| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Captain,
I'm with you if we can also use him for hockey practice by tying him to a goal.
My slapshot needs work.
Also being from a rural state, I can tell you that when jobs dry up, when people can't survive the way they used to, it's pretty easy to feel trapped and isolated from the rest of the world.
Which is ALSO why Rysky and Captain need to come game with me! ;)
Awww, man. ;)
|
Somewhere around a dozen women accusing Trump of various forms of sexual harassment and assault now... and another tape where he seems to confirm their accounts (i.e. teen pageant contestants claiming he deliberately walked in on them changing and him bragging of the same to Howard Stern).
The 'moral majority' must be SO proud.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Somewhere around a dozen women accusing Trump of various forms of sexual harassment and assault now... and another tape where he seems to confirm their accounts (i.e. teen pageant contestants claiming he deliberately walked in on them changing and him bragging of the same to Howard Stern).
The 'moral majority' must be SO proud.
The "moral majority" has always been more about patriarchy and control of women -- in other words, misogyny -- than about actual morality.
Here's Wikipedia's list of their issues:
Some issues for which the Moral Majority campaigned included:
Promotion of a 'traditional' vision of family life
Opposition to media outlets that it claimed promote an "anti-family" agenda
Opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment and Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
Opposition to state recognition or acceptance of homosexual acts.
Prohibition of abortion, even in cases involving incest, rape or in pregnancies where the life of the mother is at stake.
Support for Christian prayers in schools
Marketing to Jews and other non-Christians for conversion to conservative Christianity
Note that none of those planks actually address male behavior. Indeed, they didn't even fight against the "no-fault divorce" laws that were sweeping the nation at that time (nine states had such laws in 1977; thirty or so by 1980; all but one had them by 1985).
So I'm quite happy believing that Trump's behavior is in line with the long-term goals, dreams, and aspirations of the Moral Majority.
And also it looks like someone found a tape of trump when he was about 46 talking about a 10 year old girl and saying that he would probably be dating her in 10 years.
If someone thinks that Trump is a better choice then "Not Trump" then it's more likely a problem with whoever or whatever is educating them on their choices.The person most responsible for your education is you. There is no eliminating poor sources of information. It's each individual's responsibility to identify and make use of reliable, trustworthy sources of information.
But I wanna blame the communist socialist Muslim atheist Nazi teachers' unions for my poor education!
And also it looks like someone found a tape of trump when he was about 46 talking about a 10 year old girl and saying that he would probably be dating her in 10 years.
Are you sure that wasn't James Woods?
If there's one positive thing I can say about Trump here, it's that he only seems interested in legal adults. There was one interview where he specifically mentioned not wanting to be like a congressman who got in trouble for... sexting with a kid, I think it was?
...
Although I did hear that he tended to walk into pageant changing rooms when girls as young as 15 were there... although from the commentary, it seemed less outright sexual and more just him showing off his authority and power because nobody could stop him from doing it. o_O Which didn't stop him from going after some of the contestants at other times, of course. I'm not going to go as far as calling him a pedophile, because the evidence actually seems to be leaning against that, but I'm increasingly feeling that "sexual predator" is a factually accurate description of his behavior.
So, naturally, he's trying to shift the focus to Bill Clinton - yet another bit of projection and blaming others for the things he's doing.
Anybody got a drink? I think I'm going to need a few before the next debate.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Heavy sigh*
Innocent until proven guilty.
No matter how much I may dislike the man, I'm not going to assume every claim of vileness is true. I'll reserve judgment until after that court hearing, to see if there's any merit to that case.
(Sometimes I really dislike my attempts to try and be fair to others, especially when I suspect people like Trump are deliberately using that to their advantage. XD; But I don't want to let people like him decide how I'm going to act, either.)
Haven't read all these posts but I just want to say...
Just like Alien Vs Predator on Earth... No matter who wins, we lose.
Reality Creep or Corrupt Politician. Both would get even richer and more powerful and care zip, nadda, nunc for the rest of us.
Vote how you want, I'm hunkering down and getting ready for The Storm that is coming.
Odin Help Us All........
Running Subtheme: US-backed Saudi War on Yemen
US enters Yemen war, bombing Houthis who launched missiles at navy ship
Haven't read all these posts but I just want to say...
Just like Alien Vs Predator on Earth... No matter who wins, we lose.
Reality Creep or Corrupt Politician. Both would get even richer and more powerful and care zip, nadda, nunc for the rest of us.
Vote how you want, I'm hunkering down and getting ready for The Storm that is coming.
Odin Help Us All........
What do you mean "we"? Do you have a turd in your pocket?
Either way, be sure to stock up on snacks!!!
*Heavy sigh*
Innocent until proven guilty.
We're not in court, Rednal. A lot of people use that phrase without actually understanding what it means.
Even if we were in court, that phrase really only applies in criminal trials. In most administrative hearings, the state only needs "clear and convincing evidence," and in most civil trials, a simple "preponderance of the evidence" (essentially, more likely true than not) is enough.
And private parties aren't bound by rules of evidence in any way.
What is alleged and supported against Trump right now is more than enough, for example, for someone to win a sexual harassment suit against him. It's more than enough to deprive him of a license for which "good moral character" is a requirement. If he were an immigrant, he could kill his green card goodbye, even in potentia, and possibly be deported. Many schools would find grounds for expulsion in his behavior, and there might even be enough for restraining orders and injunctions.
And I can and would tell him to get the hell out of my house if he came over and tried to mack on anyone present, or even just tried to borrow a cup of sugar.
But I'll just ask this: You wrote: "[s]ometimes I really dislike my attempts to try and be fair to others." Can you really stand there and say, based on everything you know right now, that the allegations about raping a 13 year old are more likely to be false than true? Because there's no need for "proof" in your decision about how you yourself regard him and react to him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Haven't read all these posts but I just want to say...
Just like Alien Vs Predator on Earth... No matter who wins, we lose.
Ah, great. Another too-hip-to-care, too-lazy-to-read exercise in false equivalence. If you actually read the posts you skipped over, this particular fallacy is dealt with in detail.
Werent the aliens way worse than the predators anyways? Like, didn't the predators just came down to contain the reawakening of an all-consuming plague in the form of the aliens? I'm not saying the predators were saints, being human hunters and all, but that's a lot less dangerous then mass-scale extinction. I think comparing AVP to the US election is ridiculous, but as far as I understand, it's not even a correct metaphor/reference in the context you're trying to use
EDIT: Apparently the Predators in that movie were coming down to hunt the aliens as a rite of passage. Yeah, still don't see how this analogy fits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think predators went back to their planet and were like, accountants or something playing weekend warrior?
Are there aliens back home protesting the whole idea of hunting as cruel, while other aliens insist that they'll over populate if not culled?
|
The only equivalence between the two, is if either attempts to walk around Mega-City One, without the correct paperwork, they both end up equally dead.
Not that this prevents them being gluttons for punishment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Orfamay: I admit there may be an element of confirmation bias in play here. What I have right now are, basically, two pieces of evidence against and one accusation for.
I have zero faith in Trump's character as a person - however, that's not the same as being willing to accept every accusation that's brought against him without questioning them. I think blindly accepting accusations of assault - particularly sexual assault - is fundamentally a bad idea, since false charges can and have been used to ruin lives.
To put it another way... I'm not assuming they're right. However, given what people have been saying lately, I think such accusations are sufficiently credible enough to deserve investigation. I'm not accepting them as definitely true, but I'm not dismissing them as just a smear campaign, either. Basically, I'm waiting for more information so I can make an informed judgment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean Mark Foley?If there's one positive thing I can say about Trump here, it's that he only seems interested in legal adults. There was one interview where he specifically mentioned not wanting to be like a congressman who got in trouble for... sexting with a kid, I think it was?
I think they meant Anthony Weiner.
Labor Secretary Advised Clinton To Cast Sanders As Candidate Of Whites To Turn Off Minorities
She didn't have to. Sanders managed that all on his own.
Trumps warns of election tampering.
Trump is double-downing on the rigged election rhetoric, and call for his supporters to go into urban areas to to keep the vote "honest" (advocating voter intimidation basically). There is increasing evidence that should he lose the election, he won't concede
This is not going to end well for anyone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Knight: I dislike Trump's statements and behavior enough that I wish, this once, I could agree with that. As Clinton (citing Michelle Obama) mentioned in the debate, though... when your opponents go low, you should go high. His behavior, as despicable as it's been alleged to be, is not something I want to use as an excuse to compromise my values. I don't think he really deserves to be treated fairly after all the things he's done, the contractors he's stiffed, the lies he's told and the lives he's ruined... but the criminal justice system shouldn't work on an arbitrary standard of being nicer to some people than others.
There is increasing evidence that should he lose the election, he won't concede.
"Increasing evidence" meaning that's exactly the situation as of right now? Trump lost the election when the tape was released; he just hasn't conceded it yet (although the RNC apparently has).
@Knight: I dislike Trump's statements and behavior enough that I wish, this once, I could agree with that. As Clinton (citing Michelle Obama) mentioned in the debate, though... when your opponents go low, you should go high. His behavior, as despicable as it's been alleged to be, is not something I want to use as an excuse to compromise my values. I don't think he really deserves to be treated fairly after all the things he's done, the contractors he's stiffed, the lies he's told and the lives he's ruined... but the criminal justice system shouldn't work on an arbitrary standard of being nicer to some people than others.
You misunderstand the meaning of "treated fairly". If Trump was ever treated fairly, he'd likely be in jail, debtor's prison, or both.
There is increasing evidence that should he lose the election, he won't concede."Increasing evidence" meaning that's exactly the situation as of right now? Trump lost the election when the tape was released; he just hasn't conceded it yet (although the RNC apparently has).
It's one thing to complain about bias/rigging before the election date; it's another to do so after votes have been counted. Not conceding election post November 8th would be historic. What happened to the riled up base who feel the election was stolen from them? Nothing good.
I have serious fears that post election day we are going to see violence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have serious fears that post election day we are going to see violence.
Get ready to send more snacks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, great. Another too-hip-to-care, too-lazy-to-read exercise in false equivalence. If you actually read the posts you skipped over, this particular fallacy is dealt with in detail.Haven't read all these posts but I just want to say...
Just like Alien Vs Predator on Earth... No matter who wins, we lose.
Except that it hasn't been a false equivalence fallacy, you are just dismissing others who don't value the candidates the way you do, with accusations of logical failure, when it is just your opinion. It is great to express opinions, and I enjoy opinions I agree and disagree with. But it is just your opinion, not some sort of truism.
"False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency."
The republican and democratic candidates are crap. They both have disapproval ratings over 50%.The process that selected them is, at best, highly flawed democracy. You might prefer one crappy candidate over another, but pointing out that they are both awful isn't a fallacy. Also, I don't know why you would expect voters to be anything but antipathetic about either candidate.
You are more then welcome to speak weal or woe about either candidate, but since we have nothing but their highly flawed records, and their words (both are known liars) this is more reading tea leaves or chicken guts then mathematical logic.
[T]he criminal justice system shouldn't work on an arbitrary standard of being nicer to some people than others.
Agreed. But there's nothing arbitrary about this. The best predictor of the present is, of course, the past. And there is a legal maxim going all the way back to the Roman Republic, long before English Common Law was a thing, that Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus, or in English, "false in one thing, false in everything." A person with a well-documented history of lying is not entitled to the same deference and belief that a more honest person is.
Or, to put it another way, "Courts may take into account the following factors [inter al. -- OQ]:"
honesty;
fairness;
reliability;
integrity;
candor in dealing with licensing authorities;
trustworthiness;
observance of fiduciary duty;
respect for the rights of others;
fiscal responsibility;
mental and emotional stability.
I take judicial notice -- or at least, illithidian notice -- that Trump scores poorly on all of those.
Similarly (ibid.):
Courts may also take into account the following negative factors to determine whether an applicant lacks good moral character:
Mental or emotional instability.
Dishonesty.
Taking unfair advantage of others.
Disloyalty to those to whom loyalty is legally owed.
Irresponsibility in business or professional matters.
Fiscal Irresponsibility.
Trump doesn't score well there, either.
