To the Republic


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 450 of 472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Irontruth wrote:
Crusinos wrote:
...
You're still not getting what I think is wrong here. I have no opinion about Kansas City. I just think you are representing THAT ARTICLE incorrectly. Continuing to represent the article poorly isn't going to change my mind.

You're trying to interpret the article with no knowledge of the city's geography, no knowledge of the school district, no knowledge of the demographics, and very little knowledge of what people actually living there were thinking at the time.

Let me put it in perspective: Desegregation failed. It not only failed, but it left a school district in even worse shape than when it started. At least before the school district was accredited!

We had a school board that did not function with race proportions representing the voters. Because out of the four racial groups that lived in the area, only one sent a majority of their kids to the public education system. KCMSD was solely a "black school district" in all but leadership. No other race was willing to educate their kids in that district.

That's the reality of what we were facing. We had a school district where about one quarter of the city's population made up 90% of the parents who sent their kids to public schools. And we had just seen irrefutable proof that desegregation was not going to fix this.

You are completely misunderstanding what she said because you are not grasping the context in which she was speaking. Even within the current KCMSD borders, the majority of voters are white. Yet, they still represent a small minority within the public schools.

No one in KCMO or Independence misunderstood that she was calling for gerrymandering. No one opposed it, either. Everyone went into this with the knowledge that the naturally-drawn districts resulted in a representation system that was so broken the school district was not going to function. They went in with the idea that fixing the system for the kids actually attending the schools was the most important goal, even if it meant tossing some morals by the wayside. And the majority of people in both cities approved it. No one had a better option.

Nor did anyone act ignorant of the fact we were voting for segregation. But that school district reached a point where segregation could not make things worse and mostly wasn't going away anyway.

That's the context.

You can't treat her words as separate from the situation in the city. In order to properly understand her words, you need to understand the city. You need to form an opinion of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TimD wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
TimD wrote:
ryric wrote:
Since there are people on this thread that clearly think the results of the most recent election are good, I'd like to hear their justification for that attitude.

Well, there's this.

To be fair, "good" is relative. "Less bad", is perhaps more accurate.
As a strong 2A proponent, I'm not sure why people are of the opinion that Trump is in any way a notable defender of the 2nd amendment. Putting the (R) after his name doesn't make it so. He even explicitly advocated for Stop and Frisk, which should be a red flag among a sea of red flags.
Straw man: I said "less bad" than Clinton for 2A. Did not say "notable defender". The "R" after his name doesn't particularly endear him to me, either. Unless your argument is that he's somehow WORSE than Clinton for 2A support? (which I'd find laughable as Clinton is pretty much the poster child for anti-2A, but would be interested in how you came to that conclusion on the chance I may have missed something).

I'd hardly call Hillary the "poster child for anti-2A" (I believe that distinction goes to Bloomberg or Feinstein). I'm not saying that he's worse than her when it comes to 2A positions, I'm saying he's no better. Being in favor of Stop and Frisk is a MAJOR negative mark against him when it comes to 2A rights.


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
thejeff wrote:


It's not like there's any racial coding in this whole rural/urban split, is there?

Except, if we're going to Make America Great (again?) Aren't we already pretty great? then we need to be *completely* fair about this and *EVERYONE* must get federally fondled!

Not just the folks who are flying and don't like their bodies scanned. Not just the folks who are living in impoverished urban areas.
Not just the folks who may or may not have a different complexion than anyone else.

EVERYONE!

*coughs*

Wait, were we talking about the United States of America again, or some other place?

I wish someone would federally fondle me...


thejeff wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Because Stop and Frisk would only take guns away form the scary minorities, leaving the nice white people and their guns safe and sound.

[/sarcasm]

I suspect a LOT of people would have an issue with 'Stop and Frisk' if it became the de facto approach to all encounters.

Why don't we have that, again?

Oh, right! The Constitution! Bill of Rights! Fourth Amendment!

But it only applies to urban thugs, so it's okay.

It's not like there's any racial coding in this whole rural/urban split, is there?

