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
Quote: SteverinosI've watched what has happened over the entirety of Obama's presidency. On several occasions, Obama was supporting things that were HIGHLY unpopular with his liberal base (raising retirement ages), the very same things that were highly popular among republicans. Time and time again, the republicans refused to play ball. Why?
Scene from "Star Trek III":
(I'm paraphrasing the dialogue here)
Kirk (to Klingon captain): Let the boy (a younger Spock) go!
Klingon captain (wonderfully played by Christopher Lloyd): NO!
Kirk: Why not?
Klingon captain: BECAUSE YOU WISH IT!
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI would be surprised if he actually had a single nickel in action on the election. We'll certainly hear about his $50,000 profit if Trump wins. If Hillary wins, that means the election was rigged, so Max will get any bets he made refunded.
I'm wondering if bookies in, say, the UK are even accepting bets on Hillary any more, or if they're at least making people lay something like 20-1. Trump's actual chance of winning is essentially zero, and to that you have to add the very real possibility that he will be pouting on the top floor of Trump Tower on Election Day, having told the Republican Party to go forkulate themselves. (That doesn't mean he'd allow Pence to step into his clown shoes, however.)
I watch the odds quite closely
Before the 1st debate, many sites had Trump at 8/5
He's been dropping like a rock since
Most sites now have him at 4/1
Clinton is 1/5 to 1/6. Before the debate around 1/2
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner
Quote: terapinedI watch the odds quite closely
Before the 1st debate, many sites had Trump at 8/5
He's been dropping like a rock since
Most sites now have him at 4/1
Clinton is 1/5 to 1/6. Before the debate around 1/2
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner
Kind of surprised to see Pence at around 50/1. If Trump goes boom, he would have a decent chance against Hillary. He probably wouldn't suffer any real penalty from having licked Trump's boots at this point, and he would benefit from a rush of relieved Republicans to the polls.
Of course, I don't know what the procedures would be if the Orange Orangutan exploded and spattered all over everything, but I presume that the Republicans would simply let Pence be the new nominee, especially since there's no time for a sumo match between Christie and Ryan.
I think you would see Ryan before Pence. I wouldn't mind finding out. I thrive in vacuums.
Quote: billryanIf Trump leaves, for any reason, Pence is not automatically elevated. GOP protocol calls for either a new gathering of the delegates or a vote by the heads of the party in each state, with each states vote weighed by the number of delegates at the convention.
I think you would see Ryan before Pence. I wouldn't mind finding out. I thrive in vacuums.
Yeah, I just think that given the very narrow time frame (which could be even narrower by the time Trump hypothetically dropped out), they'd just shrug and go with Pence. Ryan a) might not even want the job, b) has seemingly devoted his entire political career to becoming the most hated politician in America--by BOTH parties, and c) has alienated the Republican establishment by endorsing/unendorsing/supporting/unsupporting/insulting/uninsulting Trump. Trump may be a liar, but Ryan's a weasel--and while it's obvious that the Republicans don't mind backing a liar, they might not be as forgiving of a weasel.
I'm kind of two minds about this. I would LOVE to see Trump get tossed overboard, but there's some danger that the Republicans might actually win the election if that happened. The horror! The horror!
Clinton's ground force is much better than Trump's. But voter turnout will be low because of apathy. I am thinking Assange releases the best of the emails next week after the final debate.
In any case, this will likely go down as the craziest election in modern history.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikKind of surprised to see Pence at around 50/1. If Trump goes boom, he would have a decent chance against Hillary. He probably wouldn't suffer any real penalty from having licked Trump's boots at this point, and he would benefit from a rush of relieved Republicans to the polls.
Of course, I don't know what the procedures would be if the Orange Orangutan exploded and spattered all over everything, but I presume that the Republicans would simply let Pence be the new nominee, especially since there's no time for a sumo match between Christie and Ryan.
Anyone betting Pence at 50-1 is doing extremely poorly. Can bet him at more than 200-1 without any problem at all.
