https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST6kj9OEYf0
I think Stephen Fry had the best opening and Dr. Jordan B Peterson the best, fiery, rebuttals.
Michael Dyson stinks to high heaven of a solipsist reasoning and race-baiter. All his points could be reduced to a lowest common denominator of collectivism and constant playing of identity politics *coughracecough*. Definitely a radical leftist by any stretch of the word.
Goldberg was rather tame and only offered standard talking points. Didn't really stand out, IMO.
I've rarely seen anyone complaining about political correctness who wasn't angry because they couldn't insult as many people as they'd like.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 22, 2018, 09:58:37 AM
I've rarely seen anyone complaining about political correctness who wasn't angry because they couldn't insult as many people as they'd like.
I care. Or don't where are you from that this matters///
Eh?
I appreciate the *idea* of 'political correctness' -- to avoid hurtful speech and actions -- but Jesus H fucking Christ on a popsicle stick, I loathe its implementation with every fiber of my being. PC lost its way when it mistook words for context.
It's perfectly okay for me to refer to myself as a 'dumb Polack' when I do something stupid, because I know the sense in which I mean that.
I had a roommate who said that I was merely homosexual and not actually gay because to be gay required a certain amount of "fabulousness". When he saw the detail I put into wrapping holiday presents, he declared that I had vaulted past 'gay' and right into the middle of 'art fag'. Because of context, I knew the sense in which it was meant and I laughed my ass off.
But there is a certain flavor of PC that says the words 'Polack' and 'fag' and probably even 'dumb' are inherently bad words, without pausing a microsecond to consider usage.
And they are wrong.
It's reached the point where you use the perfectly acceptable word "niggardly" at your own peril (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_"niggardly") just because it sounds like a racial epithet. It isn't oneâ€"the words are etymologically unrelatedâ€"but apparently guilt by association is a thing.
I say fuck that, and fuck them. To quote the movie Inherit the Wind, "Language is a poor enough means of communication. I think we should all the words we've got. Besides, there are damn few words that anybody understands."
Quote from: trdsf on May 23, 2018, 07:55:59 PM
I had a roommate who said that I was merely homosexual and not actually gay because to be gay required a certain amount of "fabulousness". When he saw the detail I put into wrapping holiday presents, he declared that I had vaulted past 'gay' and right into the middle of 'art fag'. Because of context, I knew the sense in which it was meant and I laughed my ass off.
But there is a certain flavor of PC that says the words 'Polack' and 'fag' and probably even 'dumb' are inherently bad words, without pausing a microsecond to consider usage.
https://youtu.be/FXvmi5Nhc4c
Quote from: trdsf on May 23, 2018, 07:55:59 PM
I appreciate the *idea* of 'political correctness' -- to avoid hurtful speech and actions -- but Jesus H fucking Christ on a popsicle stick, I loathe its implementation with every fiber of my being. PC lost its way when it mistook words for context.
My thoughts exactly.
A debate on PC speech? Makes me think of two little old ladies throwing embroidered hankies at each other ;-)
In a debate, things might get rough, because usually participants think the others are idiots.
Quote from: Baruch on May 23, 2018, 11:20:47 PM
A debate on PC speech? Makes me think of two little old ladies throwing embroidered hankies at each other ;-)
In a debate, things might get rough, because usually participants think the others are idiots.
Most of the debate wasn't about PC speech. Peterson talked about radical Leftists, Dyson talked about race in America and their acrimony toward one another was blatant. Goldberg and Fry, neither living in a university bubble, both knew what most people generally mean when they refer to political correctness and Fry pointed out they were not addressing the topic. I found the debate interesting but unproductive. My favorite moment was when Fry, in a very un-PC manner, referred to Dyson's oratory preaching style as hucksterism and snake oil-- Dyson didn't appreciate that crack one bit.
People need to take responsibility for their own feelings. My words don't make you feel anything - your perception, and subsequently your cognition, causes you to 'feel' things, including offense. Take responsibility for it and stop trying to curtail my speech, faggots.
That's my hot take on it.
Political correctness is tyranny with manners.
DoctorRandomercam has an alternative view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue_IemOtjY4
Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 03:37:53 AM
People need to take responsibility for their own feelings. My words don't make you feel anything - your perception, and subsequently your cognition, causes you to 'feel' things, including offense. Take responsibility for it and stop trying to curtail my speech, faggots.
That's my hot take on it.
I take responsibility for my own speech. I'll defend it (allowing for occasional typos - I tend to leave off "n'ts" by thinking ahead of my typing). Sad...
I read your words and consider them. That doesn't mean I agree, but I do read and consider them.
I was visiting a friend in Portland, OR when I used the term "politically correct." His response was that he didn't like the term, because it didn't mean anything, and challenged me to define it. I realized it's one of those words we all know the meaning of. It's just that the meaning changes from person to person. We all know the meaning, just not the same meaning.
Setting my definition aside, while observing others using it, I would say it is a non-descriptive pejorative, similar to a phrase like "asshole idea." It fails to explain or even understand what an the idea is, but it labels it as something negative thought up by half a brain.
To me, a politically correct idea might be good, bad, true, or false. It is simply something advanced by a majority. It could be the total majority, or a majority of a sub group. 20 years ago, it was politically correct to claim that Iraq had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. If you didn't believe this, you were considered an airhead, because the majority knew it was true, even though there was no means by which to actually know this.
Unfortunately, the term does seem rather worthless. Things are either correct or incorrect. There is no need for a vague qualifier like "politically" correct. "Politically" is a notion and vague, and devalues the meaning of "correct." It is similar to the fashionable way we use the word "fact" today. Something is either a fact or it is not. It's fools play to talk about "alternate" facts. Nothing of value is added to the concept of "fact." It actually devalues a fact. But it is politically correct to talk and think in absurd ways. It's fashionable and politically correct.
Quote from: SGOS on May 25, 2018, 06:43:10 AM
I was visiting a friend in Portland, OR when I used the term "politically correct." His response was that he didn't like the term, because it didn't mean anything, and challenged me to define it. I realized it's one of those words we all know the meaning of. It's just that the meaning changes from person to person. We all know the meaning, just not the same meaning.
Setting my definition aside, while observing others using it, I would say it is a non-descriptive pejorative, similar to a phrase like "asshole idea." It fails to explain or even understand what an the idea is, but it labels it as something negative thought up by half a brain.
To me, a politically correct idea might be good, bad, true, or false. It is simply something advanced by a majority. It could be the total majority, or a majority of a sub group. 20 years ago, it was politically correct to claim that Iraq had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. If you didn't believe this, you were considered an airhead, because the majority knew it was true, even though there was no means by which to actually know this.
Unfortunately, the term does seem rather worthless. Things are either correct or incorrect. There is no need for a vague qualifier like "politically" correct. "Politically" is a notion and vague, and devalues the meaning of "correct." It is similar to the fashionable way we use the word "fact" today. Something is either a fact or it is not. It's fools play to talk about "alternate" facts. Nothing of value is added to the concept of "fact." It actually devalues a fact. But it is politically correct to talk and think in absurd ways. It's fashionable and politically correct.
OK, that's something worth discussing. I tend to think of "political correctness " as either saying things you think because your collective friends think that way, or avoiding saying things your group may disagree with. Though I am not known for doing either...
But I will suggest it is NOT saying what a political leader says just because you think he/she wants to hear that. THAT gets into sycopanthy.
Quote from: SGOS on May 25, 2018, 06:43:10 AM
I was visiting a friend in Portland, OR when I used the term "politically correct." His response was that he didn't like the term, because it didn't mean anything, and challenged me to define it. I realized it's one of those words we all know the meaning of. It's just that the meaning changes from person to person. We all know the meaning, just not the same meaning.
Setting my definition aside, while observing others using it, I would say it is a non-descriptive pejorative, similar to a phrase like "asshole idea." It fails to explain or even understand what an the idea is, but it labels it as something negative thought up by half a brain.
To me, a politically correct idea might be good, bad, true, or false. It is simply something advanced by a majority. It could be the total majority, or a majority of a sub group. 20 years ago, it was politically correct to claim that Iraq had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. If you didn't believe this, you were considered an airhead, because the majority knew it was true, even though there was no means by which to actually know this.
Unfortunately, the term does seem rather worthless. Things are either correct or incorrect. There is no need for a vague qualifier like "politically" correct. "Politically" is a notion and vague, and devalues the meaning of "correct." It is similar to the fashionable way we use the word "fact" today. Something is either a fact or it is not. It's fools play to talk about "alternate" facts. Nothing of value is added to the concept of "fact." It actually devalues a fact. But it is politically correct to talk and think in absurd ways. It's fashionable and politically correct.
The newer term is "truthiness". Basically narrative control by the Deep State and its two headed Cerberus ... the R-D party.
Actually, do you carry around in your head, the OED definitions of all the words you use in a post? Didn't think so. What is actually happening is mindless monkey chattering by a species that doesn't even know what it is saying (how could you or I, unless we have the approved dictionary in our heads?).
Fake news isn't new ...
"[A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper."
--Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632
Quote from: Baruch on May 25, 2018, 09:10:18 AM
Fake news isn't new ...
"[A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper."
--Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632
If the Deep State is the enemy, (and R-D they swampwhy do you vote Republican (if I may such an assumptiion). If you vote for a 3rd party please say so. You need not be specific about it.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 12:26:40 PM
If the Deep State is the enemy, (and R-D they swampwhy do you vote Republican (if I may such an assumptiion). If you vote for a 3rd party please say so. You need not be specific about it.
The big two parties, are by necessity, partners (shadow boxing), and are Establishment. They maintain a status quo which is both a blessing and a curse. The Deep State is certainly involved with both, they would be remiss not to. But Bernie wasn't a Democrat, and Donald wasn't a Republican ... this scared the alphabet soup into over-reaction, which I haven't seen since the Nixon administration. The ideal Deep State candidate is someone they know from long experience and compromised integrity, the they can control as they like (for the children).
This last election cycle was personally disastrous emotionally, and is till ongoing. Well yes, this last time, I voted Gary Johnson (and glad I didn't vote Jill Stein). I will never vote D or R again ... I am done with their insanity ... I shouldn't have put up with it for 40 years now, I should have gone Libertarian when we got to meet the VP Libertarian candidate in person at college in 1976 ... but I couldn't see the wisdom of that back then. It is better for Hitler or Stalin to be elected, than for me to continue to sacrifice my integrity on worthless politicians.
No, the Deep State isn't the enemy ... Civic 101 is for babies who never drank Machiavelli's brew. Insanity is the enemy. But I like to troll that people deny that the Deep State exists ... just like they deny anything they don't like ... say G-d for example.
I would have found the debate even more interesting if once the participants came on stage Peterson and Fry were told they were taking the "pro" position and Dyson and Goldberg were told they were taking the "con." Which of these people can step out of their own narrative and make a persuasive argument?
Quote from: Baruch on May 25, 2018, 06:29:34 PM
The big two parties, are by necessity, partners (shadow boxing), and are Establishment. They maintain a status quo which is both a blessing and a curse. The Deep State is certainly involved with both, they would be remiss not to. But Bernie wasn't a Democrat, and Donald wasn't a Republican ... this scared the alphabet soup into over-reaction, which I haven't seen since the Nixon administration. The ideal Deep State candidate is someone they know from long experience and compromised integrity, the they can control as they like (for the children).
This last election cycle was personally disastrous emotionally, and is till ongoing. Well yes, this last time, I voted Gary Johnson (and glad I didn't vote Jill Stein). I will never vote D or R again ... I am done with their insanity ... I shouldn't have put up with it for 40 years now, I should have gone Libertarian when we got to meet the VP Libertarian candidate in person at college in 1976 ... but I couldn't see the wisdom of that back then. It is better for Hitler or Stalin to be elected, than for me to continue to sacrifice my integrity on worthless politicians.
No, the Deep State isn't the enemy ... Civic 101 is for babies who never drank Machiavelli's brew. Insanity is the enemy. But I like to troll that people deny that the Deep State exists ... just like they deny anything they don't like ... say G-d for example.
The Electoral College forces a 2 major party system (except when one disintegrates like the Whigs). And then a new one suddenly becomes "major". That is far less likely to happen now. There is too much organization. Minor movements merely try to take over the major Party organization.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 02:23:48 AM
The Electoral College forces a 2 major party system (except when one disintegrates like the Whigs). And then a new one suddenly becomes "major". That is far less likely to happen now. There is too much organization. Minor movements merely try to take over the major Party organization.
To take over the organization, but also to put pressure on one or both parties to yield on their voting behavior. And they have been powerful enough so that the response from both parties is to exclude them from major events, but not, God forbid, to yield on their behavior.
Quote from: SGOS on May 29, 2018, 06:57:01 AM
To take over the organization, but also to put pressure on one or both parties to yield on their voting behavior. And they have been powerful enough so that the response from both parties is to exclude them from major events, but not, God forbid, to yield on their behavior.
Well, I was mostly thinking of how minority ideologies sometimes take over a whole party. My main political science paper was comparing the McGovern takeover of the Democratic party VS the Goldwater takeover of the Republican party. Usually, the established powers of each party hold control, but sometimes they get gaslighted like with Trump in 2016.
Third parties are like bees. Once they sting, they generally die.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 08:05:07 AM
Well, I was mostly thinking of how minority ideologies sometimes take over a whole party. My main political science paper was comparing the McGovern takeover of the Democratic party VS the Goldwater takeover of the Republican party. Usually, the established powers of each party hold control, but sometimes they get gaslighted like with Trump in 2016.
I thought Trump was quite innovative in seeking the presidency. A political nobody without any experience, running on the Republican ticket. He's a better Republican than a Democrat, but he's still more like a third party, because he's not a good Republican either.
Quote from: SGOS on May 29, 2018, 08:11:09 AM
I thought Trump was quite innovative in seeking the presidency. A political nobody without any experience, running on the Republican ticket. He's a better Republican than a Democrat, but he's still more like a third party, because he's not a good Republican either.
And that is why I consider Trump the best political takeover artist of the last 100 years. He didn't even have a following of any serious group when he went down the escalator in 2016 and a lot of people of both parties just laughed him off. As I did.
I should have worried more when he subdued all the other Republican candidates, but I thought "Sure those idiots might lose to him, but that made it certain that Clinton would win. But I thought that about Bush vs Gore too. I should have remembered that "half the population is dumber than average" and so9metimes a lot of them vote.
And I do keep in mind that Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million, which would have caused a landslide electoral vote in most years. It is just that a few thousand votes in the right States would have changed things completely.
AND I will not ignore that there were voters who just could not see a woman being President. That day WILL come, just a lot of old guys have to die off first.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 02:23:48 AM
The Electoral College forces a 2 major party system (except when one disintegrates like the Whigs). And then a new one suddenly becomes "major". That is far less likely to happen now. There is too much organization. Minor movements merely try to take over the major Party organization.
Exactly what Hitler did, first to the National Socialist Party, and then to German politics.
Quote from: Baruch on May 29, 2018, 01:51:21 PM
Exactly what Hitler did, first to the National Socialist Party, and then to German politics.
When you have to bring Hitler into an argument, you've lost.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 08:05:07 AM
Well, I was mostly thinking of how minority ideologies sometimes take over a whole party. My main political science paper was comparing the McGovern takeover of the Democratic party VS the Goldwater takeover of the Republican party. Usually, the established powers of each party hold control, but sometimes they get gaslighted like with Trump in 2016.
Third parties are like bees. Once they sting, they generally die.
That doesn't happen in most other countries. The US is shit, politically speaking.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 01:55:34 PM
When you have to bring Hitler into an argument, you've lost.
Hitler won WW II. The Soviet Union won the Cold War too. Depends on what you mean by winning. If by winning, you mean killing lots of innocent people, or oppressing lots of innocent people.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 08:05:07 AM
Well, I was mostly thinking of how minority ideologies sometimes take over a whole party. My main political science paper was comparing the McGovern takeover of the Democratic party VS the Goldwater takeover of the Republican party. Usually, the established powers of each party hold control, but sometimes they get gaslighted like with Trump in 2016.
Third parties are like bees. Once they sting, they generally die.
Good observations, you weren't born yesterday. Young people don't even remember Bill Clinton as President (that is how age difference works).
McGovern should have kept going, that would have kept the Blue-dog Democrats like the Clintons, in the Republican party, where they belonged. And Bernie would have been nominated (long ago, not in 2016) and would have won. But the Powell Memo and the PNAC ...
There may be a lady President some day. Hillary is no lady.
Quote from: SGOS on May 29, 2018, 06:57:01 AM
To take over the organization, but also to put pressure on one or both parties to yield on their voting behavior. And they have been powerful enough so that the response from both parties is to exclude them from major events, but not, God forbid, to yield on their behavior.
Exactly empirically correct. Money wins elections, and Leftists have no money. If the Clintons have money, they aren't Leftist. DNC and RNC are a dual-dictatorship. But then the US is just a large organized crime syndicate.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 08:48:50 AM
And that is why I consider Trump the best political takeover artist of the last 100 years. He didn't even have a following of any serious group when he went down the escalator in 2016 and a lot of people of both parties just laughed him off. As I did.
I should have worried more when he subdued all the other Republican candidates, but I thought "Sure those idiots might lose to him, but that made it certain that Clinton would win. But I thought that about Bush vs Gore too. I should have remembered that "half the population is dumber than average" and so9metimes a lot of them vote.
And I do keep in mind that Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million, which would have caused a landslide electoral vote in most years. It is just that a few thousand votes in the right States would have changed things completely.
AND I will not ignore that there were voters who just could not see a woman being President. That day WILL come, just a lot of old guys have to die off first.
The R primary candidates in 2012 and 2016 were total losers. Rick Perry? JEB Bush? Turds smell better. That had to be deliberate. Romney and Trump were always the ultimate candidates. And in 2008, McCaine who was too old, got saddled with that red suited bimbo from Alaska. This was designed to get Obama elected (CIA candidate ... his mom and mom's dad were CIA).
Quote from: Baruch on May 29, 2018, 08:04:49 PM
That doesn't happen in most other countries. The US is shit, politically speaking.
Exactly - Spanky was "elected" to drain the swamp, and now what we've got is a cesspool.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 29, 2018, 08:13:41 PM
Exactly - Spanky was "elected" to drain the swamp, and now what we've got is a cesspool.
I didn't expect anything from Trump, and I got exactly what I expected. And no, the voters may think that a candidate may promise to do something, or they may think on their own that the candidate will do something, but you can fool all the people all the time. They are fools after all.
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 29, 2018, 08:13:41 PM
Exactly - Spanky was "elected" to drain the swamp, and now what we've got is a cesspool.
Like I told my brother: you don't clean out a swamp by throwing
more shit into it.
Quote from: trdsf on May 29, 2018, 10:22:43 PM
Like I told my brother: you don't clean out a swamp by throwing more shit into it.
Yeah, when Trump is making the swamp deeper, "draining it" loses some slight meaning. And adding more alligators isn't draining the swamp either. When everyone Trump hires just rips off the taxpayer money for outrageously expensive furniture and luxury-class travel. etc, it really does amaze me that his base cheers. Who do they think is paying for that stuff? China?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM
SJW and political corrctness retardation
Unfortunately for valuable Left values, the Left is giving a particularly sophomoric justification of their positions. Are there no full adult Leftists left?
It depends on what "political correctness" means to you. If it means paying attentio to the needs of others, for women and children, yeah, I'm pretty much there. If it means throwing people in jail for 30 years to life for minor drug use, no.
If it means 5 years for abusing a public office, good to go there. If it means 5 years for lying to protect your child in court, no.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 08, 2018, 06:45:14 AM
It depends on what "political correctness" means to you. If it means paying attentio to the needs of others, for women and children, yeah, I'm pretty much there. If it means throwing people in jail for 30 years to life for minor drug use, no.
Without a solid agreed upon definition of what PC means, I would suggest that political correctness can be a lot of ideological positions that aren't recognized as "politically correct." They are just things that a partisan sub group assume are correct.
Quote from: SGOS on June 08, 2018, 06:52:39 AM
Without a solid agreed upon definition of what PC means, I would suggest that political correctness can be a lot of ideological positions that aren't recognized as "politically correct." They are just things that a partisan sub group assume are correct.
A+
Quote from: Cavebear on June 08, 2018, 06:45:14 AM
It depends on what "political correctness" means to you. If it means paying attentio to the needs of others, for women and children, yeah, I'm pretty much there. If it means throwing people in jail for 30 years to life for minor drug use, no.
If it means 5 years for abusing a public office, good to go there. If it means 5 years for lying to protect your child in court, no.
D party good, R party bad. Fish have no idea they are swimming in their own piss.
Quote from: Baruch on June 08, 2018, 07:12:28 AM
D party good, R party bad. Fish have no idea they are swimming in their own piss.
That is why I change 20% of their water monthly and dip into the aquarium for plant water weekly.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 08, 2018, 08:19:34 AM
That is why I change 20% of their water monthly and dip into the aquarium for plant water weekly.
I imagine then you are actually a very talented sucker-fish ... at least for D politics.
Quote from: Baruch on June 08, 2018, 12:57:52 PM
I imagine then you are actually a very talented sucker-fish ... at least for D politics.
To extend the analogy further, it's unhealthy for the fish in the aquarium to change ALL the water of the tank all at once.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 08, 2018, 05:39:31 PM
To extend the analogy further, it's unhealthy for the fish in the aquarium to change ALL the water of the tank all at once.
Analogy continued ... they need the little bubble machine to keep the water oxygenated ... that is like a free press.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 08, 2018, 05:39:31 PM
To extend the analogy further, it's unhealthy for the fish in the aquarium to change ALL the water of the tank all at once.
Gradual change in a fishes life is 20% water each month. Except in small Betta 2 gallon tanks, where they really need the whole tank 100% cleaned monthly. So that is when I used saved rainwater. They LOVE that. I save the rainwater for my Venus Fly Traps, but there is always enough for the Bettas too.
More from Stephen Fry ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJQHakkViPo
So would you rather be called a Snowflake, or the product of an infantilizing culture?
Quote from: Cavebear on June 01, 2018, 02:10:14 AM
Yeah, when Trump is making the swamp deeper, "draining it" loses some slight meaning. And adding more alligators isn't draining the swamp either.
Trump isn't draining the swamp, he's turning it into a cesspool.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 19, 2018, 01:53:05 PM
Trump isn't draining the swamp, he's turning it into a cesspool.
It is turds, not turtles, all the way down. But you can always go worship Obama at Obamaville Illinois.
I don't worship anyone or anything. Nothing is worthy of worship.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 19, 2018, 07:32:45 PM
I don't worship anyone or anything. Nothing is worthy of worship.
Where were you when Obama and Hillary were locking up all those immigrant kids in 2015?
"We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border - doesn't mean your child gets to stay" -Hillary Clinton
But it is Trump's baby now, literally. Comet Pizza anyone?
Quote from: Baruch on June 19, 2018, 07:35:00 PM
Where were you when Obama and Hillary were locking up all those immigrant kids in 2015?
So, Clinton wanting to re-unite families is equivalent to Trump tearing them apart?
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 19, 2018, 07:39:02 PM
So, Clinton wanting to re-unite families is equivalent to Trump tearing them apart?
That isn't what Madam Fuhrer was saying ... ask Qaddafi. But if you are detached from reality, please enjoy some good fiction ... I do.
Trump's problem (or skill, as you prefer) is that he is good at shading differences. Crimes are misdemeanors or felonies. If there is a felony he wants to ignore, they are misdemeanors even when they aren't. When there are misdemeanors he wants to ignore, they are felonies
If one person caught at the border is a gang member, everyone is a gang member. If one immigrant is a rapist (and I agree should be deported), then all immigrants are rapists. One equals all to him.
Another thing about Trump is that he can only see winners and losers. If anyone gets anything in a deal, he would "lose" and he won't accept that, so he has to break the deal. His world is a zero-sum game. Either he wins completely or loses. And he does lose often. So he makes up stories about how he "won".
He has no experience or concept of loyalty and friendship. So when people close to him don't show absolute loyalty, they are enemies. And on the international stage, that includes our historical allies.
Trump has cultivated an person-to-person firing reputation. But the past shows he can't actually do that. He has never fired a real person face-to-face. He can't do it.
He loves dictators! Well, of course he does; he wants to be one.
Image is everything to Trump. He dictated the medical report from his Dr saying he was in great health.
Given his denial of reality (medical or otherwise), I hope he has a fatal heart attack soon.
But a heart attack is not the only way out of the Trump world. Congress could reassert some authority and The Spreme Court court make some rational decisions.
And I'm not EVEN yet getting into the sickness of the separating of Parents seeking legitimate asylum from their children who are being held in chain-link fence pens, terrified and crying for their parents...
The US isn't a good country. Isn't that apparent by now?
Quote from: Cavebear on June 19, 2018, 11:51:17 PM
He loves dictators! Well, of course he does; he wants to be one.
I think he thinks he already
is one. I suspect the main job of White House staff is talking him down from stupider shit than he already does.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 19, 2018, 11:51:17 PM
Given his denial of reality (medical or otherwise), I hope he has a fatal heart attack soon.
But a heart attack is not the only way out of the Trump world. Congress could reassert some authority and The Spreme Court court make some rational decisions.
Oh, no, not a heart attack. I don't want Ayatollah Pence in charge. An impeachment will do nicely, and hopefully Gorsuch will fuck up and he can be removed from the SCotUS where he has no business being.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 19, 2018, 11:51:17 PM
And I'm not EVEN yet getting into the sickness of the separating of Parents seeking legitimate asylum from their children who are being held in chain-link fence pens, terrified and crying for their parents...
This is the real rage inducer for me, as I work in children services. This policy is his resignation note from the human species.
Quote from: trdsf on June 21, 2018, 11:00:14 AM
I think he thinks he already is one. I suspect the main job of White House staff is talking him down from stupider shit than he already does.
Oh, no, not a heart attack. I don't want Ayatollah Pence in charge. An impeachment will do nicely, and hopefully Gorsuch will fuck up and he can be removed from the SCotUS where he has no business being.
This is the real rage inducer for me, as I work in children services. This policy is his resignation note from the human species.
I wish I could agree with your hopes. But I can't. Trump won't be impeached. Pence assures it.
The White House toadies aren't talking Trump INTO inanities. He doesn't need them for that, but their croakings assure him he is right.
Fox News is now a creature of Trump.
The political debate is all about nothing. Trump spouts one thing in the morning and the sycophants repeat it, then he reverses himself in the afternoon and the spokesidiots fall all over themselves reversing their previous explanations. Trump can't even keep a consistent lie going for a single day lately.
The real problem is that Trump is confusing all the standard rules of democracy by keeping many people confused about truth and falsehood. Giving conflicting statements every day. Accustoming people to ignore facts. Focussing their attention on minor matters...
You know how they say to never mention Nazis or fascists in a debate? Well, Trump would love to lead a fascist nation, and he is working towards it day by day and lie by lie.
Sorry, if Trump becomes the God Emperor of Dune, you aren't getting any more Spice.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 25, 2018, 08:29:46 AM
I wish I could agree with your hopes. But I can't. Trump won't be impeached. Pence assures it.
Actually, I think the establishment Republicans would vastly prefer Pence, but they've lost control of their own partyâ€"any deviation from the teabagger/Trumpist line will not be tolerated by their own extremists, and trying to hew to
that line risks losing three to five votes in the Senate, where they can't afford to lose even two.
And I really have no hopes or expectations of an impeachment. It's just a nice little daydream to while away the stray minutes with.
Quote from: trdsf on June 25, 2018, 01:14:46 PM
Actually, I think the establishment Republicans would vastly prefer Pence, but they've lost control of their own partyâ€"any deviation from the teabagger/Trumpist line will not be tolerated by their own extremists, and trying to hew to that line risks losing three to five votes in the Senate, where they can't afford to lose even two.
And I really have no hopes or expectations of an impeachment. It's just a nice little daydream to while away the stray minutes with.
And now there is the Supreme Court Nominee to keep us all distracted (as serious as it is) while Trump continues his assault on basic Democracy. He always keeps some inanity in the air to keep everyone upset with minor things and confused.
Well, he doesn't confuse ME!