Maybe Trump will not be such a terrible president. - Page 9

Degeneve · 14th November 2016, 07:41 AM

Allan Lichtman, who had predicted Trump's win, has now the "gut feeling" that Trump will end up impeached : https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-be-impeached/

I really wonder this could really happen although getting him convicted in the Trump university case could create a opportunity for impeachment.

Emily's Cat · 14th November 2016, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

Now, that's an interesting way to choose leadership. I used to wonder why it seemed so gosh darn easy for professionals to get large numbers of people to act against their own self interest, but things are getting clearer now.

It's kind of the standard in US politics, or more specifically, in a FPTP system. That's what strategic voting is about.

I don't like OptionA. I think OptionA is a stupid-head with childish ideas. But his ideas are so childish that I doubt he'll be able to make any headway.

I don't like OptionB. OptionB doesn't represent my interests, and may be a real threat to some of my interests. OptionB knows how to get things done, knows how to play the game.

OptionA is an idiot that I don't like, but I believe OptionB represents a more realistic threat to my interests. Therefore I will vote against OptionB.

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

That's a strange thing to say. For a lot of homophobes, it's simply that they have no clue what gay people are. They think they're choosing perversion of god's natural order and that they will corrupt others into doing so as well.

That and they are afraid that gay man will treat them like they treat women.

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Where is your data showing that all the people who said they'd leave the country if Trump was elected are actually in the process of leaving, or even genuinely intend to?

What does one persons statement have to do with the basis of a political campaign? When his own supporters do not take his policies seriously why should I take his supporters seriously?

At least his cabinet will address real problems like the white genocide in america. His goal really was to make america white again.

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

There's a pretty significant difference between telling someone that they are incorrect and wrong... and tossing the additional "ignorant people who want to watch the world burn" and "no better than" and all the other unnecessary derision that has been heaped on top of that lack of education.

There's a world of difference between telling someone that they are wrong and uninformed and mocking them as being too stupid to merit respect.

FWIW - your individual comments have been rather mild. But would you characterize NoahFence, fuelair, and ponderingturtle as simple "pointing out that they don't know things"?

At least they need to start admitting that racism doesn't bother them, it is not viewed as a serious negative in a person.

Emily's Cat · 14th November 2016, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Since Hillary did not in fact actively treat people as if they didn't matter, anyone with that perception is either ignorant, stupid, or bigoted. And the fact that they would protest by voting for 'an idiot who is a complete tardstick' is the proof.

Oh?

Originally Posted by Hillary Clinton

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?

The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

Minoosh · 14th November 2016, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Stacko

He's been President-elect for five days and they're already threatening to sue critics.

Yeah, well he can go piss up a rope.

ETA: I'm pathetic. Responding to a post I've already responded to.

Emily's Cat · 14th November 2016, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

At the very least, Clinton had a reasonable resume of experience in high-end politics. Sure, not all of it was pretty or everyone's cup of tea. But at least she wasn't going to **** it up too badly.

That's actually one of the reasons I dislike her. She is a career politician. Furthermore, she is a career politician who stayed in a sham of a marriage and supported her cheating pig of a spouse because it furthered her political ambition to do so.

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I didn't vote for Trump. I think he's an asshat. But I also didn't vote for Clinton. I think she's even less trustworthy - at least I know exactly what kind of underhanded snake Trump is, he's an obvious and transparent snake. Clinton on the other hand, is the woman who stuck with her philandering, unfaithful, pig of a husband not out of love but out of political aspiration - not because she has any care for the people of this country, but because she is desperately hungry for power - exactly the kind of person I DON'T want running the country. I voted third party, because I sincerely and deeply dislike both of the candidates put forth by the completely retarded political fractions in this country.

Edited by jsfisher:

<snip> Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

luchog · 14th November 2016, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Oh?

How was she wrong?

Spindrift · 14th November 2016, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That's actually one of the reasons I dislike her. She is a career politician. Furthermore, she is a career politician who stayed in a sham of a marriage and supported her cheating pig of a spouse because it furthered her political ambition to do so.

You really hate Eleanor Roosevelt, don't you?

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I think you're wrong. I think that the overwhelming majority of people who voted for Trump are NOT sexist racist bigots.

They are just people who are not bothered by sexist bigots and don't care what those sexist bigots do to people who look different than them. Not really a terribly better position.