Quote: boymimboHaving a mainstream GOP be elected would not be the end of the world. There's still 28 days left and we don't know if there are any diamonds in the Wikileaks. I think that there will be, and Julian is saving the best for when Trump hits rock bottom. What we will see I think is a Trump comeback from the end of week polls if no scandals come out. The Apprentice tapes won't be released. The final debate is only a week away and he will likely be fine. Which means that his poll numbers will likely bottom out at 42% to Hillary's 49%. 7 points is not insurmountable.
Clinton's ground force is much better than Trump's. But voter turnout will be low because of apathy. I am thinking Assange releases the best of the emails next week after the final debate.
In any case, this will likely go down as the craziest election in modern history.
I think that whatever Assange eventually releases will be small beer. If there was anything of import, they would have already run onto the world internet stage, waving it in the air and shouting. The Republicans, and Assange, having anything substantive and waiting until now to release it is like the Nazis developing powerful secret weapons and then waiting until their country was being overrun to deploy them. And we all know how THAT turned out; as Mein Kampf might be the one book that Trump has actually read, you'd think he knows it, too.
I don't think that Trump will do well in the third debate. He's out of ammunition, and he must sense that the fact that Hillary sent emails and is married to Bill Clinton won't cause undecided voters to flock to him, or bring back Republicans who regard him like they would a puddle of stale vomit. So we'll see a (perhaps subdued) version of the patented Trump meltdown--hopefully for the last time, ever.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI would be surprised if he actually had a single nickel in action on the election. We'll certainly hear about his $50,000 profit if Trump wins. If Hillary wins, that means the election was rigged, so Max will get any bets he made refunded.
I'm wondering if bookies in, say, the UK are even accepting bets on Hillary any more, or if they're at least making people lay something like 20-1. Trump's actual chance of winning is essentially zero, and to that you have to add the very real possibility that he will be pouting on the top floor of Trump Tower on Election Day, having told the Republican Party to go forkulate themselves. (That doesn't mean he'd allow Pence to step into his clown shoes, however.)
You won't hear anything about profit if I win. Elections can be manipulated to a certain extent and Camp Hillary are doing all they can. Improbable to thwart a landslide.
Why?
Well, that's what I would do. But since early voting is underwear, I expect it will all be out within a week.
Quote: rxwineI think Assange still has something.
Why?
Well, that's what I would do. But since early voting is underwear, I expect it will all be out within a week.
The proper phrase is "early voting is lingerie."
I think it works both ways: if a similar tape had surfaced in 2012 about Obama, I expect that Dems would be less outraged than Republicans.
Except maybe for this bit: Ten percent of Republicans said the video gave them a positive feeling, and eight percent said it made them feel more favorably toward Trump. It's hard to imagine that kind of reaction on the Democratic side if a Democrat were the subject of such a scandal.
Anybody else think it was interesting Clinton couldn't even think of a nice thing to say about DJT? Then DJT responded quite well, I think. A nice closing to the debate. Funny question, too.
Quote: RSI get calls sometimes from Afgahanistanian sounding people asking me about who I'll vote for and other such questions.
Anybody else think it was interesting Clinton couldn't even think of a nice thing to say about DJT? Then DJT responded quite well, I think. A nice closing to the debate. Funny question, too.
I think Clinton did great, actually, given that the first answer, and maybe the first twelve answers, that come to mind would be "I honestly can't think of a single positive thing about you." And really, what is there that's praiseworthy about the OO? I thought at first that Clinton might praise his business success, but that would sound kind of hollow, given that it's now well known, and Clinton hammered Trump on, that he built his business empire on fraud. So maybe that he's raised a healthy family would be the nicest thing you could honestly say about him. I mean, they're twits and daddy-parrots, especially Baby Trump (he of the bowl of Skittles), but if I stood to inherit hundreds of millions as long as I kissed Daddy Trump's ass, I might pucker up, too.
Trump actually did pretty well, I agree. Though his praise of Clinton's perseverance sounded a little odd in the context of his recent bleating about her weakness, supposed illness, and lack of stamina. I also note that he went right back to tweeting about that immediately after the debate.
And yeah, kudos to the audience member who posed the question, and to the (horribly anti-Trump biased, lol) moderators who chose it. I think it would have been more fun if they had just tossed each candidate a baseball bat, though. Maybe Debate Three will feature actual weapons, or at least Tasers and cattle prods? Now, that's entertainment!
