Why Trumpers? I am truly baffled
If I understand correctly, this would be the first time in American history that a voting bloc with more than 15% of the population was marginalized in that way. I'm not talking about African-American slaves, they didn't have the vote. But today, almost exactly 24% of the over-25s in the U.S. are non-Hispanic whites without any college education (unless I'm doing the math wrong) -- see Table I in this document:Quote: rxwineIf 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.
http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf
Obviously that 24% isn't voting in a uniform way, and I haven't done any detailed demographic analysis broken out by race/age/educational attainment, but it's a safe bet that older, white, never-attended-college voters are a meaningful percentage of the vote. If that older group votes in a uniform way, perhaps it will be enough to swing things in certain states. We'll see.
Yes, including Oracle and IBM, I know all about email policies. Here's the thing. You want to disqualify Clinton based on the email thing, that's fine. Don't vote for her based on that alone. The FBI already found no criminal intent, and you're free to ignore that as well when disqualifying Clinton. Okay, but now you have to move on to the other candidates.Quote: AZDuffmanNo, 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?
Clinton's misdeeds doesn't give you a pass to vote for Trump. Would you vote Trump if the Democratic candidate were Biden instead? Why aren't you backing Johnson or Castle?
Why did you put crooked in quotes? Because Trump says so?Quote: mikeabiomedHillary has been "crooked" for over 30+ years and no one can defend that. Trump admits he's "no politician" and has done quite well expressing his agenda.
Seriously, how is she crooked? What did she do?
And how does that compare to being a mobbed-up pitchman who fleeces his investors, non-pays his workers, and sells snake oil to gullible real estate speculators? Because there is hard factual evidence in the record that Trump did all of those things. Why are you giving him a pass on that? Let me ask that question another way. If Trump shot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue in New York, would you still vote for him? Because he says you will. Is he wrong about that, or is he never wrong about anything?
Quote: mikeabiomedI have never really won an argument with liberals, especially ones for Hillary. What the libs don't get is, it's not so much what you say it's what you do that really matters. .
For me and many libs,
its not what somebody says
Its not what they do
Its about major issues and where they stand
I am pro choice
I am pro ACA
I am pro gay marriage
I support LGBT rights
I support all Gold families and their right to speak out on any issue regardless if its the Benghazi Mom or the Khan family
I am not anti Muslim,
support BLM and the police
I support a path to be a citizen for those here that are not citizens.
I support refugee immigration
I ask you mikeabiomed, who should I vote for?
Quote: MathExtremistWhy did you put crooked in quotes? Because Trump says so?
Seriously, how is she crooked? What did she do?
And how does that compare to being a mobbed-up pitchman who fleeces his investors, non-pays his workers, and sells snake oil to gullible real estate speculators? Because there is hard factual evidence in the record that Trump did all of those things. Why are you giving him a pass on that?
Have you been around a while or is this a test question? If you really believe she's "OK" you have that right. Just don't question my judgment in the process. Has Trump ever been responsible for deaths of our finest? I don't believe he has. Has Hillary? I believe she has been negligent and lives above the law regardless of her behavior. It's been reported she takes very large sums of money from many non Christian countries who kill LGBTQ's and then tells the American people she supports gay rights. How do you explain that one and look in the mirror? Besides personal gain $$$, what's that all about? As far as the free pass goes, there is no free pass in life. You, being an entrepreneur surely know that. Trump is FAR from perfect but says things he gets away with because from the day he decided to run, he made it clear it wasn't about him. If your exaggerations were true, why isn't he locked up or why hasn't he been sentenced? Bottom line is, he doesn't need the job, the prestige, the ego and certainly not the headaches of the highest position in the world. He wants it because he sees how messed up things have become in many sectors as I described above.Reno Mike
Quote: mikeabiomedTerapined, If you are for these things alone, Hillary will accept your vote. However, there may be things you didn't list which could sway your decision.
like what?
The issues I listed are pretty important to me
Hmm, Weed legalization, yea, that's a swayer :-)
Quote: terapinedlike what?
