows as blue when I just looked at FiveThirtyEight.
Wow, someone hasn't been paying attention. That's the kind of comment people were making a year ago, and it never played out. Trump has *continually* said crazy things, and if anything, it's helped, not hurt him. He's been a constant spout machine and the result is that he's nearly tied with the other candidate.Quote: JoeshlabotnikThe chances of Trump...making some bonehead statement between now and the election are near-certain, meaning that whatever standing he has in the polls will likely shrink.
I'm looking at their Polls-Plus forecast, which seems more accurate, especially since polls probably underestimate Trump, as some percentage of voters are probably too embarrassed to tell the pollsters that they're going to vote for him.Quote: ams288Ohio still shows as blue when I just looked at FiveThirtyEight.
I'm outraged because it's definitely more than half...
Quote: MichaelBluejayWow, someone hasn't been paying attention. That's the kind of comment people were making a year ago, and it never played out. Trump has *continually* said crazy things, and if anything, it's helped, not hurt him. He's been a constant spout machine and the result is that he's nearly tied with the other candidate.
It helps him because people are tired of a focus grouped to death political establishment. When you hear Hillary it is almost as if she has a Bluetooth in her ear telling her not to say a certain thing because it will offend some Hispanics near 43rd and Baseline and they represent some demo who will spill over into others and that will cost her a neighborhood near Negra Arroyo Lane in Albuquerque which is similar to a district in El Paso which..................
Trump has gone almost totally by feel. He sees all these consultants for what they are, people who might win or might lose but shake you down either way. His formula seems to be keep the energy advantage he has up as until about now most people are not paying attention.
For every loser who posts some Trump Twitter gaffe to a small blog thinking they are making a difference there are 100 people who have lives to lead. The loser posting some tweet will not vote Trump anyways, but some part of the 100 will watch the debates and tune in to see why all the fuss. Now he can change tactics and most will wonder why the loser has had his panties in a knot all this time.
In boxing this is called the "rope-a-dope."
Quote: ams288Righties are in full faux outrage mode today after Hillary said half of Trump's supporters are racist monsters (I'm paraphrasing).
I'm outraged because it's definitely more than half...
Obviously, you jest.
Or...you live in the same world as that other guy that thinks Republicans should be eliminated.
Either way, your post is a total joke!
Quote: RonCObviously, you jest.
Or...you live in the same world as that other guy that thinks Republicans should be eliminated.
Either way, your post is a total joke!
Not really.
I'd say a majority of his supporters are either racist, homophobic, sexist, Islamophobic, or xenophobic (or some combination of them).
Hillary was absolutely correct to point this out, but I think she lowballed the number...
Quote: Joeshlabotnikhe will probably lose some of those spineless retards who are considering voting for him.
There is a poll of WoV members that shows more WoV members select DT over HC. You have called the majority of members here spineless retards. I can't wait to see how BBB defends your comments......
Quote: ams288Not really.
I'd say a majority of his supporters are either racist, homophobic, sexist, Islamophobic, or xenophobic (or some combination of them).
Hillary was absolutely correct to point this out, but I think she lowballed the number...
I guess in your world of labeling everyone with any concern about terrorism an "Islamophobe" and such, you would feel right.
In the real world, your post comes off as idiotic and overly simplistic. Applying labels to huge groups of people is simply a way to claim intellectual and/or moral superiority without actually doing anything...it is a shortcut that does nothing to actually fix anything or do anything.
Quote: SOOPOOThere is a poll of WoV members that shows more WoV members select DT over HC. You have called the majority of members here spineless retards. I can't wait to see how BBB defends your comments......
Attacks by liberals on non-liberals seem more tolerated so who knows.
Quote: SOOPOOThere is a poll of WoV members that shows more WoV members select DT over HC. You have called the majority of members here spineless retards. I can't wait to see how BBB defends your comments......