Pointing out the obvious, long-lasting, systematic racism is so 20 14!

Because apparently, the world's a worse place now.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Captain Battletoad wrote:


I wish someone would federally fondle me...

You say that now...

...but let me tell you that the allure sort of fades after a couple of years of flying.


TimD wrote:
ryric wrote:
Edit: TimD, I don't see the relevance of a post about the second amendment.

The Clintons have always been opposed to the 2nd Amendment. Trump, at least, is arguably less of a threat there.

For a less moderate point of view, for those who think Trump IS the next Hitler, here you go.

... and no, despite being a Republican, that author is not really a fan of Trump, either.

then why didn't Clinton make guns illegal or what have you when he was in office? What did he do with guns while he was president? Or for that matter, what did Hilary do when she was secretary of state or when she was a NY senator?

Cuz I live here, and have no problems getting weapons of any sort.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Since there are people on this thread that clearly think the results of the most recent election are good, I'd like to hear their justification for that attitude. From my POV, we have elected a [various bad things].

I'm not a Trump supporter, but when I find myself disagreeing with someone, I often try to do an intellectual exercise where I assume that person is neither evil nor stupid, and then try to defend/justify that person's position to myself. I ask myself, "If I wasn't evil or stupid, what would be the reasons I might hold that position?"

I can do that for Trump supporters if you'd like, but you might find it interesting to have a go at it first yourself. I would be genuinely interested in what you come up with.

Note that this exercise doesn't work for all positions, e.g. there is no argument for the Holocaust or the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge that wouldn't point any reasonable person to "evil". Similarly, the arguments of a Flat Earther almost certainly point to "stupid" (or more charitably, "misinformed").

For the avoidance of doubt, insisting that half the population just elected the next Hitler because they were too stupid to know he was Hitler or too evil to care is not a reasonable position. Or at the very least not a position worth engaging in discussion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"You can fool half the people all of the time... and that's usually enough."


Freehold DM wrote:
TimD wrote:
ryric wrote:
Edit: TimD, I don't see the relevance of a post about the second amendment.

The Clintons have always been opposed to the 2nd Amendment. Trump, at least, is arguably less of a threat there.

For a less moderate point of view, for those who think Trump IS the next Hitler, here you go.

... and no, despite being a Republican, that author is not really a fan of Trump, either.

then why didn't Clinton make guns illegal or what have you when he was in office? What did he do with guns while he was president? Or for that matter, what did Hilary do when she was secretary of state or when she was a NY senator?

Cuz I live here, and have no problems getting weapons of any sort.

Brady Bill and Federal Assault Weapon Ban.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
This article by a sort of liberal-ish libertarian, extremely pro-LGBT, decidedly anti-Trump psychiatrist who has patients expressing Trump-related suicidal ideations, is a very long but very, very good antidote to a lot of Trump fear, for those of you who might benefit from it.
The man chose white supremacists for top positions in his government. No, people are not crying wolf.
They aren't white supremacists, any more than 90% of Japanese are Japanese supremacists or most Israelis are Jewish supremacists. (Or maybe they all are!) If anything, Bannon, like most of these guys, is an Asian supremacist. (I'm referring here to his CEO comments.)

When Glenn Beck calls someone racist I'm pretty confident in calling them one.


Quoting Glenn Beck now?
Interesting.
Using the king of the tin foil hat people to justify something is amusing to me, seeing as how he wouldn't have been a reliable source 8 years ago.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Quoting Glenn Beck now?

Interesting.
Using the king of the tin foil hat people to justify something is amusing to me, seeing as how he wouldn't have been a reliable source 8 years ago.

It's kind of along the lines of "when Jerry Garcia tells you you're doing too many drugs, it's time to cut back."

When the wacko racist tin foil hat guy thinks your ideas are too far out there, you may have a problem.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:


They aren't white supremacists

The only thing plausible here is your pseudonym


Quote:
"You can fool half the people all of the time... and that's usually enough."