Kind of like how america was right to turn away the jews fleeing hitler because lots of them were communists. It shouldn't feel bad about how many of them ended up in the gas chamber because of it, that was not their problem. Only more so because this is actual supporting the person pledging to do it not just passively standing on the side lines like voting for a third party candidate.

Emily's Cat · 14th November 2016, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by phiwum

I think she's right, though. A number of people have bought the idea of Clinton as a cartoon supervillain and view anyone else, even Trump, as better.

I know a number of conservative Christians who claim that God chose Trump, and will turn him into something better, just like Saul's conversion.

It's bloody frustrating that people vote like that, but I think Emily's Cat is right on this point. Where we differ, I think, is that I don't believe such choices ought to be defended. They are the stuff of ignorance, pure and simple, a deluded portion of the populace who seem overly willing to embrace whatever nonsense supports their preconceptions.

That said, many folks are saying that the Democrats have failed to take seriously (or at least convey their interest in) the concerns of large portions of the working class. I don't think that's obviously false.

The message that you (and many other democrats in this thread) are sending is that if people disagree with you, they're dumb, ignorant, deserving of scorn, and should be ignored.

That's a very short-sighted, exclusionary, and full-of-fail song to be singing.

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

So because their feelings got hurt, they voted for a guy who demonstrated all of these values they supposedly don't agree with and has proposed no substantive policy changes of any note.

Yet we keep hearing that it is liberals and millenials who can't stand dealing with the "real world" or tale a dose of tough criticism.

Sure.

Well yes, she really really thinks that they are dumb after all and far too dumb to be informed of anything. But thinking middle america should be able to listen to the person they are voting for for 5 minutes or pay any attention to the campaign and then be held at all accountable for their actions in voting for him is wrong. This just goes to show how much they hate personal accountability.

Emily's Cat · 14th November 2016, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Yes, but Trump is not Obama. Obama is an honorable and intelligent man, Trump is something one scrapes off one's shoe in disgust. As are his followers.

I see, so because you personally dislike one of them, it's acceptable for you to actively wish assassination on them? Interesting value system.

luchog · 14th November 2016, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

The message that you (and many other democrats in this thread) are sending is that if people disagree with you, they're dumb, ignorant, deserving of scorn, and should be ignored.

No, what you are patently ignoring is that we are saying that the racist, sexist, GLBTQ-phobes who elected Trump are deserving of scorn.

You still seem to be mired in the misconception that Trump was elected by the disaffected working class. That's flat wrong.

Spindrift · 14th November 2016, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

The message that you (and many other democrats in this thread) are sending is that if people disagree with you, they're dumb, ignorant, deserving of scorn, and should be ignored.

That's a very short-sighted, exclusionary, and full-of-fail song to be singing.

That's not what he said. It's not the act of disagreeing. It's when the disagreement is based on ignorance and the ignorant refuse to be educated. When people think reality is a matter of opinion then yes their opinion should be ignored.

Belz... · 14th November 2016, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That's actually one of the reasons I dislike her. She is a career politician.

Yeah, that's the same reason why I dislike neurosurgeons and physicists. How DARE they know more about their field than I do?

Quote:

Furthermore, she is a career politician who stayed in a sham of a marriage and supported her cheating pig of a spouse because it furthered her political ambition to do so.

How do you know that? How do you know why she stayed with him? For all you know they managed to put it behind them and move on.

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

If you cozy up to the banks and tell your Wall Street friends that you have a "public persona and a private persona" then how shocked can you really be that they see no chance of their hell ending by supporting you?

And then you get to appoint investment bankers to your staff. Along with out and out racists because that is what middle america loves.

Emily's Cat · 14th November 2016, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Edited by jsfisher:

Moderated content redacted.

Edited by jsfisher:

Response to moderated content partially redacted.

That's twice now that you've felt justified impugning me solely because you've assumed that a lack of a vote for your guy gives you that right. This is in direct opposition to my actual opinions, and to the viewpoints I have consistently expressed on this board.

I will ask you to politely redirect your ire and to interact with me based on my own opinions and my own behavior. Stop presuming that you can treat me with disrespect, derision, and hatred just because I didn't like your political candidate.

Segnosaur · 14th November 2016, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That's actually one of the reasons I dislike her. She is a career politician.

I've always found that one of the more bizarre arguments against Clinton.

Yes, the rhetoric of "get rid of insiders" may sound enticing. But being president is not an easy job... It can be valuable to know who various people are (both domestic politicians you might need to work with and foreign leaders you will have to deal with), the procedures needed to actually get things done, etc. Some of us would rather not have a leader who's doing on-the-job training while trying to run the most powerful country in the world.

Give me a "career politician" with policies I can mostly support (well, not that I expect to agree with anyone 100%), with the knowledge to get those policies implemented, and the experience not to mess things up. Much better than a neophyte who may or may not have decent policies, but won't know the best way to get those policies implemented.

Quote:

Furthermore, she is a career politician who stayed in a sham of a marriage and supported her cheating pig of a spouse because it furthered her political ambition to do so.

Question... how do you know why she stayed with Clinton? Are you a mind reader?

Perhaps she stayed with Clinton because she is actually a christian and actually believes the parts of the bible that preach forgiveness. Or maybe the 2 of them had a private agreement between themselves that allowed them to pursue other relationships.

Your assumption that staying with Bill was due to "political ambition" is nothing more than your assumption based on pre-concieved notions.

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Stacko

He's been President-elect for five days and they're already threatening to sue critics.

Of course, that was one campaign promise I was sure he would keep.

Belz... · 14th November 2016, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Do you not understand that this attitude from you is exactly why democrats lost this election?

It'd be really nice if you stopped repeating this and demonstrated it instead.

Emily's Cat · 14th November 2016, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by luchog

How was she wrong?

Do you believe that 1/4 of the population is "deplorable" and "irredeemable"? Do you believe that it is in any way acceptable to treat people in that fashion regardless of what you might believe of them?

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

The libel bar is pretty high. Someone has to know they are spreading lies, and doing so maliciously and with reckless disregard for the truth.

Reid just agreed with what Donald called a fair claim, coming from Howard Stern.

Trump's not going to sue Reid.

That is why he wants to lower the bar on libel suits. Haven't you paid any attention to trumps official policies?

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

I wonder if the Vulcan Proverb of "Only Nixon could go to China" would play out in his administration.

Of course a socialist like him would go to china. No real conservative ever would.

Belz... · 14th November 2016, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I've always found that one of the more bizarre arguments against Clinton.

But understandable. People almost instinctively distrust politicians. But that's where facts must trump feelings. It's just that most people don't make it happen, and go with guts, instead.

Emily's Cat · 14th November 2016, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by luchog

No, what you are patently ignoring is that we are saying that the racist, sexist, GLBTQ-phobes who elected Trump are deserving of scorn.

Well, good luck then. I'm sure that this approach of insinuating that the majority of people who voted for the other guy are all worthless individuals. I'm sure that will play out well over the next 4 years, and you'll surely win the election next time! Because really, nobody minds being treated with condescension and derision. And if they do mind, well screw-em, they must deserve the epithets you're tossing at them, right?

Originally Posted by luchog

You still seem to be mired in the misconception that Trump was elected by the disaffected working class. That's flat wrong.

I don't think he owes his election to blue-collar working folks. I think he owes his election to a large swath of americans who are fed up with the government and who dislike Clinton.

I do, however, maintain that he does NOT owe his election to all the millions of bigots that democrats have assumed exist out there.

ETA: It would probably be worthwhile to find support for your viewpoint that is representative of the vote, not of the polls from more than 6 months ago. I would suspect that the profile of voters has changed (or at least become more accurate) in the intervening half a year.

Belz... · 14th November 2016, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Do you believe that 1/4 of the population is "deplorable" and "irredeemable"? Do you believe that it is in any way acceptable to treat people in that fashion regardless of what you might believe of them?

Depends how fast you can cycle them through the gas chambers.

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

Meanwhile the Prime Minister of Israel congratulates Trump on his election victory.

Trump is good at brining the Israeli's and the Nazi's together so there is that.

Segnosaur · 14th November 2016, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Do you not understand that this attitude from you is exactly why democrats lost this election?

Whether that attitude was the reason the Democrats lost is irrelevant. Its possible to say something unpopular that's still true.

Quote:

You have decided that because I didn't vote of your preferred candidate, I am a bigot who doesn't care about gay people?

You yourself may not be a bigot, but Trump certainly engaged in bigoted rhetoric

Edited by jsfisher:

<snip> Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.

NoahFence · 14th November 2016, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Furthermore, she is a career politician who stayed in a sham of a marriage and supported her cheating pig of a spouse because it furthered her political ambition to do so.

Wrong.

can we get an animated .gif for that?

Emily's Cat · 14th November 2016, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Spindrift

That's not what he said. It's not the act of disagreeing. It's when the disagreement is based on ignorance and the ignorant refuse to be educated. When people think reality is a matter of opinion then yes their opinion should be ignored.

And he is assuming that the fact of someone having voted for Trump is evidence of them being ignorant and refusing to be educated. Therefore, anyone who voted for Trump serves to be ignored.

The only opinions that are valid are opinions that agree with him.

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Wow. No. The offensive assumptions in here are part of the problem.

What assumptions? That is the direct message you are sending out. You don't want to be seen as racist, but standing up to racists is too much like work so you just sit it out.

Quote:

Do you not understand that this attitude from you is exactly why democrats lost this election? You have decided that because I didn't vote of your preferred candidate, I am a bigot who doesn't care about gay people? You've decided that because I didn't do what you wanted me to do, I'm sanguine about the potential risk to others? That's ridiculous and extraordinarily insulting.

You may or may not be a biggot but you don't care about gay people and what happens to them. Look at the VP, he wanted to close down HIV programs so that he could make gay people straight. This does not bother you either apparently.

Quote:

That's twice now that you've felt justified impugning me solely because you've assumed that a lack of a vote for your guy gives you that right. This is in direct opposition to my actual opinions, and to the viewpoints I have consistently expressed on this board.

Actions speak louder than words. When push came to shove you showed that gay people really don't matter to you.

Congratulations we got the homophobic white nationalist leadership who is in no way worse according to you than Clinton. Just shows how much you think cheating on your spouse makes the woman who does not divorce the man much worse than the man who cheated on his spouse. And writes letters about trying to hook up with a married woman in a condolence letter about the death of their child. That is the kind of charming witticisms that americans expect.

Belz... · 14th November 2016, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Wrong.

can we get an animated .gif for that?

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xL...VFtu/giphy.gif

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Do you believe that 1/4 of the population is "deplorable" and "irredeemable"? Do you believe that it is in any way acceptable to treat people in that fashion regardless of what you might believe of them?

What is the skin tone of that percentage, that seems to make a big difference to you. Or is it just that she used fancy words, and when trump said that about his opponents he did not do it so eloquently?

ponderingturtle · 14th November 2016, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

And he is assuming that the fact of someone having voted for Trump is evidence of them being ignorant and refusing to be educated. Therefore, anyone who voted for Trump serves to be ignored.

The only opinions that are valid are opinions that agree with him.

Which is it, are they uneducated and missed the bigotry of his campaign, or do they just not view that bigotry as a big deal because it does not effect them personally?

Either they didn't know about trumps bigotry or did not view it as a deal breaker. Pick which one it is, being uneducated or tacit endorsement of bigotry those are really your only options.

Ethan Thane Athen · 14th November 2016, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Do you believe that 1/4 of the population is "deplorable" and "irredeemable"? Do you believe that it is in any way acceptable to treat people in that fashion regardless of what you might believe of them?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if 1/4 of the population was deplorable (I wouldn't go with irredeemable). Wouldn't be surprised if it was the same in Britain.

How else do you describe people supporting Trump despite the things he said and did? I can go with half of them being misguided or thinking his rhetoric was empty and he'd 'at least not be Clinton*', but anyone who actively went along with 'we'll ban people from entering the country based solely on their religious affiliation' etc etc is deplorable. How else would you categorise that? Or are you going to claim all those people supported him but didn't actually agree with anything he said?

*Personally I like her and she is hugely respected internationally - you know, by the people she actually interacts with as part of her job.

sts60 · 14th November 2016, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That's actually one of the reasons I dislike her. She is a career politician.

Yeah. That's why you don't go to a career doctor for your health, or a career mechanic for your car's.

And why you're clearly upset with career politicians like Mike Pence and Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and...

Seriously, this is a stupid argument. She's been a two-term U.S. Senator and Secretary of State. That's called "experience". Trump has no experience in national service and has repeatedly demonstrated he does not understand how the Federal government operates. But that's OK; after all, he didn't know anything about airlines and look how successful he was with Trump Shuttle.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Furthermore, she is a career politician who stayed in a sham of a marriage and supported her cheating pig of a spouse because it furthered her political ambition to do so.

And now you're the judge of what people do in their marriages, and an expert on exactly what went on between the Clintons.

Personally, I'm more offended by people who go through spouses like Kleenex, like Groper-Elect Trump and senior advisers like Giuliani and Gingrich.

But you go right ahead and feel virtuous because you voted against the experienced, monogamous candidate.

luchog · 14th November 2016, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Do you not understand that this attitude from you is exactly why democrats lost this election?

No it's not, you're still wrong.

14th November 2016, 07:41 AM	#321
Degeneve Muse Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 886	Allan Lichtman, who had predicted Trump's win, has now the "gut feeling" that Trump will end up impeached : https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-be-impeached/ I really wonder this could really happen although getting him convicted in the Trump university case could create a opportunity for impeachment.
Degeneve Muse Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 886

14th November 2016, 10:25 AM	#322
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 13,760	Originally Posted by trustbutverify Now, that's an interesting way to choose leadership. I used to wonder why it seemed so gosh darn easy for professionals to get large numbers of people to act against their own self interest, but things are getting clearer now. It's kind of the standard in US politics, or more specifically, in a FPTP system. That's what strategic voting is about. I don't like OptionA. I think OptionA is a stupid-head with childish ideas. But his ideas are so childish that I doubt he'll be able to make any headway. I don't like OptionB. OptionB doesn't represent my interests, and may be a real threat to some of my interests. OptionB knows how to get things done, knows how to play the game. OptionA is an idiot that I don't like, but I believe OptionB represents a more realistic threat to my interests. Therefore I will vote against OptionB.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

14th November 2016, 10:29 AM	#323
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,155	Originally Posted by Argumemnon That's a strange thing to say. For a lot of homophobes, it's simply that they have no clue what gay people are. They think they're choosing perversion of god's natural order and that they will corrupt others into doing so as well. That and they are afraid that gay man will treat them like they treat women.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th November 2016, 10:35 AM	#324
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,155	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Where is your data showing that all the people who said they'd leave the country if Trump was elected are actually in the process of leaving, or even genuinely intend to? What does one persons statement have to do with the basis of a political campaign? When his own supporters do not take his policies seriously why should I take his supporters seriously? At least his cabinet will address real problems like the white genocide in america. His goal really was to make america white again.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th November 2016, 10:36 AM	#325
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,155	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat There's a pretty significant difference between telling someone that they are incorrect and wrong... and tossing the additional "ignorant people who want to watch the world burn" and "no better than" and all the other unnecessary derision that has been heaped on top of that lack of education. There's a world of difference between telling someone that they are wrong and uninformed and mocking them as being too stupid to merit respect. FWIW - your individual comments have been rather mild. But would you characterize NoahFence, fuelair, and ponderingturtle as simple "pointing out that they don't know things"? At least they need to start admitting that racism doesn't bother them, it is not viewed as a serious negative in a person.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th November 2016, 10:38 AM	#326
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 13,760	Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets Since Hillary did not in fact actively treat people as if they didn't matter, anyone with that perception is either ignorant, stupid, or bigoted. And the fact that they would protest by voting for 'an idiot who is a complete tardstick' is the proof. Oh? Originally Posted by Hillary Clinton You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

14th November 2016, 10:39 AM	#327
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,120	Originally Posted by Stacko He's been President-elect for five days and they're already threatening to sue critics. Yeah, well he can go piss up a rope. ETA: I'm pathetic. Responding to a post I've already responded to.
	Last edited by Minoosh; 14th November 2016 at 10:42 AM.

14th November 2016, 10:43 AM	#328
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 13,760	Originally Posted by Norman Alexander At the very least, Clinton had a reasonable resume of experience in high-end politics. Sure, not all of it was pretty or everyone's cup of tea. But at least she wasn't going to **** it up too badly. That's actually one of the reasons I dislike her. She is a career politician. Furthermore, she is a career politician who stayed in a sham of a marriage and supported her cheating pig of a spouse because it furthered her political ambition to do so.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

14th November 2016, 10:45 AM	#330
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Oh? How was she wrong?
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

14th November 2016, 10:47 AM	#331
Spindrift Time Person of the Year, 2006 Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 19,246	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat That's actually one of the reasons I dislike her. She is a career politician. Furthermore, she is a career politician who stayed in a sham of a marriage and supported her cheating pig of a spouse because it furthered her political ambition to do so. You really hate Eleanor Roosevelt, don't you?
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black. Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon

14th November 2016, 10:49 AM	#332
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,155	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat I think you're wrong. I think that the overwhelming majority of people who voted for Trump are NOT sexist racist bigots. They are just people who are not bothered by sexist bigots and don't care what those sexist bigots do to people who look different than them. Not really a terribly better position. Kind of like how america was right to turn away the jews fleeing hitler because lots of them were communists. It shouldn't feel bad about how many of them ended up in the gas chamber because of it, that was not their problem. Only more so because this is actual supporting the person pledging to do it not just passively standing on the side lines like voting for a third party candidate.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th November 2016, 10:50 AM	#333
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 13,760	Originally Posted by phiwum I think she's right, though. A number of people have bought the idea of Clinton as a cartoon supervillain and view anyone else, even Trump, as better. I know a number of conservative Christians who claim that God chose Trump, and will turn him into something better, just like Saul's conversion. It's bloody frustrating that people vote like that, but I think Emily's Cat is right on this point. Where we differ, I think, is that I don't believe such choices ought to be defended. They are the stuff of ignorance, pure and simple, a deluded portion of the populace who seem overly willing to embrace whatever nonsense supports their preconceptions. That said, many folks are saying that the Democrats have failed to take seriously (or at least convey their interest in) the concerns of large portions of the working class. I don't think that's obviously false. The message that you (and many other democrats in this thread) are sending is that if people disagree with you, they're dumb, ignorant, deserving of scorn, and should be ignored. That's a very short-sighted, exclusionary, and full-of-fail song to be singing.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

14th November 2016, 10:52 AM	#334
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,155	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle So because their feelings got hurt, they voted for a guy who demonstrated all of these values they supposedly don't agree with and has proposed no substantive policy changes of any note. Yet we keep hearing that it is liberals and millenials who can't stand dealing with the "real world" or tale a dose of tough criticism. Sure. Well yes, she really really thinks that they are dumb after all and far too dumb to be informed of anything. But thinking middle america should be able to listen to the person they are voting for for 5 minutes or pay any attention to the campaign and then be held at all accountable for their actions in voting for him is wrong. This just goes to show how much they hate personal accountability.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th November 2016, 10:54 AM	#335
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 13,760	Originally Posted by fuelair Yes, but Trump is not Obama. Obama is an honorable and intelligent man, Trump is something one scrapes off one's shoe in disgust. As are his followers. I see, so because you personally dislike one of them, it's acceptable for you to actively wish assassination on them? Interesting value system.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

14th November 2016, 10:54 AM	#336
luchog Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Emerald City Posts: 16,201	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat The message that you (and many other democrats in this thread) are sending is that if people disagree with you, they're dumb, ignorant, deserving of scorn, and should be ignored. No, what you are patently ignoring is that we are saying that the racist, sexist, GLBTQ-phobes who elected Trump are deserving of scorn. You still seem to be mired in the misconception that Trump was elected by the disaffected working class. That's flat wrong.
	__________________ When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won. Last edited by luchog; 14th November 2016 at 10:57 AM.

14th November 2016, 10:56 AM	#337
Spindrift Time Person of the Year, 2006 Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 19,246	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat The message that you (and many other democrats in this thread) are sending is that if people disagree with you, they're dumb, ignorant, deserving of scorn, and should be ignored. That's a very short-sighted, exclusionary, and full-of-fail song to be singing. That's not what he said. It's not the act of disagreeing. It's when the disagreement is based on ignorance and the ignorant refuse to be educated. When people think reality is a matter of opinion then yes their opinion should be ignored.
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black. Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon

14th November 2016, 10:58 AM	#338
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat That's actually one of the reasons I dislike her. She is a career politician. Yeah, that's the same reason why I dislike neurosurgeons and physicists. How DARE they know more about their field than I do? Quote: Furthermore, she is a career politician who stayed in a sham of a marriage and supported her cheating pig of a spouse because it furthered her political ambition to do so. How do you know that? How do you know why she stayed with him? For all you know they managed to put it behind them and move on.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

14th November 2016, 10:59 AM	#339
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,155	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle If you cozy up to the banks and tell your Wall Street friends that you have a "public persona and a private persona" then how shocked can you really be that they see no chance of their hell ending by supporting you? And then you get to appoint investment bankers to your staff. Along with out and out racists because that is what middle america loves.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th November 2016, 11:02 AM	#341
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 16,868	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat That's actually one of the reasons I dislike her. She is a career politician. I've always found that one of the more bizarre arguments against Clinton. Yes, the rhetoric of "get rid of insiders" may sound enticing. But being president is not an easy job... It can be valuable to know who various people are (both domestic politicians you might need to work with and foreign leaders you will have to deal with), the procedures needed to actually get things done, etc. Some of us would rather not have a leader who's doing on-the-job training while trying to run the most powerful country in the world. Give me a "career politician" with policies I can mostly support (well, not that I expect to agree with anyone 100%), with the knowledge to get those policies implemented, and the experience not to mess things up. Much better than a neophyte who may or may not have decent policies, but won't know the best way to get those policies implemented. Quote: Furthermore, she is a career politician who stayed in a sham of a marriage and supported her cheating pig of a spouse because it furthered her political ambition to do so. Question... how do you know why she stayed with Clinton? Are you a mind reader? Perhaps she stayed with Clinton because she is actually a christian and actually believes the parts of the bible that preach forgiveness. Or maybe the 2 of them had a private agreement between themselves that allowed them to pursue other relationships. Your assumption that staying with Bill was due to "political ambition" is nothing more than your assumption based on pre-concieved notions.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

14th November 2016, 11:02 AM	#342
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,155	Originally Posted by Stacko He's been President-elect for five days and they're already threatening to sue critics. Of course, that was one campaign promise I was sure he would keep.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th November 2016, 11:03 AM	#343
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Do you not understand that this attitude from you is exactly why democrats lost this election? It'd be really nice if you stopped repeating this and demonstrated it instead.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

14th November 2016, 11:03 AM	#344
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 13,760	Originally Posted by luchog How was she wrong? Do you believe that 1/4 of the population is "deplorable" and "irredeemable"? Do you believe that it is in any way acceptable to treat people in that fashion regardless of what you might believe of them?
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

14th November 2016, 11:03 AM	#345
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,155	Originally Posted by Minoosh The libel bar is pretty high. Someone has to know they are spreading lies, and doing so maliciously and with reckless disregard for the truth. Reid just agreed with what Donald called a fair claim, coming from Howard Stern. Trump's not going to sue Reid. That is why he wants to lower the bar on libel suits. Haven't you paid any attention to trumps official policies?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th November 2016, 11:05 AM	#346
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,155	Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman I wonder if the Vulcan Proverb of "Only Nixon could go to China" would play out in his administration. Of course a socialist like him would go to china. No real conservative ever would.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th November 2016, 11:06 AM	#347
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by Segnosaur I've always found that one of the more bizarre arguments against Clinton. But understandable. People almost instinctively distrust politicians. But that's where facts must trump feelings. It's just that most people don't make it happen, and go with guts, instead.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

14th November 2016, 11:07 AM	#348
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 13,760	Originally Posted by luchog No, what you are patently ignoring is that we are saying that the racist, sexist, GLBTQ-phobes who elected Trump are deserving of scorn. Well, good luck then. I'm sure that this approach of insinuating that the majority of people who voted for the other guy are all worthless individuals. I'm sure that will play out well over the next 4 years, and you'll surely win the election next time! Because really, nobody minds being treated with condescension and derision. And if they do mind, well screw-em, they must deserve the epithets you're tossing at them, right? Originally Posted by luchog You still seem to be mired in the misconception that Trump was elected by the disaffected working class. That's flat wrong. I don't think he owes his election to blue-collar working folks. I think he owes his election to a large swath of americans who are fed up with the government and who dislike Clinton. I do, however, maintain that he does NOT owe his election to all the millions of bigots that democrats have assumed exist out there. ETA: It would probably be worthwhile to find support for your viewpoint that is representative of the vote, not of the polls from more than 6 months ago. I would suspect that the profile of voters has changed (or at least become more accurate) in the intervening half a year.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me. Last edited by Emily's Cat; 14th November 2016 at 11:11 AM.

14th November 2016, 11:07 AM	#349
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Do you believe that 1/4 of the population is "deplorable" and "irredeemable"? Do you believe that it is in any way acceptable to treat people in that fashion regardless of what you might believe of them? Depends how fast you can cycle them through the gas chambers.
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

14th November 2016, 11:07 AM	#350
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,155	Originally Posted by ServiceSoon Meanwhile the Prime Minister of Israel congratulates Trump on his election victory. Trump is good at brining the Israeli's and the Nazi's together so there is that.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th November 2016, 11:09 AM	#352
NoahFence Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 22,131	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Furthermore, she is a career politician who stayed in a sham of a marriage and supported her cheating pig of a spouse because it furthered her political ambition to do so. Wrong. can we get an animated .gif for that?

14th November 2016, 11:12 AM	#353
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 13,760	Originally Posted by Spindrift That's not what he said. It's not the act of disagreeing. It's when the disagreement is based on ignorance and the ignorant refuse to be educated. When people think reality is a matter of opinion then yes their opinion should be ignored. And he is assuming that the fact of someone having voted for Trump is evidence of them being ignorant and refusing to be educated. Therefore, anyone who voted for Trump serves to be ignored. The only opinions that are valid are opinions that agree with him.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

14th November 2016, 11:16 AM	#354
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,155	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Wow. No. The offensive assumptions in here are part of the problem. What assumptions? That is the direct message you are sending out. You don't want to be seen as racist, but standing up to racists is too much like work so you just sit it out. Quote: Do you not understand that this attitude from you is exactly why democrats lost this election? You have decided that because I didn't vote of your preferred candidate, I am a bigot who doesn't care about gay people? You've decided that because I didn't do what you wanted me to do, I'm sanguine about the potential risk to others? That's ridiculous and extraordinarily insulting. You may or may not be a biggot but you don't care about gay people and what happens to them. Look at the VP, he wanted to close down HIV programs so that he could make gay people straight. This does not bother you either apparently. Quote: That's twice now that you've felt justified impugning me solely because you've assumed that a lack of a vote for your guy gives you that right. This is in direct opposition to my actual opinions, and to the viewpoints I have consistently expressed on this board. Actions speak louder than words. When push came to shove you showed that gay people really don't matter to you. Congratulations we got the homophobic white nationalist leadership who is in no way worse according to you than Clinton. Just shows how much you think cheating on your spouse makes the woman who does not divorce the man much worse than the man who cheated on his spouse. And writes letters about trying to hook up with a married woman in a condolence letter about the death of their child. That is the kind of charming witticisms that americans expect.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th November 2016, 11:16 AM	#355
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by NoahFence Wrong. can we get an animated .gif for that? https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xL...VFtu/giphy.gif
	__________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward

14th November 2016, 11:18 AM	#356
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,155	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Do you believe that 1/4 of the population is "deplorable" and "irredeemable"? Do you believe that it is in any way acceptable to treat people in that fashion regardless of what you might believe of them? What is the skin tone of that percentage, that seems to make a big difference to you. Or is it just that she used fancy words, and when trump said that about his opponents he did not do it so eloquently?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th November 2016, 11:21 AM	#357
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,155	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat And he is assuming that the fact of someone having voted for Trump is evidence of them being ignorant and refusing to be educated. Therefore, anyone who voted for Trump serves to be ignored. The only opinions that are valid are opinions that agree with him. Which is it, are they uneducated and missed the bigotry of his campaign, or do they just not view that bigotry as a big deal because it does not effect them personally? Either they didn't know about trumps bigotry or did not view it as a deal breaker. Pick which one it is, being uneducated or tacit endorsement of bigotry those are really your only options.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

14th November 2016, 11:21 AM	#358
Ethan Thane Athen Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,166	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Do you believe that 1/4 of the population is "deplorable" and "irredeemable"? Do you believe that it is in any way acceptable to treat people in that fashion regardless of what you might believe of them? I wouldn't be at all surprised if 1/4 of the population was deplorable (I wouldn't go with irredeemable). Wouldn't be surprised if it was the same in Britain. How else do you describe people supporting Trump despite the things he said and did? I can go with half of them being misguided or thinking his rhetoric was empty and he'd 'at least not be Clinton', but anyone who actively went along with 'we'll ban people from entering the country based solely on their religious affiliation' etc etc is deplorable. How else would you categorise that? Or are you going to claim all those people supported him but didn't actually agree with anything he said? Personally I like her and she is hugely respected internationally - you know, by the people she actually interacts with as part of her job.