There is no need for her to defend his comments, because your interpretation that making a broad generalization about Trump supporters somehow directly applies to certain members here who voted in a poll is dead wrong.
Quote: AZDuffmanAttacks by liberals on non-liberals seem more tolerated so who knows.
Unless your account was hacked, I do believe you are the same AZDuffman who said this over at DT:
Quote: AZDuffmanEven after they closed half of it off. At least the empty chairs are more intelligent than most of her supporters.
Pot, meet kettle!!!!!!
RonC, surely you should say that about Trump. His disqualifications surely outweigh his qualifications? Whatever the hell they may be.Quote: RonCI've even said it--Hillary may be "more qualified" to be President...but her disqualifications outweigh that and I just can't vote for her.
So if neither is worthy of your vote, then vote for neither.
In the UK, we can register our 'protest' in an election by deliberately 'spoiling our ballot' The percentage 'spoiling the ballot' has to be declared and rigorously scrutinised.
In your place, I'd write on my ballot 'Neither candidate worthy' and feel that I had done my duty to democracy.
And more to the point, when *large* numbers of Muslims support terrorism, the proper response is, at a minimum, concern. The wrong response is trying to slur those who are concerned by calling them "Islamaphobe".Quote: RonCI guess in your world of labeling everyone with any concern about terrorism an "Islamophobe" and such, you would feel right.
http://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx
If numbers are your yardstick, what do you view as a greater threat to the rights granted to Americans by the Constitution: fundamentalist Islam or alt-right Christianity? There are certainly more adherents of the latter, and I believe that in the past decade or so there have been more deaths in the US due to attacks perpetrated by alt-right murderers than jihadist murderers.Quote: MichaelBluejayAnd more to the point, when *large* numbers of Muslims support terrorism, the proper response is, at a minimum, concern.
And before you decry the link between alt-right violence and generalized Christianity as a false one, it's precisely as false as the link between jihadist violence and generalized Islam. By the numbers alone, racist and anti-Semitic violence carried out by perverters of Christianity have been more prevalent in the U.S. than anti-Western violence carried out by perverters of Islam. The real problem is that the alt-right wackos are having a major resurgence in the US right now, and of course they're going to deflect criticism by pointing the finger at the jihadist wackos as the bigger problem. Both groups are deplorable, to use Clinton's term, but only the alt-right has a major political sponsor and a media enterprise backing them. So in reality, which group of wackos are you really more worried about?
Quote: MathExtremist...I believe that in the past decade or so there have been more deaths in the US due to attacks perpetrated by alt-right murderers than jihadist murderers....
Numbers supporting this would be interesting. For "decade or so" please insert 15 years and report back. You'll start with 3,000+ in the jihadist's column, I think that will be a tough hurdle to overcome by the "alt-right murderers" during the 15 year test period.
Quote: MathExtremistIf numbers are your yardstick, what do you view as a greater threat to the rights granted to Americans by the Constitution: fundamentalist Islam or alt-right Christianity? There are certainly more adherents of the latter, and I believe that in the past decade or so there have been more deaths in the US due to attacks perpetrated by alt-right murderers than jihadist murderers.
And before you decry the link between alt-right violence and generalized Christianity as a false one, it's precisely as false as the link between jihadist violence and generalized Islam. By the numbers alone, racist and anti-Semitic violence carried out by perverters of Christianity have been more prevalent in the U.S. than anti-Western violence carried out by perverters of Islam. The real problem is that the alt-right wackos are having a major resurgence in the US right now, and of course they're going to deflect criticism by pointing the finger at the jihadist wackos as the bigger problem. Both groups are deplorable, to use Clinton's term, but only the alt-right has a major political sponsor and a media enterprise backing them. So in reality, which group of wackos are you really more worried about?
That has very little to do with the point that was made--there are well over a million people who support Islamic terrorism. We should pay attention and not call people "Islamophobes" just for being concerned.