The saying (in part) is: "You can fool some of the people all of the time."

Not half. If you know someone who can fool half of the people all of the time, give me their contact details because I want them working for me.

That said, I note your position.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

TigerTiger wrote:

I'm not a Trump supporter, but when I find myself disagreeing with someone, I often try to do an intellectual exercise where I assume that person is neither evil nor stupid, and then try to defend/justify that person's position to myself. I ask myself, "If I wasn't evil or stupid, what would be the reasons I might hold that position?"

I can do that for Trump supporters if you'd like, but you might find it interesting to have a go at it first yourself. I would be genuinely interested in what you come up with.

Note that this exercise doesn't work for all positions, e.g. there is no argument for the Holocaust or the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge that wouldn't point any reasonable person to "evil". Similarly, the arguments of a Flat Earther almost certainly point to "stupid" (or more charitably, "misinformed").

For the avoidance of doubt, insisting that half the population just elected the next Hitler because they were too stupid to know he was Hitler or too evil to care is not a reasonable position. Or at the very least not a position worth engaging in discussion.

You make a fair point. I tend to subscribe to "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence" myself. Usually I can put myself in another's place and try to comprehend their point of view, but I have nothing here. That's why I'm asking for help.

For example, apparently TimD cares deeply about the second amendment. I personally disagree with his priorities, and I think the new administration is going to attack multiple other amendments much harder than Clinton would have attacked the second, but at least I now understand where he's coming from. Personally, I'm fairly neutral on gun control and it wasn't even a consideration to me this election.

My wife and I, back in October, were discussing open-mindedness and the election. The topic of "What would Trump have to do to change our vote?" came up, and my response was basically - "Reveal that he had been kept captive in a basement for the past two years and it was an imposter who said all those hateful and impractical things. As a start."

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
TigerTiger wrote:

I ask myself, "If I wasn't evil or stupid, what would be the reasons I might hold that position?"

...
Similarly, the arguments of a Flat Earther almost certainly point to "stupid" (or more charitably, "misinformed").

For the avoidance of doubt, insisting that half the population just elected the next Hitler because they were too stupid to know he was Hitler or too evil to care is not a reasonable position. Or at the very least not a position worth engaging in discussion.

A: Trump is not the next Hitler. He is not competent enough to be a Hitler. Note - This doesn't make him any less of a disaster.

B: If you are using 'stupid' as a stand-in for 'misinformed' then I must disagree that it is not a reasonable explanation. Nearly all Trump voters ARE demonstrably misinformed.

Obama was NOT born in Kenya. Trump's stated economic plans will NOT decrease the deficit. Wealthy people are not 'job creators'. Neither Obama nor Hillary ever tried to "TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!". There were NOT millions of illegal alien votes for Clinton. Global warming is NOT a Chinese hoax. Russia DID invade Ukraine. Donald Trump DID publicly support the Iraq war. White male Christians are NOT inherently the best of the human race. The border wall is NEVER going to happen. Et cetera.

Seriously. Show me a Trump supporter who isn't 'misinformed' at best and I will show you a f%$@ing scary human being.


TigerTiger wrote:
Quote:
"You can fool half the people all of the time... and that's usually enough."

The saying (in part) is: "You can fool some of the people all of the time."

Not half. If you know someone who can fool half of the people all of the time, give me their contact details because I want them working for me.

That said, I note your position.

you can fool 47% of the people and that's enough if you fool the right people because of the electoral college?


TigerTiger wrote:
Not half. If you know someone who can fool half of the people all of the time, give me their contact details because I want them working for me.

He's retired now. So, I don't think he's open to working for you.

Very smart man. Had at least half the nation thinking he was an idiot for eight years. From what I've seen, almost no one he fooled realized it.


Ryzoken wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
TimD wrote:
ryric wrote:
Edit: TimD, I don't see the relevance of a post about the second amendment.

The Clintons have always been opposed to the 2nd Amendment. Trump, at least, is arguably less of a threat there.