The issues I listed are pretty important to me
Hmm, Weed legalization, yea, that's a swayer :-)
Weed is a non-issue which should be handled by the states. I have no opinion about the legalization of pot, however, if it truly helps people who are sick or terminal then it should be made available for non-abusers. In my younger days, pot was used for recreation, or at least I thought it was and that's what mattered at the time. Now, I think about how I remember life during the Carter years (I was a Democrat then) and how I couldn't find work. It all changed after that in 1981 and the economy was vibrant for many years. I even had money to gamble with :) but the opportunities for a young person were much greater than they are today.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt 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.
Duff, your extreme partisan viewpoint shows in every single post you make. Often, that partisanship makes you abandon reason and logic. You say Obama "is responsible" for unemployment. That's silly. How is he responsible? You say he "keeps adding regulations." Are you aware that a President does not create laws? Are you somewhat fuzzy on what a President actually does?
Obama has "given rise to ISIS"???? How so? He created it? He made a mess of the Middle East? The entire dang place? And it was perfect before? (I notice that you are in solidarity with the OO in expressing Putin-love.)
And in another post/rant, you harp on and on about Hillary's emails. GIVE IT A REST. A REPUBLICAN witch hunt failed to disclose any criminal behavior on her part. They said she had made a mistake, something she admitted long ago. I think that you and other Trumpers go on and on about it because there's actually nothing to smear Clinton with or to support the "Crooked Hillary" name-calling. In fact, it's looking more and more like "Crooked Donald."
And let me educate you a wee bit (all I would ever dare to attempt): the effects of economic policies aren't felt until about five years after they are implemented. So the first term of Obama's, when the economy was lousy, was under the cloud created by Dubya's policies. Things started to improve in 2013, after Obama had been in office for five years. And regardless of how much you deny it, Duff, the economy is doing the best it has since the Dubya administration.
In so many ways, your partisanship has made you fact-challenged. It's something you would be better off discarding.
Quote: mikeabiomedHillary has been "crooked" for over 30+ years and no one can defend that.
No one can support that, either. Do you have any ACTUAL EVIDENCE that she is or has been crooked? And don't bring up the emails or Benghazi--REPUBLICANS couldn't find any wrongdoing on her part in either investigation.
I think the reason that you don't win any arguments is that your arguments are pretty nonsensical, if your post is any indication. You may not like Clinton--or you are marching to the Orange Orangutan's tune in attacking her--but that's no reason to spout nonsense about her that you can't support. Meanwhile, the OO is being revealed to be someone who is as crooked as they come (or, of you prefer, "crooked").
If the guy is a nutcase in office, it's not like no one had a clue. Everyone has had plenty of clues.
Quote: MathExtremistYes, including Oracle and IBM, I know all about email policies.
So, you know all of this yet you still have no problem with what she did? Would you admit that a regular person using a personal email at work would be disciplined and probably fired?
Quote:The FBI already found no criminal intent, and you're free to ignore that as well when disqualifying Clinton. [/q[
And that was a total joke. As if "intent" is needed to prosecute for something so serious. BTW: It is why I do not consider myself to have a country at the moment. I will not fly a USA Flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance or do anything patriotic with this matter out there, My country is gone, It has decided a person running for POTUS is more important than basic laws.Quote:Clinton's misdeeds doesn't give you a pass to vote for Trump. Would you vote Trump if the Democratic candidate were Biden instead? Why aren't you backing Johnson or Castle?
I will not vote Democrat ever because I do not like what they stand for. They do not share my values of self-reliance, personal responsibility, traditional values. secure borders, and hard work. Instead they are about identity politics, wealth redistribution, and globalism.
Not backing the other candidates you mention because I have barely heard of them and they cannot win.All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Quote: JoeshlabotnikDuff, your extreme partisan viewpoint shows in every single post you make. Often, that partisanship makes you abandon reason and logic. You say Obama "is responsible" for unemployment. That's silly. How is he responsible?
Add up all the months in the USA that unemployment has been reported over 7%, Then take who was POTUS in each month and add those up. Over half of the months will be during Obama.
Quote:You say he "keeps adding regulations." Are you aware that a President does not create laws? Are you somewhat fuzzy on what a President actually does?
I am not fuzzy at all. POTUS signs laws. POTUS also signs executive orders, POTUS presides over the executive branch, which oversees agencies like the EPA which write regulations. A regulation can be written at will based on existing laws.
Quote:And in another post/rant, you harp on and on about Hillary's emails. GIVE IT A REST. A REPUBLICAN witch hunt failed to disclose any criminal behavior on her part. They said she had made a mistake, something she admitted long ago.
I will not give it a rest on her emails. What she did was CRIMINAL! Just because the FBI is now bought and paid for does not change that. Others have been fired and even prosecuted for doing the same. It is no "witch hunt." What has happened is so many people are so wanting her to be POTUS that they overlook what she did,
Again I will say it. A person with even average intelligence and computer experience can see the danger in what she did. Can see the intent of why she did it. She wanted to keep her actions secure from FOIA and other scrutiny. I will never let it drop.
Quote: MathExtremistYes, including Oracle and IBM, I know all about email policies. Here's the thing. You want to disqualify Clinton based on the email thing, that's fine. Don't vote for her based on that alone. The FBI already found no criminal intent, and you're free to ignore that as well when disqualifying Clinton. Okay, but now you have to move on to the other candidates.
Clinton's misdeeds doesn't give you a pass to vote for Trump. Would you vote Trump if the Democratic candidate were Biden instead? Why aren't you backing Johnson or Castle?
"(Hillary Clinton) Says, regarding the presence of classified information in her email, FBI Director James "Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the American people.""
"Clinton repeatedly said she did not have any classified information whatsoever in her email, marked or unmarked. After the FBI investigation, including the interview with Clinton, Comey said she unequivocally did.
We rate her claim Pants on Fire."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-wrong-claim-fbi-director-comey-ca/
While Clinton may not be crooked (with or without ""), she is a proven liar. I don't really see how anyone can dispute that fact.
Most of the people that I know who have an education are not necessarily for Trump; they are against Hillary. To a person, they all acknowledge Trump's shortcomings. It is not as if they feel that there is a good choice available; it is just that they cannot support Hillary.
This board has devolved into a whole lot of one member calling people names and questioning their intelligence or education simply for not being in favor of Hillary. No one can say a word about why they tepidly support Trump, or may not even vote, without risking the name calling. It is sad, because this has (at least temporarily) diminished this discussion. The moderators who have looked seem to have decided to give this a pass, and that is unfortunate. The warnings of two moderators have gone unheeded. The people I am talking about above, including me, are not "Trumpers"...they cringe at both candidates...and they are making the choice that they feel is correct based on the information available.
I do appreciate the rest of the posters who can have an intelligent discussion without being just plain nasty.
Quote: RSI haven't seen one reason not to vote for trump. But perhaps I have missed something.
So you agree with the Trumpster that the small absurd sacrifices he supposedly made building his wealth
equals the huge devastating sacrifices made by Gold Star families that have lost sons and daughters.
Quote: terapinedSo you agree with the Trumpster that the small absurd sacrifices he supposedly made building his wealth
equals the huge devastating sacrifices made by Gold Star families that have lost sons and daughters.
Like I said, I may have missed something, but I don't remember him saying his sacrifices are/were equal to that of Gold Star families.
I do support our military and their families. But what I can't understand is how the families have necessarily sacrificed something, as if the family had the option to make such a sacrifice. Those who have served and fought in the military have made the sacrifice. Khizr(?) Khan made a sacrifice, but I'm not convinced his family members did, as I don't think they (parents) had the option. At least not in the sense that's being talked about.
If I'm at a store and a robber or someone came in with a gun, I tackled the guy and get shot in the process -- I've made a sacrifice. If I'm just standing there and he shoots me (not my choice), what sacrifice have I made?
Quote: RS
I do support our military and their families. But what I can't understand is how the families have necessarily sacrificed something, as if the family had the option to make such a sacrifice.
This is too funny
Trump supporters now questioning the actual sacrifice Gold star families have made for our country
I am loving this campaign
I hope republican senators and house members take up Trump on criticizing families with sons and daughters serving
A mom at the Pence rally with a son serving and holding up his picture in uniform just got booed last night.
Pence thanked the MOM, the audience booed
This is gold, looking at a dem senate and house
Quote: terapinedThis is too funny
Trump supporters now questioning the actual sacrifice Gold star families have made for our country
I am loving this campaign
I hope republican senators and house members take up Trump on criticizing families with sons and daughters serving
A mom at the Pence rally with a son serving and holding up his picture in uniform just got booed last night.
Pence thanked the MOM, the audience booed
This is gold, looking at a dem senate and house
It's amazing.
Hillary's line in her speech about Trump being able to be "baited with a tweet."
How can the Trump campaign not see how badly they were baited with this whole Khan story?!??!
The Dems set the trap, and Trump being as ignorant as he is, walked right into it.
Quote: terapinedThis is too funny
Trump supporters now questioning the actual sacrifice Gold star families have made for our country
I am loving this campaign
I hope republican senators and house members take up Trump on criticizing families with sons and daughters serving
A mom at the Pence rally with a son serving and holding up his picture in uniform just got booed last night.
Pence thanked the MOM, the audience booed
This is gold, looking at a dem senate and house
Are you saying it was his parents that put him into the military? What did the parents actually do? Did they sacrifice their son?
Quote: RSAre you saying it was his parents that put him into the military? What did the parents actually do? Did they sacrifice their son?
Cause Gold Star families k? Gold Star families.
Quote: terapinedSo you agree with the Trumpster that the small absurd sacrifices he supposedly made building his wealth
equals the huge devastating sacrifices made by Gold Star families that have lost sons and daughters.
Out of all the Trump malaprops, I think this was his biggest.
Quote: RSI haven't seen one reason not to vote for trump. But perhaps I have missed something.
Like ever, anywhere? You have seen NO reasons not to vote Trump? Is this a typo? It's always pretty easy to find reasons not to vote for someone. For Trump specifically, it is extraordinarily easy.
How about his tax plan that increases the debt by $11T, or his subsequent illegal plan to walk away from that debt? He thinks running the country's finances is exactly like running his own businesses. Except a lot of those went bankrupt.Quote: MrGoldenSunLike ever, anywhere? You have seen NO reasons not to vote Trump? Is this a typo? It's always pretty easy to find reasons not to vote for someone. For Trump specifically, it is extraordinarily easy.
Everyone here who holds broad mutual funds in a 401 (k) likely has some of the US debt in their portfolio. I know I do. Trump has stated that he will attempt to renegotiate or restructure that debt, or maybe walk away from it. Not only does the Constitution make that illegal, it would slash the value of your investment in this country. He has a history of short-paying his debts, often numbers like 30 cents on the dollar. He is proud of this and thinks it makes him a good businessman. How would you feel about losing 70% of the value of your Treasury bonds?
That alone is a reason to discard Trump as a candidate.
Absolutely not because it's not true. A regular person using personal email at work happens billions of times every day. Emails go down. If you have a flaky ISP you make due with what you have at your disposal. You sound like a technological novice that's never been in an environment where timely receipt and acknowledgement of email is actually critical to doing business, but nobody in the tech world would bat an eye at "doing what it takes to get the job done." In the high-velocity world of the dot-com era, email *was* business. I have *always* had multiple email addresses. None were personally hosted by me, but I have often had to rely on one of my personal email accounts when corporate servers fell over. It happens. And not once did I get disciplined or fired for it.Quote: AZDuffmanSo, you know all of this yet you still have no problem with what she did? Would you admit that a regular person using a personal email at work would be disciplined and probably fired?
So no, you have no idea what you're talking about. This may be why so many older, uninformed voters think the email thing was the worst thing ever, while so many younger, tech-savvy voters know better.
If you think Trump isn't about identity politics and wealth redistribution, you're dead wrong. He's just redistributing wealth in the other direction from the one you hate. Look at his tax plan, for crying out loud. How much less in taxes will you pay under his plan? A few thousand dollars? How much less will Trump pay? A few million. Except he doesn't make 1000x what you do, so how on earth can you possibly think that's fair to you? Quote:I will not vote Democrat ever because I do not like what they stand for. They do not share my values of self-reliance, personal responsibility, traditional values. secure borders, and hard work. Instead they are about identity politics, wealth redistribution, and globalism.
Angry, older, white, under-educated conservative voters are reportedly angry about the slow recovery and their failure to keep up in the economy. Trump's tax plan exacerbates that slowdown by pushing you further down the economic ladder relative to him and his elite buddies, further widening the wealth gap that has caused the middle-class stall in the first place.
How did Trump convince you that making him richer is in your own financial best interest?
I used to know what it meant, back when we talked about the 'rising middle class'.
But we also talked about the poor, that was a different class.
I've heard alot of speeches this year, from both parties, that talk about the 'middle class'.
I've heard almost nothing about the poor. Maybe the war on poverty worked?
I don't think so.
I think 'middle class' terminology by the politicos now includes that 'other' group that can't be named anymore.
Quote: MathExtremistHow about his tax plan that increases the debt by $11T, or his subsequent illegal plan to walk away from that debt?
Why do you keep using this as a point? As you say, what he claims he's going to do is illegal and unconstitutional. Therefore, no matter how horrendous the result, it's a non-issue because it will never happen.
Using it to show his stupidity, sure. But implying he'll ruin things? He can't.
Donald Trump kicks a baby out of his rally.
So strange. At first, he tells the mother it's okay. I love babies. It's a beautiful young baby.
Then he tells her to get it out, that he can't believe she thought he was serious that he would want a baby crying in there.
I guess his initial statement that it was okay that the baby was crying was "tongue-in-cheek" - Trump fans always have trouble figuring when he's serious and when he's joking....
Someone who uses an illegal promise as a campaign platform is not someone in whom you should vest power. Trump also promised to make the military use torture techniques and kill the wives and children of terrorists. That's also illegal and at least one military representative has threatened a coup if Trump goes down that path. He also suggested that he could commit murder and every one of his voters would still vote for him.Quote: FaceWhy do you keep using this as a point? As you say, what he claims he's going to do is illegal and unconstitutional. Therefore, no matter how horrendous the result, it's a non-issue because it will never happen.
Using it to show his stupidity, sure. But implying he'll ruin things? He can't.
But please tell me your logic isn't something like this:
1) Trump makes an outlandish and illegal promise
2) You reason he won't actually carry out that promise because it's illegal
3) Therefore, it's okay to vote for him
Are you kidding? What would a casino GM say if a new surveillance candidate said "I'm going to roofie the drinks of everyone I catch counting cards, then when they pass out I'm going to have the dealers carry them into the back alley, take all their cash, and then kick them in the stomach." Would you hire him because that's so outlandish and illegal he can't possibly carry it out? Or would you just not hire him in the first place because only a lunatic would even make that suggestion and you don't want to work with lunatics?
Trump has proven time and time again that he is unfit to be POTUS. It's not even close.
------------------------------------------------------
ME do you really think he's a lunatic?
Quote: TwoFeathersATL"Middle Class" has become a confusing term.
I used to know what it meant, back when we talked about the 'rising middle class'.
But we also talked about the poor, that was a different class.
I've heard alot of speeches this year, from both parties, that talk about the 'middle class'.
I've heard almost nothing about the poor. Maybe the war on poverty worked?
I don't think so.
I think 'middle class' terminology by the politicos now includes that 'other' group that can't be named anymore.
Just about everybody on this board is middle class
If you can afford to gamble moderate amounts of money then you are middle class
Quote: MathExtremist
But please tell me your logic isn't something like this:
No, no. No logic, no counterpoint, not even a reply. I was just curious as to your point. Lots of reason to bring that point up, I just wanted to hear yours. That's all =)
Ok, maybe a bit of a reply... I do think it is sometimes fair to do just that. For example, let's say Hil makes the comment that she's going to "crack down on gun violence". That is a reasonable statement, yet it is one which would make me lock and load. I've seen what these "reasonable statements" lead to, and I get fired up any time I hear it.
Conversely, pretend she says something ludicrous. "We are going to get all guns out of the streets! Private gun ownership is going to end!" A statement like that has far, FAR less of an impact on me, because it is completely absurd and wholly impossible to accomplish.
The former, though minor, has a very good chance of making me a(n even bigger) criminal. The latter, though enormous, has literally zero chance of ever happening.
It would make her look idiotic. It would make her a less viable candidate. It would make it very hard to take her seriously. But at least ON THAT SUBJECT, it would have no effect on me. So when the Don says that about the taxes, I just think he's an idiot. My feelings are still negative, but not AS negative because the big negative cannot happen. In other words, it makes him look a doofus, not a tyrant.
Trump? Well, either he believes what comes out of his mouth or he doesn't. If he does, he's absolutely a lunatic. If he doesn't, he's the ultimate con man. Does it really matter which is the truth?Quote: AxelWolfI think RS just trolled all of you Hillary supporters.
------------------------------------------------------
ME do you really think he's a lunatic?
Except that's exactly how the Holocaust started. "That can never happen here..." can never be allowed to happen anywhere, ever again.Quote: FaceMy feelings are still negative, but not AS negative because the big negative cannot happen. In other words, it makes him look a doofus, not a tyrant.
Just the other day, Fareed Zakaria equated Trump to Hitler, but not for the same generic, hand-wavy impressions that everyone else does. His comparison was firmly rooted in historical fact, based on Trump's assertion that Putin invading Crimea was justified because most Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia anyway:
Quote:When asked if Trump is correct in saying that most of the people who live in Crimea, which has been annexed by Russia, would prefer to be part of Russia than the Ukraine, Zakaria drew a comparison to totalitarian leader Adolf Hitler.
“It is important to understand that the argument that Donald Trump is putting forward about Crimea is the same argument that Adolf Hitler made about the Sudeten Czechoslovaks,” Zakaria said. “It is in many ways the argument that was made about the Austrians: ‘Look, these people want to be part of Germany, so I’m just going to go in and invade their country anyways.’”
While the comparison between Hitler and Trump is not a novel idea, Zakaria specifically focused on the likeness in reasoning between the two demagogues: “The fact that maybe ― we’re not sure ― if you’d done a poll in Crimea that more people would like to be part of Russia, rather than Ukraine, does not tell us much. The Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia probably wanted to be part of Germany; that did not justify Adolf Hitler’s move.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fareed-zakaria-donald-trump_us_579f92cce4b08a8e8b5edaa5?
In conjunction with the other statements Trump has made about invading countries in the Middle East and commandeering their oil, it's starting not to matter whether his outlandish statements are illegal or seem farfetched. It would be foolish to let the maker of those statements anywhere near the authority to carry them out. You know who else invaded another country in the Middle East to take their oil?
I do believe you missed my point. I wasn't referring to the members here. I was referring to all the talk from both parties, and the pundits, and the news organizations about the middle class. I hear alot of talk about the wealthy as well. Almost no one mentions the poor, or the lower class. Apparently it's not PC.Quote: terapinedJust about everybody on this board is middle class
If you can afford to gamble moderate amounts of money then you are middle class
So I now assume when I hear 'middle class' that he speaker is also including the lower class or poor in that 'middle class'. That changes the meaning of what they are saying.
That's all.
Quote: EvenBobThis is as far as I read. A person who
starts a post like this doesn't want
answers, he just wants to fling his
shat into the fan pretending he
wants to be enlightened.
Honest answers to the original poster's question will give us a better understanding of human behaviors. I'm very confident that Trump's 2016 campaigning success via his demagogues will be a hot topic on many doctoral theses for those major in political science ...
And if I'm a political science major working toward my PhD I would love to know RonC's and other Trumpers' thought process ...
provided that, if you lose, you still have enough money for a haircut.Quote: terapinedJust about everybody on this board is middle class
If you can afford to gamble moderate amounts of money then you are middle class
Not at all, at least not how I meant it. Here's a CNN infographic with several different ways to gauge middle class.Quote: TwoFeathersATLI do believe you missed my point. I wasn't referring to the members here. I was referring to all the talk from both parties, and the pundits, and the news organizations about the middle class. I hear alot of talk about the wealthy as well. Almost no one mentions the poor, or the lower class. Apparently it's not PC.
So I now assume when I hear 'middle class' that he speaker is also including the lower class or poor in that 'middle class'. That changes the meaning of what they are saying.
That's all.
http://money.cnn.com/infographic/economy/what-is-middle-class-anyway/
It's usually the middle three quintiles of income, but the definition varies widely. In other words, if you're in the top 20%, not middle class. Bottom 20%? Same deal. Anywhere between? Then you're in the middle. It seems a little silly to group someone making $30k and someone making $90k into the same "class" but there it is. Also, everyone knows that it depends on where you live too. Here's a breakdown:
http://scorecard.assetsandopportunity.org/latest/measure/state-income-quintiles-acs
Quote: SteverinosIt takes a super human level of gall for a draft dodger to equate building "great structures" to the loss of a son who is a war hero.
Trump has proven time and time again that he is unfit to be POTUS. It's not even close.
Some of his voting base seems to like him because he'll say anything on his mind.
There's that saying about speaking and removing all doubt instead of staying silent. That's what I see -- he opens his mouth and eventually removes all doubt. Why that is a plus, I don't know.
Quote: rxwineBlame evolution.
It works not by always sending us Abe Lincolns, but a little bit of everything, from the Kardashians, to Gandhi, to Genghis Khan, to Trump and Flo, (or the actor) who sells Progressive Insurance.
It's not intelligent selection, it's maybe one of these variations will work out for you.
So, you never can really throw away your "I'm with stupid" t-shirt, because stupid will always be with us. It's part of the process.
Until further notice.
Gerrymandering with the instant & wide spread of information is the main culprit for the dysfunction in our current political process.
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.
I don't see anything articulated by the thread starter as personal insult. My take is the thread starter questions Trumpers' intellectual honesty through his articulations. It is common that those who are not able articulate well can conveniently play the "personal insult" card as a mean to divert from the main topic at hand. The "personal insult" card is often abused or used as an excuse in many internet forums/debates, including this WOV forum, and such abuse/excuse can lead to censorship.
I did not read all comments on this thread, and would welcome anyone to point me to the posts where the thread starter makes three different violations of the forum rules?
Quote: 777I don't see anything articulated by the thread starter as personal insult. My take is the thread starter questions Trumpers' intellectual honesty through his articulations. It is common that those who are not able articulate well can conveniently play the "personal insult" card as a mean to divert from the main topic at hand. The "personal insult" card is often abused or used as an excuse in many internet forums/debates, including this WOV forum, and such abuse/excuse can lead to censorship.
I did not read all comments on this thread, and would welcome anyone to point me to the posts where the thread starter makes three different violations of the forum rules?
--Face acknowledged that he made one or more personal insults. Probably not all that intentional; he just did it in his usual nasty style
--He has posted over the limits, which is a forum rule...perhaps not a huge one, but it is one
--there is rule about how to act with other forum members, which is routinely disregarded. He is just not very nice to people.
Also, he has started multiple threads about the same subject here. The non-gambling subjects were mostly, but not completely, shifted to DT. You will see that I said that I didn't like that when it happened, but that it was the owner's intent to move most off-topic stuff somewhere else. It isn't technically a violation of any rule as much as it is coming in and being so intent on stirring up the pot that he didn't notice there are not many threads here that don't have at least some connection to gambling. There is an ongoing thread about the election. Why start other ones just to say nasty things?
Now, the moderators have seen this and chosen not to act...that is their call. All I am saying is that the poster does not seem interested in answers; just in being nasty to anyone who does give him an answer. My point is not to get him suspended...but it does not seem like the rules encourage general nastiness.
You can find all the posts mentioned if you look. I don't have time to find them for you.
As far as off topic subjects goes, this is one of dozens of such threads. Have you objected to any other ones?
Quote: RonC--Face acknowledged that he made one or more personal insults. Probably not all that intentional; he just did it in his usual nasty style
--He has posted over the limits, which is a forum rule...perhaps not a huge one, but it is one
--there is rule about how to act with other forum members, which is routinely disregarded. He is just not very nice to people.
Also, he has started multiple threads about the same subject here. The non-gambling subjects were mostly, but not completely, shifted to DT. You will see that I said that I didn't like that when it happened, but that it was the owner's intent to move most off-topic stuff somewhere else. It isn't technically a violation of any rule as much as it is coming in and being so intent on stirring up the pot that he didn't notice there are not many threads here that don't have at least some connection to gambling. There is an ongoing thread about the election. Why start other ones just to say nasty things?
Now, the moderators have seen this and chosen not to act...that is their call. All I am saying is that the poster does not seem interested in answers; just in being nasty to anyone who does give him an answer. My point is not to get him suspended...but it does not seem like the rules encourage general nastiness.
You can find all the posts mentioned if you look. I don't have time to find them for you.
Perhaps the original poster's writing style is too aggressive for you and other Trumpers, but I still don't see any personal insult in his articulations. I hope the moderators will not be fooled by your playing of a "personal insult" card and then censor this thread or put a piece of tape over the thread starter's mouth.
Quote: FaceWhy do you keep using this as a point? As you say, what he claims he's going to do is illegal and unconstitutional. Therefore, no matter how horrendous the result, it's a non-issue because it will never happen.
Using it to show his stupidity, sure. But implying he'll ruin things? He can't.
A LOT of the crap that he advocates could and would never happen--the wall, the Muslim ban, the mass execution of the disabled, etc. But the point ME was trying to make was that even saying those things shows a shocking lack of moral character and judgment. Re specifically his tax plan, that he just plans to walk away from the massive debt it would create precisely mirrors how he created his fortune in the first place. Thus, even his unrealistic proposals are a useful lens through which to see who he really is.
I have an additional view of why he won't ruin things--he has about an 0.00001% chance of getting elected at this point, and if he did, someone would kill him--most deliciously, a "radical Islamic terrorist." Pence, FWIW, is to the right of Attila the Hun, but at least he's sane.
Quote: billryanPosting over the limits- what does that mean? I'm fairly new here and have no idea what limits you are referring to?
As far as off topic subjects goes, this is one of dozens of such threads. Have you objected to any other ones?
Actually, I CAN'T post "over the limits," (whatever he thinks those are) because as a new member, I have a system-enforced limit on how many posts I can make on a given day. So he's wrong about that. As far as my "three violations," he said that those were 1) writing my post 2) posting my post 3) that the administrator edited out a couple of swear words. Well, 1) isn't a violation of anything, 2) isn't unless I violate forum rules, and 3) isn't something I did. So his illogic is showing.
He doesn't actually object to my supposed violations of forum rules. He objects to the fact that I completely disagree with him. That is not to be tolerated in his worldview.
Quote: 777I hope the moderators will not be fooled by your playing of a "personal insult" card and then censor this thread or put a piece of tape over the thread starter's mouth.
I'm not "fooled" because there is no ruse. Several violations have been made, some of which were offered by RonC. Some of those are no longer viewable due to mod editing, but others are still there. Jo has been advised, and despite that he's come with even more profanity today, he's still standing.
Assuming you've read the thread enough to make a determination on Jo's intent, I'd think you'd have seen that all of this has already been covered.
To be perfectly clear, neither Jo nor his Trumpeting will be silenced due to a witch hunt or Trump supporter butt hurt. Threads may be closed due to redundancy, Jo may be trounced for future breaches. Both are in his control alone.
Quote: MathExtremistAbsolutely not because it's not true. A regular person using personal email at work happens billions of times every day. Emails go down. If you have a flaky ISP you make due with what you have at your disposal. You sound like a technological novice that's never been in an environment where timely receipt and acknowledgement of email is actually critical to doing business, but nobody in the tech world would bat an eye at "doing what it takes to get the job done."
And you sound like someone who has never worked in an environment where security and record retention is important. First., my guess is the State Department did not have a "flaky ISP." Second, I am hardly a novice. I am instead a person who knows that emails not sent over the corporate server cannot meet legal requirements of retention or in the event of a lawsuit discovery. They do not meet security guidelines as they are then outside the entity involved in their protection for all involved.
BTW, I have worked at both BYOD firms where security was not a big matter and banking and other corporate places where it was. Maybe you do not understand this, it seems like you have not worked where security matters from your reply above. But any intelligent person should understand that the SoS has to keep the tightest security imaginable, all the time. Some paper briefs they cannot even keep on their desks lest they be carelessly left somewhere.
Quote:I have *always* had multiple email addresses. None were personally hosted by me, but I have often had to rely on one of my personal email accounts when corporate servers fell over. It happens. And not once did I get disciplined or fired for it.
Then you must have worked in a place where security did not matter much. If you cannot understand the difference between one "emergency" email and everything being on an unprotected server then I feel bad for anyone that would hire you for anything confidential as your attitude towards security is "MEH."
Quote:So no, you have no idea what you're talking about. This may be why so many older, uninformed voters think the email thing was the worst thing ever, while so many younger, tech-savvy voters know better.
Ever hear the phrase "young and dumb?" If a person cannot understand the problem with the server then their name and "tech-savvy" should never be used together.
If you think Trump isn't about identity politics and wealth redistribution, you're dead wrong. He's just redistributing wealth in the other direction from the one you hate. Look at his tax plan, for crying out loud. How much less in taxes will you pay under his plan? A few thousand dollars? How much less will Trump pay? A few million. Except he doesn't make 1000x what you do, so how on earth can you possibly think that's fair to you?
Quote:How did Trump convince you that making him richer is in your own financial best interest?
Something about when people keep their own money they invest and spend it and when it is taken at the point of a gun they cannot do so.