Quote: RSAnybody else think it was interesting Clinton couldn't even think of a nice thing to say about DJT? Then DJT responded quite well, I think. A nice closing to the debate. Funny question, too.
I wouldn't be able to think of a nice thing to say either.
Her answer was the common one people use. I've heard my Republican parents who hate Trump say the same thing, "Well, at least he raised nice children...."
Quote: FDEAD3709Seeing all these polls in the media, I just wonder, anybody on here ever been polled? Know anybody that has been, this on any other election? Just curious.
I have been polled many times, especially in recent years. Most recently a few days ago. It was an internet survey that in addition to specifically asking which candidate for president I was voting for, asked maybe 100 questions to slip me into some pre -determined categories (income, race, gender, age, stances on gay marriage, abortion legality, immigration, etc...
This happens through a company called e-rewards, which basically gives me frequent flier miles to participate. More often the surveys are trying to find out which ad campaign I like better. What they could change about their product so I would buy it. Etc....
Ohio:
Clinton 43
Trump 34
Utah:
Clinton 26
Trump 26
McMullin 22
Johnson 14
Clinton is up 9 in Ohio! They're tied in Utah!
Early voting starts today in Ohio, BTW...
Quote: FDEAD3709Seeing all these polls in the media, I just wonder, anybody on here ever been polled? Know anybody that has been, this on any other election? Just curious.
I was polled recently
They called my cell phone
It was a ton of questions
I was literally on the phone for about 30 min
A ton of questions regarding my knowledge of Zika virus then turned to where I got my news from then political questions
Regarding Zika, they named all these news outlets asking me if I got my Zika info from any of these news outlets
I said no to all
They asked me where I got Zika info from
I said Wikipedia. Survey taker said her last respondent also said Wikipedia :-)
They kept me on the phone by promising me 10 bucks
I got my 10 dollar check
Poll was done by SSRS.COM
\Quote: MaxPenYou won't hear anything about profit if I win. Elections can be manipulated to a certain extent and Camp Hillary are doing all they can. Improbable to thwart a landslide.
Ah, the "if it doesn't turn out the way I expected, it must be manipulated" defense. #2 in the GOP's playbook. You do realize the lengths the US government went to to certify Florida 16 years ago.
Elections are being manipulated for sure. Congressional maps are designed for the party in power. Voting laws are changed to exclude the poor. Polling stations are opened, closed, and staffed based on political motivations.
That said, there has been absolutely no evidence that any the actions above have affected a state result for President.
realclearpolitics: 64% of respondents still believe America is going in the wrong direction. Trump will not #MAGA. Clinton won't either.
Quote: boymimbo538.com has Clinton now at 6.5% lead and a 150 EV lead. Arizona and Iowa now are Blue States.
realclearpolitics: 64% of respondents still believe America is going in the wrong direction. Trump will not #MAGA. Clinton won't either.
America is great for the rich and many of those happy to be not working by choice. While the rest of us will have to work harder to enjoy happiness.
This despite the fact that Every. Single. Poll. shows Clinton way ahead, including Fox News, and poll-based models give Clinton an 85% chance of winning, including the one by conservative John Stossel. But yeah, if Hillary wins the election was fixed and we have to have a revolution.Quote: CNN"Our lives depend on this election. Our kids' futures depend on this election and I will tell you just for me, and I don't want this to happen but I will tell you for me personally if Hillary Clinton gets in, I myself, I'm ready for a revolution because we can't have her in," she said emotionally.... "What are we going to do to safeguard our votes? Because we've seen how the Democratic Party is just crooked, crooked, crooked." CNN
Some Trump voters are just a special kind of stupid. I know there are dumb people on both sides, but I just don't see this kind of profound idiocy on the left.
Quote: boymimbo\
Ah, the "if it doesn't turn out the way I expected, it must be manipulated" defense. #2 in the GOP's playbook. You do realize the lengths the US government went to to certify Florida 16 years ago.
Elections are being manipulated for sure. Congressional maps are designed for the party in power. Voting laws are changed to exclude the poor. Polling stations are opened, closed, and staffed based on political motivations.
That said, there has been absolutely no evidence that any the actions above have affected a state result for President.