Your point would be a different one worth discussing if the statistics prove it to be true...or even close to true.
You can't use one issue to state that another one is not an issue. That is silly. Both may well exist.
Quote: OnceDear<snip>In your place, I'd write on my ballot 'Neither candidate worthy' and feel that I had done my duty to democracy.<snip>
I have said that I may not vote at the top of the ballot. Trip 7 and the one favoring elimination of all dastardly Republicans do not believe me. Of course, anyone calling for the elimination of a huge group of people should be watched vert carefully...there have been a few guys that called for that over time...
Quote: ams288Unless your account was hacked, I do believe you are the same AZDuffman who said this over at DT:
Pot, meet kettle!!!!!!
Actually not...he did not say that he was not allowed to make similar comments, just that they were met here with different standards by a moderator. I agree with that, and have stated it previously.
Well said!Quote: RonCThat has very little to do with the point that was made--there are well over a million people who support Islamic terrorism. We should pay attention and not call people "Islamophobes" just for being concerned.
Your point would be a different one worth discussing if the statistics prove it to be true...or even close to true.
You can't use one issue to state that another one is not an issue. That is silly. Both may well exist.
Quote: SOOPOOThere is a poll of WoV members that shows more WoV members select DT over HC. You have called the majority of members here spineless retards. I can't wait to see how BBB defends your comments......
I don't defend or even agree with his comments. I also don't think a comment generalized about some possible Trump voters translates to a personal insult against forum members. It would be both hypocritical and unfairly focused on one poster out of hundreds of posts by many authors over years, making generalizations over everything from "Libtards" to "low information voters" to "fascists" to "gun nuts". Highly charged rhetoric, meant to inflame, often polarizing. This is just one more example.
Quote: RonCWe should pay attention and not call people "Islamophobes" just for being concerned.
Who is calling anyone an Islamophobe "just for being concerned" ???
There are plenty of people with legitimate concerns who aren't Islamophobes. There are also plenty of Trump supporters who are straight up Islamophobes.
Seems like your expanding the definition to be able to keep your faux outrage engaged.
Quote: beachbumbabsI don't defend or even agree with his comments. I also don't think a comment generalized about some possible Trump voters translates to a personal insult against forum members. It would be both hypocritical and unfairly focused on one poster out of hundreds of posts by many authors over years, making generalizations over everything from "Libtards" to "low information voters" to "fascists" to "gun nuts". Highly charged rhetoric, meant to inflame, often polarizing. This is just one more example.
So, just to be clear, calling Joeshlabotnik a libtard fascist who needs to be eliminated/killed/dragged into his own septic system/or any other interesting way of killing someone is ALLOWED? Since WHEN?
Seriously! Someone who advocates for murdering half the US belongs in nazi Germany (or feel free to insert somewhere he belongs that is more apt for my analogy).
Don't go too far back in the 20th century, though, or you'll have over 20M in the alt-right column. It does nobody any good to look at historical totals because then we get into the Crusades, etc. The important question is what's likely to happen going forward. It's rational to be concerned about jihadi murderers like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and it's just as rational to be concerned about alt-right murderers like Dylann Roof.Quote: ParadigmNumbers supporting this would be interesting. For "decade or so" please insert 15 years and report back. You'll start with 3,000+ in the jihadist's column, I think that will be a tough hurdle to overcome by the "alt-right murderers" during the 15 year test period.
And I apologize, I did miscount. Including the Florida mass shooting a few months back, perversions of Islam are indeed responsible for more deaths on U.S. soil in the past decade than perversions of Christianity. However, I remain concerned about the growing financial and political support of alt-right ideology in the U.S., support that clearly doesn't exist for jihadi ideology here. Discriminatory extremism masquerading as religion is a cancer on society, but extremism supported by money and media is far more dangerous than extremism that is not. It should be a concern every time the alt-right points the finger at Islam as a distraction from its own extremism.