For a less moderate point of view, for those who think Trump IS the next Hitler, here you go.

... and no, despite being a Republican, that author is not really a fan of Trump, either.

then why didn't Clinton make guns illegal or what have you when he was in office? What did he do with guns while he was president? Or for that matter, what did Hilary do when she was secretary of state or when she was a NY senator?

Cuz I live here, and have no problems getting weapons of any sort.

Brady Bill and Federal Assault Weapon Ban.

...Janet Reno/Branch Dividian... the removal of access to Class 3 Permits (you used to be able to obtain a general class 3 permit as a non-FFL dealer rather than the ever-increasing amounts of tax stamps).

On the other hand, I know the Paizo staff are generally opposed to having gun-control discussions on their boards, so I'm dropping from this one so as to try to avoid a thread-lock.

ryric wrote:
For example, apparently TimD cares deeply about the second amendment. I personally disagree with his priorities, and I think the new administration is going to attack multiple other amendments much harder than Clinton would have attacked the second, but at least I now understand where he's coming from.

Thank you. Communication - it can happen. (And, yes, for the record 2A is pretty much my #1 priority, which is probably why I'm confused for a republican so often).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find it difficult to understand how anyone would select one of the amendments and declare

"this one is my number one priority."


CBDunkerson and BigNorseWolf, I hear you and note your position.


Terquem,

Because apparently we all base our choices in life on just ONE thing in government. Instead of you know lots of things.

Also I need more peanut butter.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

I find it difficult to understand how anyone would select one of the amendments and declare

"this one is my number one priority."

A friend of mine, who happens to be gay and partnered with a Latino man of Mexican heritage, had his father text him "rejoice the republic has reformed" on Wed 11/9. The father is in his sixties, white, middle classed, and retired. He loves his guns for hunting and target practice. He reloads his own bullets so its a complete hobby for him. Guns are pretty much the only thing this guy has to worry about. Therefore, he votes republican reliably every election because he's been sold on the idea that only republicans will support his right to firearms.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Quoting Glenn Beck now?

Interesting.
Using the king of the tin foil hat people to justify something is amusing to me, seeing as how he wouldn't have been a reliable source 8 years ago.

It's kind of along the lines of "when Jerry Garcia tells you you're doing too many drugs, it's time to cut back."

When the wacko racist tin foil hat guy thinks your ideas are too far out there, you may have a problem.

...

Ok.


Terquem wrote:

I find it difficult to understand how anyone would select one of the amendments and declare

"this one is my number one priority."

Well, given the choice between freedom of speech and senators giving themslves a raise i'll let the senators give themselves a raise.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

I find it difficult to understand how anyone would select one of the amendments and declare

"this one is my number one priority."

I've had some friends fairly focused on the 21st amendment after last week ;)


Crusinos wrote:
TigerTiger wrote:
Not half. If you know someone who can fool half of the people all of the time, give me their contact details because I want them working for me.

He's retired now. So, I don't think he's open to working for you.

Very smart man. Had at least half the nation thinking he was an idiot for eight years. From what I've seen, almost no one he fooled realized it.

I am relatively certain that at some point he was a smart guy. If you go back and watch/listen to the Bush/Richards gubernatorial debates, he was sharp and with it. He did a good job.

Then go and watch the Bush/Kerry debates.

I'm pretty sure that some time between 1994 and 2004 he had a stroke.


Terquem wrote:

I find it difficult to understand how anyone would select one of the amendments and declare

"this one is my number one priority."

Because the first ten amendments were written using 1780s language, 1780s terminology, and 1780s ideas of how government should be and in modern English are subject to some interpretations that have nothing to do with what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

So, people end up picking and choosing which of the various interpretations over the years they agree with and how strongly they feel about it.

If you want to use the Second Amendment example, you have to dig into a lot of historical context for how the phrase was used to understand what was meant. "Well-regulated" simply meant "in proper working order" or "normal." The term "militia" was commonly understood to mean "anyone who can own and shoot a gun" at the time. So the phrase "well-regulated militia" basically meant "people who know how to use firearms."

Today, however, a "well-regulated militia" is commonly understood to be a group of highly-trained soldiers following laws and codes of honor and war, rather than just anyone who knows how to use a weapon.

That's why people sometimes just pick one amendment and spend all of their time fighting for it. The Constitution is falling victim to the fact language evolves. Causing something to be understood today in a manner that is sometimes the exact opposite of how it was originally understood.


Now I am sorry I made that comment and I would delete it, but some people have made an honest attempt to address it.


I was just glad to get the chance to geek out on the difference in the Constitution between when it was written and now. There's a lot more differences than just what changes Amendments brought.

We're increasingly to the point we're needing translated copies of the Constitution so people can understand what it actually says.


Terequem,

Don't be sorry for asking an honest question that deserves a honest, thoughtful answer.

Just don't expect it to come from me. :p :)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
You make a fair point. I tend to subscribe to "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence" myself. Usually I can put myself in another's place and try to comprehend their point of view, but I have nothing here. That's why I'm asking for help.

To be fair, there's nothing new about my exercise; debaters, attorneys and negotiators frequently do exercises where they argue one side of an argument, then switch sides of the table and argue the other side. It helps ensure your own arguments are robust and can stand up to challenge, while also helping to build bridges and find win-win solutions. Often people think they're opposed when they actually are arguing at cross-purposes and can both get what they want if they're more thoughtful and creative.

In terms of Trump voters, an easy position to start from is that many people thought both candidates were awful and voted for Trump because he wouldn't be as bad for them as Hillary. Why might they do that?

- Hillary is pro-renewable energy and talked about putting coal miners out of jobs and coal companies out of business. Trump did not and spoke frequently about the plight of blue collar workers without a college degree. If I'm a coal miner, I don't need to be evil or stupid to decide Trump makes more sense for me than Clinton.

- The above can be expanded more generally to cover blue collar workers who are opposed to illegal immigration for economic reasons rather than evil/racist ones. Trump takes a harder line than Clinton on this front.

- People who are first generation legal immigrants or those married to first generation legal immigrants (like, for instance, me) might prefer Trump's stance on illegal immigration simply because they or their loved ones went through great effort to legally come to this country and they don't agree with letting others flout the law and jump the line.

- Proponents of individual freedom who prefer smaller government may support Trump for first taking on and defeating the entrenched Republican political elite and then taking on and defeating the entrenched Democrat political elite. This is one of the positions I personally am most sympathetic to.

- From a foreign policy perspective, people could be opposed to Obama's wars of choice in the Middle East; the nuclear deal with Iran; the weakened or deteriorating relations between the US and Israel, the US and UK, the US and Russia; the failure to identify or deal with the threat of ISIS; the relative lack of progress from the pivot to Asia. Clinton is widely viewed as a continuation of these policies or a creator of them while SoS while Trump represents an opportunity for change (for better or worse).

- Many, many people on both left and right are deeply opposed to free trade agreements for reasons that cannot be easily labeled as evil or stupid. Trump is vocally willing to go protectionist/fair trade and Clinton is not (or waffles depending on her audience).

- A fair number of voters may have been bothered by the fact that out of a population of 300 million people, the Democrats thought the best choice for President just happened to be the wife of a previous President. That's as bad as Jeb Bush or Dubya being President. The United States isn't supposed to have royal families or aristocracies and the very fact that both parties were pushing nepotism in the primaries and (for Democrats) the general suggests an entrenched and corrupt political elite that believes it rules the people rather than serves them. For better or worse, Trump is not part of a political dynasty and is very much an outsider.

There are more reasons not based on Trump being the lesser of two evils, but that's a start for now. Do you think you could add any more now or are you still pretty much in the stupid/evil camp?


Ryzoken wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
TimD wrote:
ryric wrote:
Edit: TimD, I don't see the relevance of a post about the second amendment.

The Clintons have always been opposed to the 2nd Amendment. Trump, at least, is arguably less of a threat there.