How would a reduction in the number of people who were able to vote due to Republican tactics be evident, though? Aggressive gerrymandering isolates the inferior classes into a few, crowded districts, where their votes matter less. Voter ID laws keep them from voting at all. Shutting down polling places early, or never opening them, leaves them frustrated, still waiting in line when the polls close. But how would you be able to undo all that and have everybody vote in a fair election this time? It can be countered by "get out the vote" efforts to some extent, but if the Republicans prevent you from being able to vote at all, nothing can help you.
The sick, twisted element to all this is that those Republicans who have been leading the disenfranchisement movement truly believe, in some dark corner of their minds, that they are doing the country a world of good by not letting the mongrel races vote.
Quote: MichaelBluejayA Trump supporter calls for a revolution if Clinton is elected:
This despite the fact that Every. Single. Poll. shows Clinton way ahead, including Fox News, and poll-based models give Clinton an 85% chance of winning, including the one by conservative John Stossel. But yeah, if Hillary wins the election was fixed and we have to have a revolution.Quote: CNN"Our lives depend on this election. Our kids' futures depend on this election and I will tell you just for me, and I don't want this to happen but I will tell you for me personally if Hillary Clinton gets in, I myself, I'm ready for a revolution because we can't have her in," she said emotionally.... "What are we going to do to safeguard our votes? Because we've seen how the Democratic Party is just crooked, crooked, crooked." CNN
Some Trump voters are just a special kind of stupid. I know there are dumb people on both sides, but I just don't see this kind of profound idiocy on the left.
There are plenty of idiots on both sides that think like this guy. There are just too many people on both sides unwilling to see it. I put many of the "Occupy" crowd on the left in that group. The horror stories from how they acted are out there if you look. The difference is they didn't get the coverage from the press. Yea, it does always come back to a biased media with an agenda.
As I have said before, this country will be more divided than ever regardless of who wins. Neither of these 2 will unite the country.
Quote: Joeshlabotnik
The sick, twisted element to all this is that those Republicans who have been leading the disenfranchisement movement truly believe, in some dark corner of their minds, that they are doing the country a world of good by not letting the mongrel races vote.
And just why are the "mongrel" races as you say not eligible to vote? Sad people fall for this garbage about how hard it is for them to get an ID and vote. Perhaps that is the root of the problem in the country. Too many willing to make excuses for others instead of holding them accountable. I am going to wager everyone on here that wants to vote can. Why, because we do the things we are supposed to in life. Honestly its not that hard. People would be so much better off if people like you stopped holding their hand everyday.
Quote: Boz
As I have said before, this country will be more divided than ever regardless of who wins. Neither of these 2 will unite the country.
I'm a little more optimistic. When Hillary wins, that will be as much a repudiation of the Trump/Republican hate philosophy as any desire by the electorate to see her in charge. Conservatism is a fundamentally flawed philosophy, and the Republican version of it is particularly so. We're seeing a sea change in the way the country thinks--look at the recent huge support for gay marriage, LGBT rights, the rejection of the Confederate flag, the genuine outrage (not just by blacks) at recent police shootings. The two pillars of Republicanism, the rich old white guy and Joe Sixpack sitting on his couch, had a brief moment in the sun this election season but are now fading into obscurity.
When sanity regains control of the House and Senate, we'll see a quiet revolution. We'll start lurching fitfully toward a more humane and just society. Western Europe is fifty years ahead of us in that regard, but we can see why their societies are happy and thriving and there's no reason we can't emulate them. Put the damn guns away. Health care for everybody--period. Free college education for everyone who wants it--period. And yeah, higher taxes on the rich to pay for it all. They'll manage somehow.
I don't expect the House and Senate to flip, but if they do, there's maybe a two-year time window to get everything done. Plus, the three most liberal Supremes are pretty old. These next few years are going to be critical. But if we get the Republicans shoved to the back of the bus, I believe this country WILL be united. The haters are in the minority, actually--but Trump has given them a voice that they don't deserve. I think that common decency is stronger than hate. The day will come when conservatism is regarded as an odd and out-of-date philosophy, a rejection of progress and a failed attempt by old white men to preserve the halcyon days when they could still get it up.