Those aren't arbitrary factors in any way, but they are certainly relevant in my assessment of how much credibility I give to Trump's denials vs. the accuser' allegations. And no actual court in the world would suggest otherwise. Fair does not mean blind, does not mean ignorant, and does not mean stupid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, both candidates are bad.
But good and bad are not the only categories. There's bad and there's holy son of motherless goat level bad.
Neither is pleasant but they are not equal.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I said it before, and I'll say it now. I don't see what's so bad about Hillary Clinton.
I agree completely BigNorseWolf. But saying they are both bad is not a failure of logic. Comparisons are almost always going to be asymmetrical because Trump and Clinton have very different backgrounds, and very difficult to predict futures.
I would say it is a far more grievous assault on logic and discourse to require a ratio of quality between the candidates every time one is praised or criticized.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just like Alien Vs Predator on Earth... No matter who wins, we lose.
I agree completely BigNorseWolf. But saying they are both bad is not a failure of logic. Comparisons are almost always going to be asymmetrical because Trump and Clinton have very different backgrounds, and very difficult to predict futures.
I would say it is a far more grievous assault on logic and discourse to require a ratio of quality between the candidates every time one is mentioned.
To say "No matter who wins, we lose" does strongly imply that who wins the election does not matter. I think there is plenty of evidence to contradict that opinion, and it should be soundly corrected. Who wins in November will matter a lot to a lot of people.
It is possible to criticize both candidates without implying they're flaws have equal weight, but that is hardly ever the case when people bemoan how both of them are "evil" of some kind.
I agree completely BigNorseWolf. But saying they are both bad is not a failure of logic. Comparisons are almost always going to be asymmetrical because Trump and Clinton have very different backgrounds, and very difficult to predict futures.
I would say it is a far more grievous assault on logic and discourse to require a ratio of quality between the candidates every time one is praised or criticized.
I think here the argument is they're both bad= "they're both bad stay home" rather than "they're both bad, go vote for the least bad option, sorry"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To say "No matter who wins, we lose" does strongly imply that who wins the election does not matter.
I disagree. I think it acknowledges that both Clinton and Trump are crappy choices. Despite both of their words, the majority of Americans, and the world in general, are likely to suffer in similar ways. If Johnson or Stein won, I think it would be a much better outcome for the vast majority of the world - maybe. Obviously, it is pretty much unknowable what that would really look like, as it is difficult to predict what Trump opposed by democrats, or Clinton opposed by republicans would really look like. I have seen that when it comes to the real major f@$*-ups in history such as the Patriot Act/Police State or the invasion of Iraq in 2003, they have strong bipartisan support.
I will be the first to say that Trump is a radioactive dumpster fire, while Clinton is just a regular dumpster fire, but I would not say one is a good candidate and the other is bad.
EDIT: I don't have a problem with, "they're both bad, go vote for the least bad option, sorry". The problem I have is with "Ah, great. Another too-hip-to-care, too-lazy-to-read exercise in false equivalence." {I don't mean to single you out Orfamay, as there are several other posters who have expressed similar statements and your posts are often liked by several people.} Furthermore, due to the electoral college, New York State's 27 "electors" are going to Clinton regardless of how I vote. So why should I vote in the presidential election at all?
I said it before, and I'll say it now. I don't see what's so bad about Hillary Clinton.
Depends on who you ask. She supports a No Fly No Buy type of infringement upon average American rights, she supports (publicly, though who knows about privately) single payer healthcare (which is good or bad, depending on what you value), she's a well documented liar (this in no way makes her different from a vast majority of politicians, but it in no way excuses the behavior), and where Bernie (who I am in no way endorsing by this, as I didn't support his candidacy) gave very specific details regarding how he planned on paying for his grandiose promises, Hillary does not.
Reminder: this was written to address the question of why people don't like Hillary, not why she may or may not be better or worse than someone else.
Furthermore, due to the electoral college, New York State's 27 "electors" are going to Clinton regardless of how I vote. So why should I vote in the presidential election at all?
Thats a reasonable way of looking at it for a new yorker.
Me, I'm torn between wanting to tell the democrats "come on guys you can do better" and telling the republicans "OH HELL NO" The latter is winning out.