For a less moderate point of view, for those who think Trump IS the next Hitler, here you go.

... and no, despite being a Republican, that author is not really a fan of Trump, either.

then why didn't Clinton make guns illegal or what have you when he was in office? What did he do with guns while he was president? Or for that matter, what did Hilary do when she was secretary of state or when she was a NY senator?

Cuz I live here, and have no problems getting weapons of any sort.

Brady Bill and Federal Assault Weapon Ban.

none of which keep me from buying a gun if I do choose to.


TimD wrote:
Ryzoken wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
TimD wrote:
ryric wrote:
Edit: TimD, I don't see the relevance of a post about the second amendment.

The Clintons have always been opposed to the 2nd Amendment. Trump, at least, is arguably less of a threat there.

For a less moderate point of view, for those who think Trump IS the next Hitler, here you go.

... and no, despite being a Republican, that author is not really a fan of Trump, either.

then why didn't Clinton make guns illegal or what have you when he was in office? What did he do with guns while he was president? Or for that matter, what did Hilary do when she was secretary of state or when she was a NY senator?

Cuz I live here, and have no problems getting weapons of any sort.

Brady Bill and Federal Assault Weapon Ban.

...Janet Reno/Branch Dividian... the removal of access to Class 3 Permits (you used to be able to obtain a general class 3 permit as a non-FFL dealer rather than the ever-increasing amounts of tax stamps).

On the other hand, I know the Paizo staff are generally opposed to having gun-control discussions on their boards, so I'm dropping from this one so as to try to avoid a thread-lock.

ryric wrote:
For example, apparently TimD cares deeply about the second amendment. I personally disagree with his priorities, and I think the new administration is going to attack multiple other amendments much harder than Clinton would have attacked the second, but at least I now understand where he's coming from.
Thank you. Communication - it can happen. (And, yes, for the record 2A is pretty much my #1 priority, which is probably why I'm confused for a republican so often).

note: I can still buy guns. Noone has gone door to door confiscating them. Unless they can under these rules? What has happened exactly? Other than a cult going nuts?


TigerTiger wrote:
Quote:
You make a fair point. I tend to subscribe to "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence" myself. Usually I can put myself in another's place and try to comprehend their point of view, but I have nothing here. That's why I'm asking for help.

To be fair, there's nothing new about my exercise; debaters, attorneys and negotiators frequently do exercises where they argue one side of an argument, then switch sides of the table and argue the other side. It helps ensure your own arguments are robust and can stand up to challenge, while also helping to build bridges and find win-win solutions. Often people think they're opposed when they actually are arguing at cross-purposes and can both get what they want if they're more thoughtful and creative.

In terms of Trump voters, an easy position to start from is that many people thought both candidates were awful and voted for Trump because he wouldn't be as bad for them as Hillary. Why might they do that?

- Hillary is pro-renewable energy and talked about putting coal miners out of jobs and coal companies out of business. Trump did not and spoke frequently about the plight of blue collar workers without a college degree. If I'm a coal miner, I don't need to be evil or stupid to decide Trump makes more sense for me than Clinton.

- The above can be expanded more generally to cover blue collar workers who are opposed to illegal immigration for economic reasons rather than evil/racist ones. Trump takes a harder line than Clinton on this front.

- People who are first generation legal immigrants or those married to first generation legal immigrants (like, for instance, me) might prefer Trump's stance on illegal immigration simply because they or their loved ones went through great effort to legally come to this country and they don't agree with letting others flout the law and jump the line.

- Proponents of individual freedom who prefer smaller government may support Trump for first taking on and...

To me though, the fact remains that Trump supporters were either fine with the racism or the type who do not really believe in it.


Quote:
To me though, the fact remains that Trump supporters were either fine with the racism or the type who do not really believe in it.

So you're going with half the population of the United States is evil? Okay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Republican party doesn't protect personal liberty. If you want the government out of your life, the Republican party is not the answer.