Quote: BozAnd just why are the "mongrel" races as you say not eligible to vote? Sad people fall for this garbage about how hard it is for them to get an ID and vote. Perhaps that is the root of the problem in the country. Too many willing to make excuses for others instead of holding them accountable. I am going to wager everyone on here that wants to vote can. Why, because we do the things we are supposed to in life. Honestly its not that hard. People would be so much better off if people like you stopped holding their hand everyday.
1. Voter ID laws that make it difficult, and in some cases impossible, to register. (If you don't understand that, it's not my problem--it's yours.)
2. A calculated shutdown of polling places so that there are fewer of them in poor and minority districts (in some places, a 2/3 reduction).
3. Republican gerrymandering that crowds the lesser breeds into single Congressional districts so that they are represented by as few Congresspersons as possible, the way God intended. Thus, they are underrepresented.
I advocate for every eligible citizen being able to vote, even the undeserving poor and the non-white inferiors. Therefore, I strongly oppose any Republican efforts to disenfranchise them. I guess that you would call that "hand-holding."
(And yes, every participant on these forums probably CAN vote. So what? We are hardly any kind of representative demographic.)
The only elections that republicans win is when LESS people vote. It's not something to be particularly proud of.
Quote: BozAnd just why are the "mongrel" races as you say not eligible to vote? Sad people fall for this garbage about how hard it is for them to get an ID and vote. Perhaps that is the root of the problem in the country. Too many willing to make excuses for others instead of holding them accountable. I am going to wager everyone on here that wants to vote can. Why, because we do the things we are supposed to in life. Honestly its not that hard. People would be so much better off if people like you stopped holding their hand everyday.
I was almost denied the right to vote
I submitted all my documentation to the State of Florida
I am a US citizen by birth.
I was not born in this country
They took a look at all my documentation due to a new law in Florida.
I have voted in every Presidential Election in this country for the last 40 years
Due to a new law in Florida said they needed a couple months to research my citizenship.
WTF
No way the state is taking away my right to vote
I asked to speak to a supervisor
I brought my old original Chinese birth certificate that's printed in Chinese
I brought my old original US Department of State - Report of birth - Child born abroad of American Parent - document
I brought my old original "United States of America Certificate of Citizenship" in small print at the bottom of this cert stated "it is a violation of the US code to copy print or photograph"
They copied it anyway
After a 1/2 hour, they renewed my drivers lisc and said I could vote
Quote: terapinedI was almost denied the right to vote
After a 1/2 hour, they renewed my drivers lisc and said I could vote
Yeah, and I'm wondering how many people didn't fight back, or didn't fight back as successfully as you did. Chances are, the Republicans in Florida have successfully prevented tens of thousands of people from voting due to their new law.
Why are we worried about the Zika virus when Florida is already infested with a far more deadly threat--Republicans?
Quote: Joeshlabotnik
Why are we worried about the Zika virus when Florida is already infested with a far more deadly threat--Republicans?
And that says it all. Your backstory would make interesting reading. Like a tearjerker movie, you just have to be in the mood for it. Or as a hard working Republican I'd probably laugh at it.
Perhaps they can't get over the irony that his unapologetic "alpha male-ness" is what officially tanked his campaign.
Quote: ams288I find it odd that the two biggest champions of Trump's "alpha male-ness" on this board, AZ and EvenBob, haven't posted in this thread after his "alpha male" endorsement of sexual assault video leaked.
Perhaps they can't get over the irony that his unapologetic "alpha male-ness" is what officially tanked his campaign.
To me it's not a big issue. The difference in the overall policies of the 2 is my deciding factor in my vote. But it's obvious that it is to others. Their vote, their right. I still believe Bill has done far worse things to women but he isn't running, his wife is. And we all know woman need protection from sexual predators.
Quote: BozAnd that says it all. Your backstory would make interesting reading. Like a tearjerker movie, you just have to be in the mood for it. Or as a hard working Republican I'd probably laugh at it.
You can be treated and perhaps cured, but the first step is recognizing that you have a problem. Many Republicans actually enjoy being Republicans--many are, amazingly, proud of it. I fully acknowledge that and realize that as a consequence, the evolution of our country into a better and more humane society will be painfully slow.
Your crack about my "backstory" is SO Republican. You think that in order to oppose Republican philosophy, a person must have some strange past, dark secret, or psychological problem. In actuality, I oppose Republican "values" because I believe in common decency.
Does it strike you in any way as odd that Republicans, those champions of "the values of our founding fathers," are engaged in a nationwide intensive campaign to keep citizens from voting?
Quote: RSMaybe EvenBob & AZ stopped posting here because they got tired of reading your posts and responding to someone who likes to twist & turn the facts? I sure am.
Yet you're still posting here.... :(
Quote: RSMaybe EvenBob & AZ stopped posting here because they got tired of reading your posts and responding to someone who likes to twist & turn the facts? I sure am.
Yeah, when someone expresses political opinions that differ from your own, they're twisting the facts. In contrast, your expressions of priceless wisdom are crystal-clear examples of deadly accurate, unbiased thought.
*SNORT*
Quote: BozTo me it's not a big issue. The difference in the overall policies of the 2 is my deciding factor in my vote. But it's obvious that it is to others. Their vote, their right. I still believe Bill has done far worse things to women but he isn't running, his wife is. And we all know woman need protection from sexual predators.
For me, the actual difference is that only one of the candidates even HAS a policy. What have we heard from Trump other than a shitstorm of unfocused rants? His positions are vague at best, and the few substantive proposals he's made are wildly unrealistic. He doesn't seem to even want to tell us how he's going to transform America into Utopia. He seems to think that telling us he will do so is enough--he says "believe me" about once a minute. (Of course, since so many people DO believe him, maybe he's right that he doesn't need to articulate any actual policy.)
Trump's a loathsome pile of crap, but that's not why we shouldn't elect him. The primary reason is that he would have utterly no idea of what he's doing. He would be like a seven-year-old child trying to fly a 767.
Quote: RSMaybe EvenBob & AZ stopped posting here because they got tired of reading your posts and responding to someone who likes to twist & turn the facts? I sure am.
A couple months ago the were posting how brilliant Trump's campaign strategy was and how Presidential he looked and sounded.
The times they are a changing :-)
Should it be based on a percentage of whites in a specific work field being a minority ? Or what should the threshold be for the ever reducing percentage of white in the US population to be considered a minority? It's just a question. This is a forum.
Quote: FDEAD3709USA today had an article about Silicon Valley black engineers getting a big assist by joining /dev/color, a support network for black software engineers. 114 member who are all black. Without accusing me of being a racist, have you an opinion on when such an organization of white only engineers might be allowed to form?
Should it be based on a percentage of whites in a specific work field being a minority ? Or what should the threshold be for the ever reducing percentage of white in the US population to be considered a minority? It's just a question. This is a forum.
"Allowed" by whom? Private organizations are free to include or exclude members based on any criterion or criteria they choose. There are organizations of tall people that would by definition exclude anybody under 6 foot 3 (or whatever), and that doesn't mean that short people can sue them for tallism.
As to when an all-white society of engineers "might be allowed" to form, I would point out gently that such organizations existed since the mid-19th century, and I'm willing to bet that until quite recently, none of them would have even considered admitting a non-white member.
Whites will be considered a minority in the US when they comprise less than half the population, which will occur sometime around 2050. I am not viewing this "ever reducing" percentage as a cause for alarm, though I do realize that many conservatives see it as the impending apocalypse.
Quote: FDEAD3709USA today had an article about Silicon Valley black engineers getting a big assist by joining /dev/color, a support network for black software engineers. 114 member who are all black. Without accusing me of being a racist, have you an opinion on when such an organization of white only engineers might be allowed to form?
Should it be based on a percentage of whites in a specific work field being a minority ? Or what should the threshold be for the ever reducing percentage of white in the US population to be considered a minority? It's just a question. This is a forum.
Why wait. There's plenty of places to live where you can be a white minority, if that's what you desire.
Quote: MathExtremistIf everyone felt as you do, Trump wouldn't have won the GOP primary. (I know you weren't talking about Trump, but if the shoe fits...)
I almost pointed out that they are two peas in a pod, just with different political orientations. But I figured my rant was long enough.
