Why Trumpers? I am truly baffled
Your critiques would sound more legitimate if you yourself didn't employ attacks and insults. Have you never heard the phrase "don't mud-wrestle with a pig?" You just get filthy and the pig likes it.Quote: JoeshlabotnikReally, you and other Trumpers need to suck it up and answer this question: do you support the OO and all the awful things he says? Because you can't, y'know, support him without also endorsing all his attacks and insults.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikPerhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt, that you actually are being objective when you dismiss a poll that shows your hero not doing so well. It's just that your posts so far on this thread have shown you to be anything but objective, a rabid Trumper who gives the OO a free pass on even the most heinous things he says. So have you mutated into someone who is actually objective? I would welcome that. It's just that the poll--and others coming out recently, by the way, show Clinton opening up a significant lead--and Trump and Trumpers were crowing about polls earlier this year that showed him ahead of Clinton. So the message I was getting from you is: polls don't really mean anything if they show that my hero may not get to be emperor after all.
Really, you and other Trumpers need to suck it up and answer this question: do you support the OO and all the awful things he says? Because you can't, y'know, support him without also endorsing all his attacks and insults. If you are a true Trumper, you must think that encouraging espionage against the US and attacking and insulting the parents of a soldier killed in action, to name only the most recent of dozens of horrible statements, are PERFECTLY OK. So put up or shut up: you can't echo your hero and whine about "Crooked Hillary" and ignore the OO's moral transgressions. If you support him and defend him against his critics, then you are forfeiting your morality. (Or, perhaps, adhering to it precisely--what a thought.)
Obviously, you have not read all that much I have written here over the course of this election cycle. You have recently started posting here and have decided that you know more about many of us than you truly do. Your writing has a condescending tone to it; from that, one could form the opinion you are not here to have a conversation at all. You've attempted to become the forum grammar police, something no one asked you to do. You have started using personal insults as part of your rather shallow repertoire of attacks on the writings of various members.
I don't honestly know how many here have been Trump supporters from the beginning. I do know that I will not vote for HRC but that does not make it a certainty that I will vote for DT. I don't really like him...and I don't like her, either. I have the luxury of not voting in my state and being virtually certain that DT will get the electoral votes anyway. I don't think either of them will be a particularly "good" President able to get things done. The only thing that is certain to me is that I would rather have DT selecting SC justices than HRC. I think the court could go a lot further to the left if HRC appoints folks.
Quote: MathExtremistYour critiques would sound more legitimate if you yourself didn't employ attacks and insults. Have you never heard the phrase "don't mud-wrestle with a pig?" You just get filthy and the pig likes it.
I agree. Well, except that it kind of sounds like...well...
Quote: MathExtremistI don't either, but I hope you're not suggesting that the larger demographic point is inaccurate. That's not the only polling data that's out there, not by a long shot:Quote: RonC
Huh. I'd say this poll, by the same folks, pretty much shows that Trump has more support among higher earners than Clinton supporters. Education and a good work ethic are two things that help a person earn more money.
I don't take this poll as gospel, either...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/upshot/the-one-demographic-that-is-hurting-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/an-election-in-negative/483905/
http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2-voter-general-election-preferences/
From the latter link:
Clinton leads heavily in the poor (<$30,000, 62%-33%) and less educated (50%-43%)...does it matter their race?
Hillary has a huge amount of support from poor, less educated folks.
My only point is that it looks to me like both have support among the poor and less educated.
Quote: MathExtremistYour critiques would sound more legitimate if you yourself didn't employ attacks and insults. Have you never heard the phrase "don't mud-wrestle with a pig?" You just get filthy and the pig likes it.
Nope, wrong. My criticisms would carry the same weight/legitimacy, or lack thereof, if you like, no matter how I delivered them. Yes, I attack and insult Trump and Trumpers. They are richly deserving of such treatment. But aside from that, I am STILL awaiting the answer to my question. I believe that the question is somewhat answered tacitly when Trumpers refuse to condemn the awful things the OO says. I've seen a fair amount of apologia on this thread already.
And you know what? I'm not running for the office of President of the most powerful country in the world. I'm not bound by the same strictures as the Orangutan SHOULD be. One of his tasks--at which he is failing utterly--is to show us why he is fit for this extremely important job. Instead, he's showing us that he isn't fit to man the counter at a Starbuck's. Again: Trumpers, why do you support this awful and unqualified...thing?
And when the pigs are wallowing in the mud and refuse to leave it, what choice do you have? Note that Clinton and all her supporters have finally started, after a year of free passes, to fire rocket bombs in Trump's direction, and it's working. You learn it in the schoolyard eventually--the only real way to combat a bully is to give him a bloody nose. Reason certainly won't have any effect, especially not with the OO and his loyal minions.
Quote: Joeshlabotnik<snip>I'm not bound by the same strictures as the Orangutan SHOULD be.<snip>
You are bound by the forum rules. You've violated at least two of them already.
ME has given you pretty decent advice; once again, you state that you shall refuse to listen to what he has said.
Quote: RonC
Clinton leads heavily in the poor (<$30,000, 62%-33%) and less educated (50%-43%)...does it matter their race?
Hillary has a huge amount of support from poor, less educated folks.
Aside from the fact that you got those numbers exactly backwards and misstated one of them, Clinton could have greater support than Trump from those demographics AND they could form the core of Trump's support--the two factors aren't mutually exclusive at all.
In fact, as Trump's latest blunders begin to sink in, I expect Clinton to be leading Trump in ALL demographic categories eventually. That probably won't change the demographic makeup of those who continue to support the Orangutan--there will just be proportionately fewer of each category.
If this dog's breakfast of a campaign went on long enough, eventually Trumpers would consist of three unshaven, uneducated, unemployed white guys sitting on couches with holes in them, clutching cans of cheap beer, belching, and complaining about how them goddamn liburruls are ruining this country and everything would be better if we just killed all them goddamn furriners.
Quote: RonCYou are bound by the forum rules. You've violated at least two of them already.
And several times, I might add.
Rip the Trump, the blowhard, the OO, all you want. It's easy, watch. Shrill dog the warmonger, the corrupt, the ugly ol woman, can't keep a man satisfied, turkey neck, the crook, the simple, the corrupt. Notice how I in no way involved ams, or terapined, or ME, or any other member who has voiced their support of her? Captain d#$%bag is even easier. Between his whining, his pomposity, and rank absurdity, there's hardly time in the day to cover all of his faults. Yet I could do so easily while not involving in the least AZD, or EB, or RonC.
Have at it. So long as we stay within the rules about profanity, you can call either of these terrible, terrible people any ol thing you want. Continue to widen that to include those here and your supply of decent points are going to come to an end.
Politics is jacked. Other than maybe a few small town mayors, every pol is in it for themselves and will sell every one of us down the river for personal gain. While I don't think Trump is some sort of savior in this regard, I do think he has done for himself enough where the Presidency isn't his only hope. Less desperation means less of a need to sell me down the river. Feels a bit safer.
He's not a pol. That's almost reason enough.
He hurt the GOP very badly, perhaps fatally. There is no way to NOT support that.
Everyone hates him, which makes me think the "obstructionism" B-rock faced will look like a disagreement about pizza toppings. If everyone's against him and vice versa, I'd imagine not much will get done. "The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty."
He's a businessman. I've always wanted to see what one would do if they made it.
Really, the only downside I see is if the Henny Penny's of the forum's fears come true. He damages relations, he kills America's credit rating, all that jazz. Firstly, I don't think the President has as much power as many seem to give him, and I think many of those fears are unfounded. But if he somehow did and somehow does all that the HP's fear, then we'd possibly have a period marked by chaos, unrest, and violence. Come a time when violence and aggression rule the day, I'll finally be in the 1%. And if our fiat currency folds and we go back to beaver pelts, I'd be a GD king.
It's also the catalyst I need for my coup to succeed. In other words, President Trump might just be what I've been waiting for my whole life.
Other than some down home "stand by your man" BS from Hil, and some folksy "me against the world" from Trump, there ain't a single thing to admire about either. And I love it. If there was a poll for it, I think "disaster" would be leading by a healthy margin. And maybe, just maybe, it'll hurt enough to effect some real change.
Quote: MathExtremistSee, now we can have a conversation. For starters, Trump isn't nearly the dove you think he might be. Remember when he said he'd issue kill orders for the wives and children of terrorists? This article is left leaning but the quotes are quotes:
http://www.vox.com/world/2016/5/27/11608580/donald-trump-foreign-policy-war-iraq-hillary-clinton
If you truly are a single issue voter, and that issue is war, Stein is your only choice. I'm not a single issue voter. I'm picking my pony based on who I think could actually achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. War is evil, but it is sometimes a necessary evil. But insulting the parents of those who died in those wars is an unnecessary evil. In my opinion, Hillary is significantly ahead based on my selected criteria, despite her hawkishness. In fact, the financial and tax plans alone get me there - Trump would add $11T to the debt and likely crash the bond market. Remember how he said he'd renegotiate our debt? That's not the way it works. We can agree to disagree on priorities but to me, maintaining the economy is a much bigger deal than avoiding war.
I want to address a lot of this but I am Persuing a large (for me) ap opportunity today. As usual, the great Tom Woods has very eloquently expressed my own feelings. "Trump has bad manners. News flash.
But shame on these parents for politicizing their son's death on behalf of a woman who helped send him there."
Quote: JoeshlabotnikAside from the fact that you got those numbers exactly backwards and misstated one of them, Clinton could have greater support than Trump from those demographics AND they could form the core of Trump's support--the two factors aren't mutually exclusive at all.
In fact, as Trump's latest blunders begin to sink in, I expect Clinton to be leading Trump in ALL demographic categories eventually. That probably won't change the demographic makeup of those who continue to support the Orangutan--there will just be proportionately fewer of each category.
If this dog's breakfast of a campaign went on long enough, eventually Trumpers would consist of three unshaven, uneducated, unemployed white guys sitting on couches with holes in them, clutching cans of cheap beer, belching, and complaining about how them goddamn liburruls are ruining this country and everything would be better if we just killed all them goddamn furriners.
I did transcribe them incorrectly at first; they look right now. Obviously (to just about everyone) it was a simple error and not an attempt to manipulate the numbers. If the mistake persists, it is due to lack of sleep and not some vast right wing conspiracy.
At this point, the numbers don't point to that large of a gap. A gap, but not as large as some would have you believe. I do agree--if Trump does continue to make huge errors, his numbers could fall and make the demographic picture much different. Of course, there are also segments of the population where it would be hard for his support to fall...
Trump supporters simply are not as dumb as you would like to think. There are some definite "bubbas" out there but there are also a lot of people who are on board with Trump because they don't want another Clinton in the Oval Office. Your continually attempts to paint all with a broad brush are ineffective and will quickly become totally ignored here. People here converse with those that treat then with at least minimal respect; not so much with those who are unable to do that.
Quote: FaceAnd several times, I might add.
Rip the Trump, the blowhard, the OO, all you want. It's easy, watch. Shrill dog the warmonger, the corrupt, the ugly ol woman, can't keep a man satisfied, turkey neck, the crook, the simple, the corrupt. Notice how I in no way involved ams, or terapined, or ME, or any other member who has voiced their support of her? Captain d#$%bag is even easier. Between his whining, his pomposity, and rank absurdity, there's hardly time in the day to cover all of his faults. Yet I could do so easily while not involving in the least AZD, or EB, or RonC.
Have at it. So long as we stay within the rules about profanity, you can call either of these terrible, terrible people any ol thing you want. Continue to widen that to include those here and your supply of decent points are going to come to an end.
Well, I certainly understand that given a recent poll, this forum is about 2:1 in favor of Trump, and that given what has been said, most of the moderators are in that camp as well. So I can see where criticizing his backers might be frowned upon. I certainly note your, um, bias in equating Clinton and Trump as both being "terrible, terrible people." (That's completely f%&!ing ludicrous.)
And the Trumpers on this forum have called me "delusional," among other things, but no one has called them out on any violation of the rules therefrom. Maybe that's because I didn't whine about it. Listen, I get that RonC and others here are rabidly partisan and that defending the OO may be for them, a matter of honor and/or showing Party solidarity. As I said, I now understand why people follow Trump, even though the answer to that is appalling, so there's little more to discuss--especially with the faithful.
So I will continue to make general statements, often quite critical, about Trumpers in general, without naming specific Trumpers who inhabit this forum. Said Trumpers can, in fact, call me anything they like. I won't cry; I'm proud to be a g--damn stinkin' Crooked Hillary-supporting nation-destroying liburrul. (I'm actually not a Clinton supporter, but the Trumpers think I must be to dare to criticize the OO.)
Quote: RonCTrump supporters simply are not as dumb as you would like to think. There are some definite "bubbas" out there but there are also a lot of people who are on board with Trump because they don't want another Clinton in the Oval Office. Your continually attempts to paint all with a broad brush are ineffective and will quickly become totally ignored here. People here converse with those that treat then with at least minimal respect; not so much with those who are unable to do that.
As I said, there MUST be at least SOME intelligent conservatives out there, and logically, some of them must be Trumpers. Though I must say, "not wanting another Clinton" is a pretty dumb reason to vote for Trump. One, there's no reason to believe that Hillary is going to mirror Bill on policy issues; in fact, they disagree on many things. Two, in order to advocate in this way, you have to believe that Trump would be a better president than Hillary, which is a belief that involves cognitive dissonance to a shocking degree. I do realize that many Republicans would vote for a dead cat as long as it was the Party's candidate. Three, if there's a phobia against electing a candidate who is related to a previous president, why did conservatives stand behind Dubya--twice? Oh, I get it. It's not that Hillary is a Clinton--it's that she's a (gasp!) STINKIN' LIBURRUL DEMOCRAT!!!
I must admit, it has been very hard to treat ANY Trumper with even minimal respect, simply because I don't respect those who support odious people such as the OO. If I had a friend who was infected with Trumper disease, I would seriously ask him/her why he/she excuses all of the horrible things he says and the callous attitude he displays--not to mention why that person considers Trump's utter lack of qualifications to be some kind of plus. (Saying "because he's not a politician" is akin to saying "I want this guy in the captain's seat in the cockpit because he doesn't know how to fly a plane.")
You know what would make me respect a Trumper? An honest acknowledgement that Trump is a horrible human being and an explanation of why the Trumper supports him nonetheless. Heck, even "We must elect a Republican or the world will explode" would be an understandable, if stupid answer. But all I hear is why Clinton is an evil witch who destroyed Benghazi with her emails, or some other asinine babble. One poster even said she had killed half a million people. Well, what about when Trump obliterated the entire population of Madagascar with his Orange Cobalt Bombs, HUH??? How come nobody ever talks about THAT????
As Face mentioned in your quote of him, the board is PG. I masked your swears above, but this is a warning for profanity; the next f bomb will result in a suspension . Thanks.
As to the ad hominem attacks on Trumpers, I see them as roughly equal to the attacks on Liberals we've put up with for years. Proceed with caution, but I agree they are not personal insults per se, at least so far. That you've offended several people comes as a bonus, I guess. Phrasing is important. "Only an idiot would..." pushes the line, while "It would be idiotic to..." is directed at the concept or writing. Attack the writing, not the writer, please.
Quote: beachbumbabsJoe,
As Face mentioned in your quote of him, the board is PG. I masked your swears above, but this is a warning for profanity; the next f bomb will result in a suspension . Thanks.
As to the ad hominem attacks on Trumpers, I see them as roughly equal to the attacks on Liberals we've put up with for years. Proceed with caution, but I agree they are not personal insults per se, at least so far. That you've offended several people comes as a bonus, I guess. Phrasing is important. "Only an idiot would..." pushes the line, while "It would be idiotic to..." is directed at the concept or writing. Attack the writing, not the writer, please.
Hi Babs,
OK, fine. Though I think that said posters are taking offense pro forma rather than in actuality; what they are offended by is that I am criticizing their orangutan, I mean, candidate. As far as "ad hominem" attacks are concerned, well, I think that if you support Trump, you have a moral obligation to explain why. It's the same sort of question that I could and should ask of somebody who wears a swastika armband (and yes, comparisons with Hitler, etc. are quite apt, and I will continue to make them). As I acknowledged, Party affiliation and/or a dislike for Clinton may be a driver for many people, so much that they are willing to overlook the OO's gigantic and numerous flaws.
Or to put it another way, should Trump be elected and darkness fall on the land, and the ash from Trump's Muslim death camps blackens the sky (or the fallout from the nuclear war he starts does), those who helped put him in the most powerful office in the world will have something to answer for. I realize that many Trumpers are, in fact, decent people. But, to use the comparison no one wants to hear, Germany in 1933 was full of decent people. It would be enlightening for anyone studying the politics of the 2016 election to read "Hitler's Willing Executioners." We're never all that far from losing our national morality and decency, not when the politics of hate and fear have so much gripping, visceral appeal for so many.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikHi Babs,
OK, fine. Though I think that said posters are taking offense pro forma rather than in actuality; what they are offended by is that I am criticizing their orangutan, I mean, candidate. As far as "ad hominem" attacks are concerned, well, I think that if you support Trump, you have a moral obligation to explain why. It's the same sort of question that I could and should ask of somebody who wears a swastika armband (and yes, comparisons with Hitler, etc. are quite apt, and I will continue to make them). As I acknowledged, Party affiliation and/or a dislike for Clinton may be a driver for many people, so much that they are willing to overlook the OO's gigantic and numerous flaws.
Or to put it another way, should Trump be elected and darkness fall on the land, and the ash from Trump's Muslim death camps blackens the sky (or the fallout from the nuclear war he starts does), those who helped put him in the most powerful office in the world will have something to answer for. I realize that many Trumpers are, in fact, decent people. But, to use the comparison no one wants to hear, Germany in 1933 was full of decent people. It would be enlightening for anyone studying the politics of the 2016 election to read "Hitler's Willing Executioners." We're never all that far from losing our national morality and decency, not when the politics of hate and fear have so much gripping, visceral appeal for so many.
As it happens, I agree with everything you wrote here. In fact, I think giving him a pass on saying he's willing to nuke Europe is one of the biggest oversights in criticizing him. And I think there will be at least one assassination attempt, maybe even before the election, from a person wearing a tshirt saying "They should have shot Hitler in 1938".
Say pretty much what you like about the OO, as Face said. Your peril is in how you talk about the people who are members here, which is what i was talking about above. I hope you understand the distinction.
Quote: beachbumbabsJoe,
As Face mentioned in your quote of him, the board is PG. I masked your swears above, but this is a warning for profanity; the next f bomb will result in a suspension . Thanks.
As to the ad hominem attacks on Trumpers, I see them as roughly equal to the attacks on Liberals we've put up with for years. Proceed with caution, but I agree they are not personal insults per se, at least so far. That you've offended several people comes as a bonus, I guess. Phrasing is important. "Only an idiot would..." pushes the line, while "It would be idiotic to..." is directed at the concept or writing. Attack the writing, not the writer, please.
Strange because " Only an idiot" was azduffmans exact start to a post but you didn't chastise him.
Quote: billryanStrange because " Only an idiot" was azduffmans exact start to a post but you didn't chastise him.
Stranger is what would happen if someone here called Obama an orangutan with a skin tone color before it compared to how many times Trump has been referred to in this thread with that description.
I'm not saying, I'm just saying........
Quote: beachbumbabsJoe,
As Face mentioned in your quote of him, the board is PG. I masked your swears above, but this is a warning for profanity; the next f bomb will result in a suspension . Thanks.
As to the ad hominem attacks on Trumpers, I see them as roughly equal to the attacks on Liberals we've put up with for years. Proceed with caution, but I agree they are not personal insults per se, at least so far. That you've offended several people comes as a bonus, I guess. Phrasing is important. "Only an idiot would..." pushes the line, while "It would be idiotic to..." is directed at the concept or writing. Attack the writing, not the writer, please.
Quote: Joeshlabotnik<snip>Really, RonC, AZDuff, etc., you bleat that Trumpers shouldn't be characterized as knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers, and then you post stuff that makes that conclusion inescapable. (And Ron buddy--there is no need to capitalize "liberal." Or "conservative" for that matter. I guess your Trumper lack of education included not getting remedial English classes--you poor man.)<snip>
I guess nothing in there is a personal insult. I'm not saying that he should be suspended, but he is insulting members here. You saying that he is not is incorrect. Now you are masking his curse words, too? That makes three different violations of the forum rules...he wrote it, it was posted, and then you doctored the post.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikWell, I certainly understand that given a recent poll, this forum is about 2:1 in favor of Trump, and that given what has been said, most of the moderators are in that camp as well. So I can see where criticizing his backers might be frowned upon. I certainly note your, um, bias in equating Clinton and Trump as both being "terrible, terrible people." (That's completely f%&!ing ludicrous.)
Funny. I always thought most here identified more to the left; there just happened to be some of the loudest folks who were right. And as for mods, Babs leans left and I lean whichever direction destroys both left and right, so I think you're a bit off the mark on that observation.
You are correct in that some take offense not for an offense directed at them, but because you attacked their "team captain". I don't care about that. I don't care that they're butthurt about it, and I'm not in the slightest asking you to tone THAT down. No sir. Damn me if I ever become a censor. I do think much of this thread was just to rustle jimmies, and I think your tone all but confirms it, but I'm not even worried about that. Most folks in thread are long time members, they know what to do and how to handle it. I just would like to define the line so you know where it is, because despite the fact that I don't quite care for your sharpness and borderline baiting, I absolutely would like you to continue making the points you have. That's all.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikIf I had a friend who was infected with Trumper disease, I would seriously ask him/her why he/she excuses all of the horrible things he says and the callous attitude he displays--not to mention why that person considers Trump's utter lack of qualifications to be some kind of plus. (Saying "because he's not a politician" is akin to saying "I want this guy in the captain's seat in the cockpit because he doesn't know how to fly a plane.")
Poor analogy. If 80% of planes crashed and burned, then yes, gimme a Navy captain instead. But that's not the case, so we don't ask for that. Now, when 100% of pols have sold me down the river, yes, gimme anything but. Even a blowhardy, egocentric, megalomaniac who's 70 going on 7. I would much rather descend into the Dark Ages knowing full well it's coming, than turn into the EU a little at a time, all the while being told all is fine and dandy and I'm better off for it. I respect someone who will walk up to me and punch me right in the face. Being shot in the back is the lowest of the low.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikHi Babs,
OK, fine. Though I think that said posters are taking offense pro forma rather than in actuality; what they are offended by is that I am criticizing their orangutan, I mean, candidate. As far as "ad hominem" attacks are concerned, well, I think that if you support Trump, you have a moral obligation to explain why. It's the same sort of question that I could and should ask of somebody who wears a swastika armband (and yes, comparisons with Hitler, etc. are quite apt, and I will continue to make them). As I acknowledged, Party affiliation and/or a dislike for Clinton may be a driver for many people, so much that they are willing to overlook the OO's gigantic and numerous flaws.
Or to put it another way, should Trump be elected and darkness fall on the land, and the ash from Trump's Muslim death camps blackens the sky (or the fallout from the nuclear war he starts does), those who helped put him in the most powerful office in the world will have something to answer for. I realize that many Trumpers are, in fact, decent people. But, to use the comparison no one wants to hear, Germany in 1933 was full of decent people. It would be enlightening for anyone studying the politics of the 2016 election to read "Hitler's Willing Executioners." We're never all that far from losing our national morality and decency, not when the politics of hate and fear have so much gripping, visceral appeal for so many.
Thank you for trying to speak for people who don't see things exactly they way you see them. There is no need, thanks. The Hitler crap is ridiculous--again, do you know how many people have been accused of being potential Hitler's? You have some really good arguments buried somewhere in what you write, but it is hard to find because you have to insult people first.
Plus, I have stated my position. You seem to ignore that.
Quote: beachbumbabsAs it happens, I agree with everything you wrote here. In fact, I think giving him a pass on saying he's willing to nuke Europe is one of the biggest oversights in criticizing him. And I think there will be at least one assassination attempt, maybe even before the election, from a person wearing a tshirt saying "They should have shot Hitler in 1938".
Say pretty much what you like about the OO, as Face said. Your peril is in how you talk about the people who are members here, which is what i was talking about above. I hope you understand the distinction.
Really? You agree with his opinion of why people are offended?
ME, ams288, and others write things every day (almost) that I don't necessarily agree with but they are never just plain nasty and the conversation usually stays fairly calm. There is a difference with this particular poster at this point and right now I feel that you are giving him a pass by not considering personal insults as such...with a warning and, hopefully, a change in how he treats members.
Quote: RonCI guess nothing in there is a personal insult. I'm not saying that he should be suspended, but he is insulting members here. You saying that he is not is incorrect. Now you are masking his curse words, too? That makes three different violations of the forum rules...he wrote it, it was posted, and then you doctored the post.
Not speaking for Babs, but I saw it too. I also took no action. And I'm glad she didn't.
We cannot win. That's not a whine, just a statement of fact. There will always be those who find we're too lenient, and any change to appease them will alienate those who like it the way it was, and further infuriate those who want no holds barred.
Jo broke the rules, several of them, and several times. We are/have addressed it, and IMO the way it should be addressed. It's election season and everyone, and I mean damn near everyone, is edgy, toeing the line, and getting snippy. It happens. From calling someone "low information" to referring to them as "inbred hicks", insults are going to come. Some we'll nick, others will slip by. Sometimes one side will take more than the other. Some general statements will be taken as personal, some personal statements will be interpreted as generic. It happens. Has, and will again.
Message to all: Suck it up, buttercup. Walk it off and get back in there =)
Quote: RonCI guess nothing in there is a personal insult. I'm not saying that he should be suspended, but he is insulting members here. You saying that he is not is incorrect. Now you are masking his curse words, too? That makes three different violations of the forum rules...he wrote it, it was posted, and then you doctored the post.
On offending, I said exactly what you said. He is offending people, but hasn't given a clear personal insult. So I was not incorrect.
On skin color, black is not a conscious choice. Orange is. Just sayin.....(not to you; someone else above made a false equivalency).
On profanity, I have given everyone the same treatment for the past year at least. Warning and masking, if it continues, problem. So you're wrong again.
As to rumors you keep trying to resurrect about someone being nuked for calling Hillary a lesbian. They were not. They were asked to not use LGBT labels as pejoratives on this board after they had done so several times, but were not suspended. We have many LGBT members and it was not acceptable to me that those words were being used as insults, for the same reason n----- is not acceptable here.
In his many complaints and protests about being asked to refrain, he managed to insult me, Zuga, and Joshua Chan both publicly and in PM. Maybe there were others, but those i saw. So he was suspended, returned, continued his insults, and was nuked. No loss. I'd do it again. That he was a rabid Trumper is likely not a coincidence, but you bringing it up again in the context of this election this week, I thought I would address that particular case for (hopefully ) the last time.
Quote: FaceNot speaking for Babs, but I saw it too. I also took no action. And I'm glad she didn't.
We cannot win. That's not a whine, just a statement of fact. There will always be those who find we're too lenient, and any change to appease them will alienate those who like it the way it was, and further infuriate those who want no holds barred.
Jo broke the rules, several of them, and several times. We are/have addressed it, and IMO the way it should be addressed. It's election season and everyone, and I mean damn near everyone, is edgy, toeing the line, and getting snippy. It happens. From calling someone "low information" to referring to them as "inbred hicks", insults are going to come. Some we'll nick, others will slip by. Sometimes one side will take more than the other. Some general statements will be taken as personal, some personal statements will be interpreted as generic. It happens. Has, and will again.
Message to all: Suck it up, buttercup. Walk it off and get back in there =)
I am level-headed and I simply don't see how the personal insult is not even recognized by one of the moderators.
I could give a flying crap if he EVER gets suspended; his writings indicate that he really does not want to "discuss" anything and him starting this thread made it fairly obvious.
I don't need yours or BBB's "protection"; I just can't believe that she decided there was no personal insult there. I am specifically asking that he not be suspended for any insult made to me to date...just for recognition that he is going down the wrong path for reasonable discourse. If he chooses to continue to occupy the low ground, hat is fine, too.
Quote: RonC
I could give a flying crap if he EVER gets suspended; his writings indicate that he really does not want to "discuss" anything and him starting this thread made it fairly obvious.
If he didn't want to discuss something he would just post and run. He hangs around.
If you don't like his agitating-like manner don't read it.
What say you?
Quote: beachbumbabsOn offending, I said exactly what you said. He is offending people, but hasn't given a clear personal insult. So I was not incorrect.
On skin color, black is not a conscious choice. Orange is. Just sayin.....(not to you; someone else above made a false equivalency).
On profanity, I have given everyone the same treatment for the past year at least. Warning and masking, if it continues, problem. So you're wrong again.
As to rumors you keep trying to resurrect about someone being nuked for calling Hillary a lesbian. They were not. They were asked to not use LGBT labels as pejoratives on this board after they had done so several times, but were not suspended. We have many LGBT members and it was not acceptable to me that those words were being used as insults, for the same reason n----- is not acceptable here.
In his many complaints and protests about being asked to refrain, he managed to insult me, Zuga, and Joshua Chan both publicly and in PM. Maybe there were others, but those i saw. So he was suspended, returned, continued his insults, and was nuked. No loss. I'd do it again. That he was a rabid Trumper is likely not a coincidence, but you bringing it up again in the context of this election this week, I thought I would address that particular case for (hopefully ) the last time.
No, I am not wrong at all. He did, in fact, insult me. Face said that he violated that particular rule more than once.
I am also not saying that you shouldn't mask profanity; only that it adds to the number of rules he has violated. I really would like him to have a discussion with us as a board, but that is obviously not his intent.
As to the LGBT reference, another one has been made about a public person several times with no warning...i don't really care what led to the ultimate demise of whoever the heck it was; just that someone else used a LGBT reference in derogatory manner. If I ever said, directly, that someone was nuked for that particular violation, I apologize.
Quote: rxwineIf he didn't want to discuss something he would just post and run. He hangs around.
If you don't like his agitating-like manner don't read it.
What say you?
I guess you and I have radically different ideas of what a "discussion" is...it is hard to ever think about bringing people together when you consistently insult their intelligence along the way. No, I have a different idea of what he is trying to do here. It is much different than what you and others do.
Have a nice day!
Quote: RonC
As to the LGBT reference, another one has been made about a public person several times with no warning...i don't really care what led to the ultimate demise of whoever the heck it was; just that someone else used a LGBT reference in derogatory manner. If I ever said, directly, that someone was nuked for that particular violation, I apologize.
The "Hil is a lesbian" comment, taken in context, was meant to insult her as if being a lesbian was something for which someone should be insulted by. It insinuated she was lesser because of it, and replacing "les" with any color, creed, gender, etc would amount to the same.
The "Drudge is gay" meme was not an attack on sexuality. I can't say I remember the point of constantly bringing it up (other than to poke), but it did not use his gayness (actual or purported) as an insult. I think rather it was pointed out just to rile the righties, many of whom have openly opposed homosexuality.
That's how I saw it, anyways. Same, but different. And the difference made all the difference.
I could be wrong =/
However, he is far safer than Clinton.
He is a crappy person, nobody needa to explain that to me. But, he is not nearly as dangerous as Clinton. I would rather have an egomaniac than a corrupt power hungry politician.
As for "racism", there is no systamatic racism in America, it simply does not exist. There is no law on the books that discrimantes against blacks. (There are laws on the books that discrimate against whites, such as goverment agencies who encourage hiring minorities with lower qualifications over white males).
Anyway, I do not think Trump is racist, don't get me wrong, he is a crappy person, but not particulatly racist. His statements about Mexico and Islam are logical even if his wording was bad.
Quote: Gandler
He is a crappy person, nobody needa to explain that to me. .
Beyond crappy
He is comparing Gold Star families sacrifices
to
His supposed sacrifices in business building his wealth
WTF
There is no comparison
The Gold Star Tillman family went hard against Bush and Rumsfeld
Did Bush or Rumsfeld attack this Gold Star family, of course not.
You listen to the criticism and thank these families for the sacrifice
You don't attack God star families.
Quote: terapinedBeyond crappy
He is comparing Gold Star families sacrifices
to
His supposed sacrifices in business building his wealth
WTF
There is no comparison
The Gold Star Tillman family went hard against Bush and Rumsfeld
Did Bush or Rumsfeld attack this Gold Star family, of course not.
You listen to the criticism and thank these families for the sacrifice
You don't attack God star families.
He makes dumb statements. But, he is better than Clinton. Clinton makes very planned statements, then allows behond the scenes corruptions.
Your definition of "safe" is highly-questionable. Trump represents the unknown, the reckless, the feckless, the quick-to-anger. That's not a set of traits you want in a stable leader, either domestically or internationally. Donald Trump was asked whether he could categorically rule out dropping a nuclear bomb in Europe. His answer was "no." Holy crap! That's like living next to an irresponsible gun owner, asking him whether he can categorically rule out shooting you through your kitchen window while you eat breakfast, and having him say "no." Wouldn't you move?Quote: GandlerI do not like Trump.
However, he is far safer than Clinton.
If there's anything more dangerous than a nuke, it's a full-scale global economic disaster. You know, like the kind that got us into the present political climate. So if you look at how Trump would handle the economy, he's indicated two things:
1) He would dramatically slash taxes on everyone, but especially the rich, significantly decreasing annual government revenues and leading to an extra $11T in debt.
2) He would attempt to walk away from that debt after incurring it, leading to a global economic meltdown. Everyone thinks it's China who holds all the US debt. China holds some of it, but so do you and so do I. Trump is basically saying "When the going gets tough, I'll screw your investments for my benefit." Of course, that's his modus operandi -- he gets himself into financial trouble, declares bankruptcy, and walks away with his investors' money, leaving others holding the bag of empty promises. You think that's a safe way to run the country's finances?
I'm not going to be played for a chump by a guy with a proven track record of screwing over the people he does business with. Why would you ever get in bed with a guy like that? You're just asking to be fleeced.
With apologies to Baudelaire and/or Keyser Soze, the greatest con Trump ever pulled was convincing 40% of the nation he isn't a shyster. Join the 60%. Fight the fraud, don't enable it just because you're angry.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hired-me-as-an-attorneyplease-dont_us_579e52dee4b00e7e269fb30f?
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
Is there any similar refutation coming from anyone who has formerly worked with any of the other candidates? Clinton, Stein, or Johnson? Or are the criticisms of those candidates based only on 3rd-party critiques and campaign spin? With specific reference to Hillary Clinton, has anyone who actually worked with her called her "crooked" or "corrupt" -- or is that just people believing Donald Trump when he says it?
Quote: MathExtremistPeople who have actually worked with Donald Trump are refuting him:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hired-me-as-an-attorneyplease-dont_us_579e52dee4b00e7e269fb30f?
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
Is there any similar refutation coming from anyone who has formerly worked with any of the other candidates? Clinton, Stein, or Johnson? Or are the criticisms of those candidates based only on 3rd-party critiques and campaign spin? With specific reference to Hillary Clinton, has anyone who actually worked with her called her "crooked" or "corrupt" -- or is that just people believing Donald Trump when he says it?
Conversely is there any credible person standing up and testifying, "I have done business with Trump for years. I've seen him in action and he is the man we need to lead this nation."? Maybe an op-Ed piece if not a convention speech?
Quote: GandlerI do not like Trump.
However, he is far safer than Clinton.
He is a crappy person, nobody needa to explain that to me. But, he is not nearly as dangerous as Clinton. I would rather have an egomaniac than a corrupt power hungry politician.
As for "racism", there is no systamatic racism in America, it simply does not exist. There is no law on the books that discrimantes against blacks. (There are laws on the books that discrimate against whites, such as goverment agencies who encourage hiring minorities with lower qualifications over white males).
Anyway, I do not think Trump is racist, don't get me wrong, he is a crappy person, but not particulatly racist. His statements about Mexico and Islam are logical even if his wording was bad.
Do you have any, y'know, actual EVIDENCE that Clinton is "corrupt"? Any actual EVIDENCE of wrongdoing? Of course not--all you have is your vague feelings. And "power-hungry"? Based on what--that she's running for President? But so is Trump!!! (And so was everyone else who was in the race--Ted Cruz, Bernie, Jeb Bush, etc. Are/were they all "power-hungry"?)
It makes very little difference whether racism is "systematic" or not--it exists regardless. The societal advances from the 60s onward have eliminated much GOVERNMENTAL systematic racism, but has racism disappeared? No freakin' way. There may not be any law that validates racial discrimination, but so what? What you're saying is akin to saying that crime doesn't happen because it's against the law. Your comment about affirmative action shows that you don't understand this.
If you think that Trump's statements about Mexicans and Muslims were logical, then you need a refresher course in logic. They were based on no evidence whatsoever and advocated for policies that aside from being inhumane and against the laws of the United States, were ridiculously impractical. There was a LOT more wrong with what he said than that his wording was bad.
Quote: MathExtremistPeople who have actually worked with Donald Trump are refuting him:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hired-me-as-an-attorneyplease-dont_us_579e52dee4b00e7e269fb30f?
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
Is there any similar refutation coming from anyone who has formerly worked with any of the other candidates? Clinton, Stein, or Johnson? Or are the criticisms of those candidates based only on 3rd-party critiques and campaign spin? With specific reference to Hillary Clinton, has anyone who actually worked with her called her "crooked" or "corrupt" -- or is that just people believing Donald Trump when he says it?
It's particularly risible when people say that Clinton is somehow corrupt because she's earned huge speaking fees and is supposedly in the pocket of Wall Street, when the Orange Orangutan has been making hundreds of millions from exploiting the business sector and cheating people out of their investments. If anyone dances to the tune piped by Wall Street, it's The Donald. His very existence has orbited around business, while Clinton's has been about governance and diplomacy. It's too bad that hard work isn't flashy. Clinton has been doing good things under the radar for decades. Trump has been stealing and lying for at least that long.
That's a great point. Trump has the "endorsement" of half the GOP officials because they made a pledge to endorse the party's chosen candidate, not because they actually like him or think he's a good choice. Jeb Bush was the party favorite before Trump murdered his candidacy.Quote: JimRockfordConversely is there any credible person standing up and testifying, "I have done business with Trump for years. I've seen him in action and he is the man we need to lead this nation."? Maybe an op-Ed piece if not a convention speech?
Has anyone who "endorsed" Trump actually endorsed him? Paul Ryan certainly hasn't. Neither has Mitch McConnell. There are lots of people who will gladly stand up and tell the world that Hillary has done good things for causes X, Y, or Z. The same is true for Gary Johnson, albeit on a smaller scale because Johnson never served internationally or at the federal level.
Where are the ringing endorsements of Donald Trump?
Quote: MathExtremistWhere are the ringing endorsements of Donald Trump?
Haven't you been listening? Donald Trump has made several ringing endorsements of Donald Trump. And who else can we believe about Donald Trump besides Donald Trump? Donald Trump is the only one who can tell us the truth about Donald Trump.
(The above was partially a desensitizing exercise where I tried to see if I could type "Donald Trump" repeatedly without becoming nauseated. I succeeded, but the cat was watching over my shoulder, and threw up on the keyboard.)
Quote: Joeshlabotnik(I'm actually not a Clinton supporter, but the Trumpers think I must be to dare to criticize the OO.)
And I'm not a Trump supporter, but the Clintoners think I must be to dare to criticize the Crooked One!
Wow.
To summarize his answer on the nuclear triad:Quote: billryanTrump doesn't know what the nuclear triad is, has said he won't rule out nuking central Europe, thinks it's a good idea to give nukes to South Korea and Saudi Arabia, thinks walking away from our Allies and our debt are negotiating tactics but you think he is the safer of the two candidates?
Wow.
Hugh Hewitt: "Which of the three legs of the nuclear triad is your priority?"
Donald Trump: "Nukes are powerful."
Uh, yeah. And?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trumps-terrifying-nuke-answer-at-the-debate-should-end-his-campaign-but-it-wont-20151216
Imagine if someone asked him about which domestic energy strategy he would pursue, intending to probe his priorities between nuclear, solar, coal, oil/gas, wind, hydro, etc. -- and instead got the answer "lightbulbs use electricity."
Uh, yeah. And?
Can you believe that the GOP couldn't field an intelligent, thoughtful conservative that could beat that kind of nonsense in the primary? (No quips about how conservatism and intelligence don't go together, I know plenty of genius conservatives.) Trump gave that answer in December 2015!
He has ringing endorsements from the pols who joined him this year (Newt, Christie, ...). What about long time business associates or partners.Quote: MathExtremistThat's a great point. Trump has the "endorsement" of half the GOP officials because they made a pledge to endorse the party's chosen candidate, not because they actually like him or think he's a good choice. Jeb Bush was the party favorite before Trump murdered his candidacy.
Has anyone who "endorsed" Trump actually endorsed him? Paul Ryan certainly hasn't. Neither has Mitch McConnell. There are lots of people who will gladly stand up and tell the world that Hillary has done good things for causes X, Y, or Z. The same is true for Gary Johnson, albeit on a smaller scale because Johnson never served internationally or at the federal level.
Where are the ringing endorsements of Donald Trump?
Quote: MathExtremist
Can you believe that the GOP couldn't field an intelligent, thoughtful conservative that could beat that kind of nonsense in the primary? (No quips about how conservatism and intelligence don't go together, I know plenty of genius conservatives.) Trump gave that answer in December 2015!
Yet on the other side we have a woman who said she was not intelligent enough to use more than one email. Who could not work the most basic office equipment that ensured security of state secrets. Yet I her no complaints there.
Don't kid yourself, both candidates are technological novices.Quote: AZDuffmanYet on the other side we have a woman who said she was not intelligent enough to use more than one email. Who could not work the most basic office equipment that ensured security of state secrets. Yet I her no complaints there.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/luddite-president-clinton-trump-technology-226454
And both candidates have misused technology. Hillary foolishly used an insecure server. Trump conned people with fake web seminars. The difference is that Hillary has acknowledged that it was a mistake and apologized for it (almost a year ago). Trump, on the other hand, maintains that his misuse of technology was just fine.
Don't you agree that it's better to acknowledge and learn from your mistakes than to never admit them in the first place?
Quote: AZDuffmanYet on the other side we have a woman who said she was not intelligent enough to use more than one email. Who could not work the most basic office equipment that ensured security of state secrets. Yet I her no complaints there.
What, exactly, do you think a Clinton Presidency would do that would be so horrible? Even if it is nothing but a third Obama term, what is to be feared? In the last eight years we've added almost 12 million jobs, the stock market is booming, housing has recovered, inflation is under control, the deficit is shrinking each year. She won't cozy up to Russia, doesn't propose giving nukes to anyone, doesn't embrace a tax plan that will make the 2008/2009 deficit s look like the good old days, won't default on our obligations and proclaim herself the queen of debt.
I think reason isn't the right approach at this juncture. The picture you painted, though factually accurate, has nevertheless given rise to Trump's campaign success. So it's got to be something else. I keep reading that it's voter anger, specifically older, white voter anger at being marginalized or left behind in the recovering national economy. To be sure, some small fraction of Trump's supporters are angry white nationalists / white supremacists / institutionalized racists. We can discard them from a rational discussion because racial hatred is not rational, certainly not in a global capitalist economy. But not all of his supporters are white supremacists, not by a long shot. So of the vast majority who aren't, what exactly is the objection? Is it Obamacare? Specifically the idea of an individual mandate? Does everyone think Hillary will overturn the 2nd amendment?Quote: billryanWhat, exactly, do you think a Clinton Presidency would do that would be so horrible? Even if it is nothing but a third Obama term, what is to be feared? In the last eight years we've added almost 12 million jobs, the stock market is booming, housing has recovered, inflation is under control, the deficit is shrinking each year. She won't cozy up to Russia, doesn't propose giving nukes to anyone, doesn't embrace a tax plan that will make the 2008/2009 deficit s look like the good old days, won't default on our obligations and proclaim herself the queen of debt.
I can't shake the thought that passing over Clinton and picking Trump to be president is like passing over a veteran surgeon and picking an auto mechanic to do a quadruple bypass on the grounds that the mechanic isn't part of the medical establishment.
Quote: MathExtremist. I keep reading that it's voter anger, specifically older, white voter anger at being marginalized or left behind in the recovering national economy.
If true, somewhat ironic. Lots of other groups were marginalized in one way or another, and the fact that it makes everyone who endures it really angry, should be an awakening for those who diminish social justice. Or, one would think.
Quote: billryanWhat, exactly, do you think a Clinton Presidency would do that would be so horrible? Even if it is nothing but a third Obama term, what is to be feared? In the last eight years we've added almost 12 million jobs, the stock market is booming, housing has recovered, inflation is under control, the deficit is shrinking each year. She won't cozy up to Russia, doesn't propose giving nukes to anyone, doesn't embrace a tax plan that will make the 2008/2009 deficit s look like the good old days, won't default on our obligations and proclaim herself the queen of debt.
It would be more far-left policies that do not work. Not sure where you have been, but Obama is responsible for over half the time we have been over 7% unemployment since WWII and keeps adding regulations that stifle job and wage growth. GDP growth is just plain slow, slowest POTUS in modern history. He has given rise to ISIS and made a mess of Libya, Syria, Iraq, and much of the rest of the Middle East. Putin has made Obama look like the fool that he is.
She would just bring 4 years of scandal after scandal, same as her history has always shown.
Quote: MathExtremist
And both candidates have misused technology. Hillary foolishly used an insecure server. Trump conned people with fake web seminars. The difference is that Hillary has acknowledged that it was a mistake and apologized for it (almost a year ago). Trump, on the other hand, maintains that his misuse of technology was just fine.
Don't you agree that it's better to acknowledge and learn from your mistakes than to never admit them in the first place?
No, I do not. What Hillary did with the server was intentionally crooked, all so she would be able to hide her emails from FOIA and other scrutiny. It is if I cleared out your house of anything of value then said, "sorry, eh!"
If you cannot see how serious what she did is well I am afraid I cannot give lessons on the most basic rules of computer security and record retention. But anyone who has had even an entry-level job that used email knows that you are not allowed to use your personal email for company business.
Have you ever worked in a place where they use company email?