Quote: ams288Who is calling anyone an Islamophobe "just for being concerned" ???
There are plenty of people with legitimate concerns who aren't Islamophobes. There are also plenty of Trump supporters who are straight up Islamophobes.
Seems like your expanding the definition to be able to keep your faux outrage engaged.
Hillary Clinton and you, by supporting her statement...oh, wait, she doesn't support it quite as much any more herself..
Quote: MoosetonSo, just to be clear, calling Joeshlabotnik a libtard fascist who needs to be eliminated/killed/dragged into his own septic system/or any other interesting way of killing someone is ALLOWED? Since WHEN?
Seriously! Someone who advocates for murdering half the US belongs in nazi Germany (or feel free to insert somewhere he belongs that is more apt for my analogy).
I didn't say that. Geez. Of course that's not allowed. I said generalizations about groups of voters goes way back here without a lot of suspensions, and that's what he did. I can't say no suspensions, because there probably have been a couple at least for whatever reason, but it's not a lot. There's a line, it's not easy to define, so I deal with it on a case by case basis. You're over it (hypothetically), he wasnt.
Quote: RonCTrump probably will not be elected anyway. I don't know why everyone is getting their internet panties in a wad over something that won't be done by someone who won't get elected.
Then you should be betting big on Clinton. -250 are the going odds.
I've many times that since the television age, which I start at Kennedy vs. Nixon, the more charismatic candidate has won every time. Trump wins that match up easily.
Quote: MathExtremistDon't go too far back in the 20th century, though, or you'll have over 20M in the alt-right column. It does nobody any good to look at historical totals because then we get into the Crusades, etc. The important question is what's likely to happen going forward. It's rational to be concerned about jihadi murderers like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and it's just as rational to be concerned about alt-right murderers like Dylann Roof.
And I apologize, I did miscount. Including the Florida mass shooting a few months back, perversions of Islam are indeed responsible for more deaths on U.S. soil in the past decade than perversions of Christianity. However, I remain concerned about the growing financial and political support of alt-right ideology in the U.S., support that clearly doesn't exist for jihadi ideology here. Discriminatory extremism masquerading as religion is a cancer on society, but extremism supported by money and media is far more dangerous than extremism that is not. It should be a concern every time the alt-right points the finger at Islam as a distraction from its own extremism.
What a two-faced apology if I ever heard one. Just admit you were FLAT OUT WRONG. Funny to watch you wiggle. Jeez the nerve...
However, I remain concerned (your line above) about your bullshit. To that I ask, is it really comparable when there are much more Christians in the US than those of Islamic faith? False equivalence
Quote: beachbumbabsI didn't say that. Geez. Of course that's not allowed. I said generalizations about groups of voters goes way back here without a lot of suspensions, and that's what he did. I can't say no suspensions, because there probably have been a couple at least for whatever reason, but it's not a lot. There's a line, it's not easy to define, so I deal with it on a case by case basis. You're over it (hypothetically), he wasnt.
Why? Please answer honestly.
Edit: Why am I over the line when I'm just imitating Joeshlabotnik?
2nd edit: That's the best Joeshlabotnik imitation I have so please don't ask for it again. I'll continue biting my tongue. But please answer why is it ok for him to post in such an nasty/violent way whereas mine is not?
Quote: WizardThen you should be betting big on Clinton. -250 are the going odds.
I've many times that since the television age, which I start at Kennedy vs. Nixon, the more charismatic candidate has won every time. Trump wins that match up easily.
Charisma doesn't overcome being personally repugnant to large groups of voters, especially women. His serial adultery, misogynistic comments and actions, and treating women as objects overwhelms any personal magnetism, in the same emotional center where that attraction resides.
People talk about the hidden Trump voter. Women cater to their men, would not disagree in public. But in the privacy of the ballot box, many, maybe even most, of those Trump women will vote for Hillary. My prediction is she will take the female vote in the high 60s or greater. And win with it.