The psychology and experience of someone like Trump is very interesting to me. There was an article about his "Sad lonely life" recently. Normally, a person like Trump will always feel inadequate in some way, or have a hole they are trying to fill. It's very hard for such a person to really be happy or at peace and my particular world view would say they are pitiful. Does he have real bonds to other people? Is he every content and appreciative?
But I wonder if there's some level of getting what they want where they can be said to be happy. They still have a hole inside, but they are ALWAYS in the act of shoveling stuff into it. Sort of like if an alcoholic could drink forever with no real consequences and without ever building up a tolerance.
Quote: RigondeauxThe psychology and experience of someone like Trump is very interesting to me. There was an article about his "Sad lonely life" recently. Normally, a person like Trump will always feel inadequate in some way, or have a hole they are trying to fill. It's very hard for such a person to really be happy or at peace and my particular world view would say they are pitiful. Does he have real bonds to other people? Is he every content and appreciative?
But I wonder if there's some level of getting what they want where they can be said to be happy. They still have a hole inside, but they are ALWAYS in the act of shoveling stuff into it. Sort of like if an alcoholic could drink forever with no real consequences and without ever building up a tolerance.
At first I thought Trump might be a clever showman, with routines to manipulate behavior like where someone is playing a part to get something they want. While he may be doing that, it appears to me he is actually unstable in some way. A showman who is exploiting people is still in control. Trump often appears unable to control himself, and even looks like he is barely able to manage himself in public.
I don't pretend to really know what's going on with him -- except it doesn't seem normal.
Quote: Joeshlabotnik
Now, you don't like anybody saying negative things about you, but I stopped counting when I got to twenty negative things you said about me in your last two posts. Yea, verily, you're pissed, but it's the height of hypocrisy to decry something and then do it yourself in the same breath. You might want to tone it down. but I'm sure you view everything you said as justified, as well as the way you said it. Again, fair enough. You are aggrieved. We disagree on some fundamental issues. I don't think that needs to devolve into personal attacks and mischaracterizations, though, and if it makes you more receptive to that idea, I'm willing to say that it is at least as much my fault as yours that things have descended to a level where you gave me a vigorous scolding, the likes of which I have not heard since I hit a baseball through Mrs. Remy's classroom window in third grade.
So let's keep it civil, at least. OK?
I've dealt with enough people like you to know that this is futile, because you will distort everything into a narrative that suits you.
However, I was responding to the fact that you strongly insinuated that I condoned rape and/or sexual assault. As usual, you did it in a way that was only 95% binding, so you could weasel out of it and then claim you were the one being attacked when someone responded.
Then you call for civility.
Then, right after you call for civility...
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI would be surprised if he actually had a single nickel in action on the election.
So you're saying Max is a liar? FYI, I watched him make a pretty substantial bet on the election. Two of them, if memory serves. One on Trump and one on Gary Johnson's total.
I guess this too, will magically not be a personal attack for some reason. Why you have carte blache to call other members liars, racists, rapists and idiots with zero substantiation is beyond me.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI'm willing to accept that you view sexual objectification as harmless. I even understand where that attitude comes from. After all, in, say, 1950, it was well-nigh universal.
Essential Joe. You disregard my argument and assume this position as if you are an omniscient sage and I must not understand the truth.
Yet, your statement reveals a gulf of ignorance about feminism which is incredible for someone as smart as you seem to be, who is evidently interested in the subject. There is sex-positive feminism, and sex-negative. You seem to have fallen under the spell of the latter. The former includes people like Camille Paglia, and in popular culture, Madonna.
Moreover, the 50s was a pretty sex-negative era. THAT'S when people think that women who flaunt their sexuality "deserve it." It's almost impossible for someone who is sex-positive to hold such a view. "Women should be free to embrace their sexuality. It's OK for men to enjoy it. But, when this happens, rape is justified." These things don't go together at all. But you try to make them fit anyway, because all you care about is trying to make the other guy out to be dumb, racist, a liar, a proponent of rape, etc. so that you can feel superior.
As I said, if you want to play that game, you'd be well served to obtains some idea of what you're talking about.
Quote: RigondeauxI've dealt with enough people like you to know that this is futile, because you will distort everything into a narrative that suits you.
Well, so much for civility :(