BigDTBone wrote:
Crusinos wrote:
TigerTiger wrote:
Not half. If you know someone who can fool half of the people all of the time, give me their contact details because I want them working for me.

He's retired now. So, I don't think he's open to working for you.

Very smart man. Had at least half the nation thinking he was an idiot for eight years. From what I've seen, almost no one he fooled realized it.

I am relatively certain that at some point he was a smart guy. If you go back and watch/listen to the Bush/Richards gubernatorial debates, he was sharp and with it. He did a good job.

Then go and watch the Bush/Kerry debates.

I'm pretty sure that some time between 1994 and 2004 he had a stroke.

Go back and rewatch the speech he gave after the Democrats took Congress in 2006. Suddenly, all of those speech problems vanished and he was speaking clearly. They returned once he realized he could bully Congress into submission.

He was faking it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
TigerTiger wrote:
Quote:
To me though, the fact remains that Trump supporters were either fine with the racism or the type who do not really believe in it.
So you're going with half the population of the United States is evil? Okay.

I'm racist. I try not to be, but I understand that I am. That doesn't make me evil. It makes me flawed... which is pretty normal for a human.


TigerTiger wrote:
Quote:
To me though, the fact remains that Trump supporters were either fine with the racism or the type who do not really believe in it.
So you're going with half the population of the United States is evil? Okay.

Don't think of it as mass deportations, think of it as saving them from white privilege, I guess.


Quote:
I'm racist. I try not to be, but I understand that I am. That doesn't make me evil. It makes me flawed... which is pretty normal for a human.

So you're going with half the population of the United States is flawed? Or is it all of us are racist, which essentially means none of us are?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TigerTiger wrote:
Quote:
To me though, the fact remains that Trump supporters were either fine with the racism or the type who do not really believe in it.
So you're going with half the population of the United States is evil? Okay.

One, he lost the popular vote. Two, about half the population did not vote. Three, evil is a rather strong word. A strong polarizing word.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TigerTiger wrote:


So you're going with half the population of the United States is flawed? Or is it all of us are racist, which essentially means none of us are?

Its some combination of racism (at least enough for it not to be a deal breaker) and a really non critical thought process that never asked exactly HOW he's going to do any of these things. Neither is acceptable in an adult to the degree that "vote trump" is the result. To what degree any individual was relying on which factor is irrelevant, there is entirely too much of both.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
TigerTiger wrote:
Quote:
I'm racist. I try not to be, but I understand that I am. That doesn't make me evil. It makes me flawed... which is pretty normal for a human.
So you're going with half the population of the United States is flawed? Or is it all of us are racist, which essentially means none of us are?

I feel the need to point out that racism isn't a superpower.


Quote:
I feel the need to point out that racism isn't a superpower.

In Lake Wobegon, all the children are above average.


KingOfAnything wrote:


I feel the need to point out that racism isn't a superpower.

Its' a word. It has to have some meaning. When used to describe people there needs to be a subset of people that it applies to and another subset of people that it doesn't. If it doesn't do that then it's meaningless.


Quote:
One, he lost the popular vote. Two, about half the population did not vote. Three, evil is a rather strong word. A strong polarizing word.

Okay, put it differently, can you imagine a reason anyone could vote for Trump that didn't involve them being evil, stupid, racist or misinformed? In other words, could you imagine any reason a decent, well-meaning, informed, generally okay person might vote for Trump? If you could, what would it be? (All in the context that half of the voting population of the United States voted for him.)

For avoidance of doubt, "no" is a perfectly acceptable though depressing answer.


TigerTiger wrote:


Okay, put it differently, can you imagine a reason anyone could vote for Trump that didn't involve them being evil, stupid, racist or misinformed? In other words, could you imagine any reason a decent, well-meaning, informed, generally okay person might vote for Trump? If you could, what would it be? (All in the context that half of the voting population of the United States voted for him.)

For avoidance of doubt, "no" is a perfectly acceptable though depressing answer.

I cannot.

And neither can anyone I've talked to.

401 to 450 of 472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / To the Republic All Messageboards