I did admit I was wrong -- what about "I did miscount" doesn't convey that to you? Admitting mistakes is apparently viewed by some as a sign of weakness. It's not -- and in fact, the entire basis of rational inquiry is predicated on both recognizing and correcting mistakes -- but the feeble-minded among us nevertheless place ego and appearance above truth and sound reasoning. Donald Trump certainly does. Do you?Quote: MoosetonWhat a two-faced apology if I ever heard one. Just admit you were FLAT OUT WRONG. Funny to watch you wiggle. Jeez the nerve...
However, I remain concerned (your line above) about your bullshit. To that I ask, is it really comparable when there are much more Christians in the US than those of Islamic faith? False equivalence
And it's funny that you think I'm "wiggling." I have no reason to wiggle -- I have no horse in this race. I believe that neo-Nazi extremism and jihadist extremism are both deplorable. Do you? Or are you an alt-right adherent who believes that certain members of H. sapiens are superior to others merely by virtue of a lack of melanin? That belief is hardly the product of rational inquiry or sound reasoning.
Source: http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/18/1-voters-general-election-preferences/
And an earlier version: http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2-voter-general-election-preferences/
This is why education policy is so important. It's difficult to really buy into the whole racist ethos if you've actually spent time at a college with a diverse demographic as opposed to just a homogeneous demographic at your hometown high school.Quote: WizardI think the most telling thing about that chart is the negative correlation between education level and Trump support.
That's because Libtard professors brainwashed all the students. [/sarcasm]Quote: WizardI think the most telling thing about that chart is the negative correlation between education level and Trump support.
That reminds me, I was born into a bona-fide mind control cult, and what's interesting is how the mental gymnastics cultists go through to hang on to ridiculous beliefs in the face of obvious reason is exactly what we see on the far right.
My cult.
CULTIST: Eli Siegel [the cult founder] was the greatest person ever to live, and his philosophy is the most important thing in the history of the world.
NON-CRAZY PERSON: Dozens of newspapers and magazines identify his ideas as nothing special and his group as a cult.
CULTIST: The reporters are just jealous that they can't be superior to Eli Siegel.
NON-CRAZY PERSON: What about the fact that most people who have been involved with the group have since left the group and denounced it?
CULTIST: They're just angry at themselves for respecting Eli Siegel so much.
Extreme right-wingers [ERW].
ERW: Global warming is a hoax with the goal of establishing socialism.
NON-CRAZY PERSON: Actually, ~97% of the world's climate scientists say that climate change is real and that humans are causing it.
ERW: (1) All the world's scientists are part of an unimaginably large global conspiracy, or
(2) Pffft! What do scientists know about science? I read a blog post that says they're wrong.
NON-CRAZY PERSON: Fact-checkers rate Trump's statements as overwhelmingly false, and Clinton's much less so.
ERW: You can't trust the liberal mainstream media!
NON-CRAZY PERSON: It's interesting that the less education someone has, the more likely they are to support Trump.
ERW: That's because liberal professors brainwash their students.
- - - - - -
Basically, when you have a really crazy idea, the only way you can justify it is with even crazier ideas.
Quote: WizardI think the most telling thing about that chart is the negative correlation between education level and Trump support.
Yes, no doubt. However, I've also noticed that Hillary has the largest number of uneducated voters. She has the ghetto vote. Those voters far out number the better educated Trump voters. 2% for Trump verses 85% for Hillary.
Quote: MathExtremistThis is why education policy is so important. It's difficult to really buy into the whole racist ethos if you've actually spent time at a college with a diverse demographic as opposed to just a homogeneous demographic at your hometown high school.
Your point may have some validity but there are also thousands upon thousands of folks without a degree, but with a diploma and perhaps some college, who serve or have served in our military where they work with a diverse population from day one. The kind of "education" you are talking about does not just happen in higher education. It happens in many areas of our workforce, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio
