Are all Trump supporters racists? - Page 6

NoahFence · 22nd November 2016, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

Whoever said it was disqualifying? What disqualifies Hillary is that she didn't win 270 electoral votes. There were many factors going into that, although I suspect the main one was that most people wanted a change.

My goodness.

Ignorant of basic facts? Didn't see that coming.

sunmaster14 · 22nd November 2016, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Most people?

I think so. Many of them didn't want the kind of change that Trump represented, and still voted for Hillary or didn't vote at all, but I think most people are kind of sick of the status quo. This was a change election. The only reason the Democrats still had a decent chance of winning was that the Republicans ended up with the wackiest nominee in modern history.

Distracted1 · 22nd November 2016, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

I think so. Many of them didn't want the kind of change that Trump represented, and still voted for Hillary or didn't vote at all, but I think most people are kind of sick of the status quo. This was a change election. The only reason the Democrats still had a decent chance of winning was that the Republicans ended up with the wackiest nominee in modern history.

The only people we can objectively say had an opinion one way or the other were the ones who actually voted, and fewer of them voted for Dirty Don than for Crooked Hillary.

As for the use of "wackiest" when describing Trump...Okay, why not. I guess Mussolini was "a hoot"?

sunmaster14 · 22nd November 2016, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

The only people we can objectively say had an opinion one way or the other were the ones who actually voted, and fewer of them voted for Dirty Don than for Crooked Hillary.

As for the use of "wackiest" when describing Trump...Okay, why not. I guess Mussolini was "a hoot"?

It's a bit early to compare Trump favorably with Mussolini, don't you think? Even the Nobel Prize committee waited 9 months into Obama's Presidency before giving him the Peace Prize.

Travis · 22nd November 2016, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

That doesn't surprise me at all. You are highly partisan and so it's not surprising that you don't care about scandals coming from your team.

I would if it was a real scandal. Using a private server that may have been less secure and may have led to inadvertently disclosing secrets is not a big deal to me.

Actually purposefully selling secrets? That I would care about.

portlandatheist · 22nd November 2016, 05:53 PM

Mumbles · 22nd November 2016, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Root of racism and bigotry? Hardly. In the past, they were the party that was far more strongly associated with racism and bigotry, yes, though. These days, they are not, however. The Republican Party, on the other hand, has been trending a path in somewhat the opposite direction, though, since they decided to increasingly court Christian supremacy groups and anti-science groups.

In truth, the GOP basically walked away from a serious commitment to equality in 1877, which led to the collapse of Reconstruction and a move to Jim Crow and terrorism. By around 1900, the lily-white movement had become a force in the GOP, which is exactly what the name says. This is part of why Black Americans were ready to support FDR when he put together the New Deal, despite the fact that even that was largely (but not entirely) crafted to keep them out as well. But the notion that either party is historically "the" party of racism is laughable.

ChrisBFRPKY · 22nd November 2016, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

It would be fair to say that I sure didn't care about it at all.

Which has what to do with NAFTA? Those jobs moved because people in other country can do the same job for far less. NAFTA did not create that situation simple supply and demand did.

Again, NAFTA had nothing to do with this. Free trade existed before NAFTA and will exist after. If Mexico had been an industrialized nation in the 50's you can bet that GM and Ford would have relocated there sooner.

Of course this overlooks that Liberals have proposed and tried to implement other solutions. Like retraining programs and making universities more affordable. Things that the Republicans have opposed at every turn.

Except that they are not being oppressed. They are in a very unfortunate situation. One with few answers. The government cannot directly create jobs there and until the population gains new skills they will continue to not be very employable in a global economy.

Well alrighty. I'll say that it isn't racist. Detroit was an economic time bomb. Too large a city built around one industry with too many workers that were all under skilled for other jobs. It was bound to be a disaster from its inception.

Travis, I knew you would mention the Republican connection with NAFTA. I will just point out the all important final negotiations were completed by Democrats during the Bill Clinton Administration. As an example of the differences that were applied, simply look to the latest scam attempt called TPP. Democrats are all for it, yet Republicans are not. There's a reason for this.

Now, to look upon NAFTA favorably is foolish for the US citizen. Of course free trade is a good thing, however trade imbalance is not. Manipulating your Country's currency value is not. This is exactly why factories across the US, about 70,000 of them, have shut down and relocated outside the USA. NAFTA is the "Globalist" answer to redistribution of wealth. The idea is to take jobs and industry from one Country and give them to another that has been less fortunate. 70,000 factories. That's a lot of Americans out of work. So this has not been the best thing for the US. Let's combat poverty sure, but not at the cost of creating it here within the US as a result. NAFTA has been disastrous for the US and nothing short of a miracle for Mexico and China. However, enough is enough. NAFTA must go or be renegotiated completely. That's the only answer that will work.

Democrats were and are responsible for the final draft and approval of NAFTA.
If you're in the US, you have witnessed the results, unless you have been shielded in one of the West Coast states. Our industrial middle "rust belt" has been all but destroyed. To deny this is beyond ignorance. To deny that Democrats tend to group minorities within large cities likewise. To deny Democrats have purposely left an entire group of people out of the American dream is outrageous. I only hope these same people find relief during the Trump admin.

Chris B.

Darth Rotor · 22nd November 2016, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

I only hope these same people find relief during the Trump admin.

Hope is not a method.
(Shamelessly stolen from General Gordon Sullivan, Chief of Staff, US Army, mid 1990's).

ChrisBFRPKY · 22nd November 2016, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by Mumbles

In truth, the GOP basically walked away from a serious commitment to equality in 1877, which led to the collapse of Reconstruction and a move to Jim Crow and terrorism. By around 1900, the lily-white movement had become a force in the GOP, which is exactly what the name says. This is part of why Black Americans were ready to support FDR when he put together the New Deal, despite the fact that even that was largely (but not entirely) crafted to keep them out as well. But the notion that either party is historically "the" party of racism is laughable.

Laughable from a certain point of view that is. I have two words for you.
"Robert Byrd" Chris B.

ChrisBFRPKY · 22nd November 2016, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Hope is not a method.
(Shamelessly stolen from General Gordon Sullivan, Chief of Staff, US Army, mid 1990's).

Hope and Change was a scam in 2008, I'll give you that. Chris B.

sir drinks-a-lot · 22nd November 2016, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...give_trump.png

A very creative way to present a bad argument.

phiwum · 22nd November 2016, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

I would if it was a real scandal. Using a private server that may have been less secure and may have led to inadvertently disclosing secrets is not a big deal to me.

Actually purposefully selling secrets? That I would care about.

If it violated explicit rules, then it was a real scandal. If she was not altogether honest, it was again a real scandal. I think both of these things are true, but I'm not too well informed on the issues.

Foolmewunz · 22nd November 2016, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Laughable from a certain point of view that is. I have two words for you.
"Robert Byrd" Chris B.

You're new around here? Been camping out with the boyz through the last ten years. "Oh, yeah!? Robert Byrd!" gives me Coulter Alt-History Bingo! I win with five across diagonally!

(The premise being that Republican bigotry apologists will pull out certain cards in any discussion. You've got most of them, but "Oh, yeah?! Robert Byrd!" was the middle box.)

So three words for you "Two Thousand Sixteen". What Beauregard P. Entwhistle III did back in '47 doesn't interest us. The fact that Lincoln freed the slaves has nothing to do with voter oppression in the 20teens. The Dixiecrats be dead, bro! The Klan votes GOP. The neo-nazis vote GOP. The alt-right is bragging that they won the election for the GOP. The bigots in the country, regardless of how high one pegs the number, if they vote, vote GOP.

You are welcome to agree with their programs but don't try to sell us on that Coulter Crap... that the Republicans are the REAL party of the black voter. If you do, at least gin up your game. "Nyah nyah, you're the party of the Klan and bigotry" winds up biting you in the ass.

thaiboxerken · 22nd November 2016, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by phiwum

With due respect, the fact that Hillary violated rules by having her own email server, very likely to avoid FOIA requests, is troublesome for anyone who prefers transparency. That she seemed to prevaricate about the presence of classified information is also troublesome.

I think she would've been a decent president. I also think that her (more or less understandable) tendency for privacy was troubling, especially when it leads to apparent violations of rules. We might wonder whether transparency is appropriate for a Secretary of State, but that's another matter.

The email thing bothered me, not because a private server can't be secure or because the gov't does security better, but because it seemed intended to avoid transparency rules.

Perhaps, but transparency doesn't seem to be a factor when it comes to Trump, who's financial and current dealings are opaque.

thaiboxerken · 22nd November 2016, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

I think so..

You can think what you want. Facts do not support your opinion.

Skeptical Greg · 22nd November 2016, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by The Don

It's a strange world when having a husband who is a philanderer and alleged sexual predator is disqualifying but being a philanderer and proudly boasting about sexual assualts oneself is not

Who made that argument?

thaiboxerken · 22nd November 2016, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Who made that argument?

Trump supporters did, when they voted for Trump.

Skeptical Greg · 22nd November 2016, 08:50 PM

By the same token, Hillary voters supported a rapist enabler...

Which one did you go for?

thaiboxerken · 22nd November 2016, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

By the same token, Hillary voters supported a rapist enabler...

Which one did you go for?

What rape are you referring to and by whom?

ChristianProgressive · 22nd November 2016, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

I think so. Many of them didn't want the kind of change that Trump represented, and still voted for Hillary or didn't vote at all, but I think most people are kind of sick of the status quo. This was a change election. The only reason the Democrats still had a decent chance of winning was that the Republicans ended up with the wackiest nominee in modern history.

Not really. Looking at the exit polling data seems to indicate that this was very much a "vote against the other side" election. Large numbers in both parties had reservations about their candidate, but hated the other one more.

Hillary was just too toxic and it motivated the Republican base. If Bernie had been the nom, the Rs wouldn't have had all the corruption stuff to smear him with.

Roger Ramjets · 22nd November 2016, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by The Don

It's a strange world when ~~having a husband who is a philanderer and alleged sexual predator~~ being a Democrat is disqualifying but being a philanderer and proudly boasting about sexual assualts oneself is not

IOKIYAAR

ChristianProgressive · 22nd November 2016, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

Whoever said it was disqualifying? What disqualifies Hillary is that she didn't win 270 electoral votes. There were many factors going into that, although I suspect the main one was that most people wanted a change.

In context, Don was referring to the claim that they disqualified her so people should not have voted for her, and that Trump's supporters voted against her when Trump himself did very similar things.

If morals were consistently applied evenly, then people should have massively voted 3rd party or not voted at all.

ChristianProgressive · 22nd November 2016, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

I would if it was a real scandal. Using a private server that may have been less secure and may have led to inadvertently disclosing secrets is not a big deal to me.

Actually purposefully selling secrets? That I would care about.

And now the Don is making official calls on his own unsecured phone lines.

The functional theme of politics in the US right now seems to be naked hypocrisy.

BTW: Bannon isn't the only problematic link to no-nazisim and the really dark end of that part of the political spectrum.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08...ovement/212502

Aridas · 22nd November 2016, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Perhaps, but transparency doesn't seem to be a factor when it comes to Trump, who's financial and current dealings are opaque.

Keeping things in perspective is quite reasonable, so long as one isn't trying to give a free pass to one's preferred side, like more than a few people did and are doing very obviously.

Roger Ramjets · 22nd November 2016, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

I think most people are kind of sick of the status quo. This was a change election.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the hill, and many people are sick of living in the real world where problems are hard and solutions are messy. But will they find it any better on the other side?

Reality doesn't go away just because you are sick of it. I predict a lot of Trump supporters are going to be very disappointed in the next 4 years. Just like the Tea Party, and all the other idiots who think that knee-jerk reactions and simplistic solutions are the answer to all their problems.

Quote:

The only reason the Democrats still had a decent chance of winning was that the Republicans ended up with the wackiest nominee in modern history.

If they had ended up with Bush then Hillary would have been a shoe-in.

portlandatheist · 22nd November 2016, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

A very creative way to present a bad argument.

true, its completely ad hom but it is also very funny.

Travis · 23rd November 2016, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY

Travis, I knew you would mention the Republican connection with NAFTA. I will just point out the all important final negotiations were completed by Democrats during the Bill Clinton Administration. As an example of the differences that were applied, simply look to the latest scam attempt called TPP. Democrats are all for it, yet Republicans are not. There's a reason for this.

Now, to look upon NAFTA favorably is foolish for the US citizen. Of course free trade is a good thing, however trade imbalance is not. Manipulating your Country's currency value is not. This is exactly why factories across the US, about 70,000 of them, have shut down and relocated outside the USA. NAFTA is the "Globalist" answer to redistribution of wealth. The idea is to take jobs and industry from one Country and give them to another that has been less fortunate. 70,000 factories. That's a lot of Americans out of work. So this has not been the best thing for the US. Let's combat poverty sure, but not at the cost of creating it here within the US as a result. NAFTA has been disastrous for the US and nothing short of a miracle for Mexico and China. However, enough is enough. NAFTA must go or be renegotiated completely. That's the only answer that will work.

Democrats were and are responsible for the final draft and approval of NAFTA.
If you're in the US, you have witnessed the results, unless you have been shielded in one of the West Coast states. Our industrial middle "rust belt" has been all but destroyed. To deny this is beyond ignorance. To deny that Democrats tend to group minorities within large cities likewise. To deny Democrats have purposely left an entire group of people out of the American dream is outrageous. I only hope these same people find relief during the Trump admin.

Chris B.

Americans do not have a right to all the jobs. Jobs belong to people. People who may or may not be in the USA. I don't care about America. I care about the whole world.

Eventually an equilibrium will be reached and low skill jobs will stop leaving America. In the meantime the best course of action for Americans is to try and improve their skills.

The Don · 23rd November 2016, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Most people?

Standard GOP tactic, polling less than 50% of the votes cast, indeed attracting fewer votes than your opponent somehow represents a rock-solid presidential mandate because the 45% of eligible voters who didn't bother to register and/or vote can be counted as tacitly supporting your candidate

OTOH a president who polls comfortably more than 50% of the votes cast and overwhelmingly wins the electoral college does not have a mandate and must be blocked at every turn because.......melanin

The Don · 23rd November 2016, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Who made that argument?

The Trump campaign and its fellow travelers when they said not to vote for Hillary because she didn't divorce Bill for playing hide-the-sausage with other women. Of course had she done so then she would instead have been castigated for divorcing him.

OTOH thrice-married Trump is a perfect advert for traditional Christian family values

The Don · 23rd November 2016, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

And now the Don is making official calls on his own unsecured phone lines.

I really am not you know

Aridas · 23rd November 2016, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

Americans do not have a right to all the jobs.

That's enough said, really, to grasp the credibility of your position. No Americans claimed that Americans have a right to all the jobs in the first place here, after all.

Originally Posted by Travis

Jobs belong to people.

And your thoughts on the loss of jobs to non-people or automation actually reflect this?

Originally Posted by Travis

People who may or may not be in the USA. I don't care about America. I care about the whole world.

Eventually an equilibrium will be reached and low skill jobs will stop leaving America. In the meantime the best course of action for Americans is to try and improve their skills.

While it's good that you're thinking of all humanity, one of a good government's primary roles is to be an administration who are directly seeking to improve the lot of their citizens. Pushing jobs out of the hands of their citizens is generally not a sign of the government act being a good one.

Belz... · 23rd November 2016, 03:40 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

By the same token, Hillary voters supported a rapist enabler...

What rape?

sunmaster14 · 23rd November 2016, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

The grass is always greener on the other side of the hill, and many people are sick of living in the real world where problems are hard and solutions are messy. But will they find it any better on the other side?

Reality doesn't go away just because you are sick of it. I predict a lot of Trump supporters are going to be very disappointed in the next 4 years. Just like the Tea Party, and all the other idiots who think that knee-jerk reactions and simplistic solutions are the answer to all their problems.

Any movement is going to use simplistic catch phrases. What's truly idiotic is when the President of the US actually thinks simplistic solutions will work. We've had 8 years of that crap. Time for a change.

Quote:

If they had ended up with Bush then Hillary would have been a shoe-in.

What's that? You sure she wouldn't have been a loch?

sunmaster14 · 23rd November 2016, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

What rape?

Bill Clinton likely raped Juanita Broaddrick, although I suspect you already knew of the allegation.

Belz... · 23rd November 2016, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

Bill Clinton likely raped Juanita Broaddrick, although I suspect you already knew of the allegation.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that allegations now amounted to guilt.

sunmaster14 · 23rd November 2016, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that allegations now amounted to guilt.

We don't generally use establishment of guilt by a jury as our evidentiary standard for political opinions here.

thaiboxerken · 23rd November 2016, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

We don't generally use establishment of guilt by a jury as our evidentiary standard for political opinions here.

Who are "we" here?

Bill Clinton was never convicted of rape. Juanita Broaddrick's accusation was so non-credible that even Ken Starr rejected it.

Belz... · 23rd November 2016, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by sunmaster14

We don't generally use establishment of guilt by a jury as our evidentiary standard for political opinions here.

What the hell is the point of a skeptics' forum, if our standard of truth is the same as the common woo-woo?

You're basically saying that the allegation is enough. Why? Does this apply to everybody? Or just liberals?

uke2se · 23rd November 2016, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

What the hell is the point of a skeptics' forum, if our standard of truth is the same as the common woo-woo?

You're basically saying that the allegation is enough. Why? Does this apply to everybody? Or just liberals?

Of course not. If it did, Trump would be guilty of raping a 13 year old girl.

It's, as you say, only applied to liberals.

22nd November 2016, 12:20 PM	#203
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,410	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 I think so. Many of them didn't want the kind of change that Trump represented, and still voted for Hillary or didn't vote at all, but I think most people are kind of sick of the status quo. This was a change election. The only reason the Democrats still had a decent chance of winning was that the Republicans ended up with the wackiest nominee in modern history. The only people we can objectively say had an opinion one way or the other were the ones who actually voted, and fewer of them voted for Dirty Don than for Crooked Hillary. As for the use of "wackiest" when describing Trump...Okay, why not. I guess Mussolini was "a hoot"?
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

22nd November 2016, 05:15 PM	#205
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 24,097	Originally Posted by phiwum That doesn't surprise me at all. You are highly partisan and so it's not surprising that you don't care about scandals coming from your team. I would if it was a real scandal. Using a private server that may have been less secure and may have led to inadvertently disclosing secrets is not a big deal to me. Actually purposefully selling secrets? That I would care about.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale Humor blog

22nd November 2016, 06:44 PM	#207
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,402	Originally Posted by Aridas Root of racism and bigotry? Hardly. In the past, they were the party that was far more strongly associated with racism and bigotry, yes, though. These days, they are not, however. The Republican Party, on the other hand, has been trending a path in somewhat the opposite direction, though, since they decided to increasingly court Christian supremacy groups and anti-science groups. In truth, the GOP basically walked away from a serious commitment to equality in 1877, which led to the collapse of Reconstruction and a move to Jim Crow and terrorism. By around 1900, the lily-white movement had become a force in the GOP, which is exactly what the name says. This is part of why Black Americans were ready to support FDR when he put together the New Deal, despite the fact that even that was largely (but not entirely) crafted to keep them out as well. But the notion that either party is historically "the" party of racism is laughable.
Mumbles Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,402

22nd November 2016, 06:50 PM	#208
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,662	Originally Posted by Travis It would be fair to say that I sure didn't care about it at all. Which has what to do with NAFTA? Those jobs moved because people in other country can do the same job for far less. NAFTA did not create that situation simple supply and demand did. Again, NAFTA had nothing to do with this. Free trade existed before NAFTA and will exist after. If Mexico had been an industrialized nation in the 50's you can bet that GM and Ford would have relocated there sooner. Of course this overlooks that Liberals have proposed and tried to implement other solutions. Like retraining programs and making universities more affordable. Things that the Republicans have opposed at every turn. Except that they are not being oppressed. They are in a very unfortunate situation. One with few answers. The government cannot directly create jobs there and until the population gains new skills they will continue to not be very employable in a global economy. Well alrighty. I'll say that it isn't racist. Detroit was an economic time bomb. Too large a city built around one industry with too many workers that were all under skilled for other jobs. It was bound to be a disaster from its inception. Travis, I knew you would mention the Republican connection with NAFTA. I will just point out the all important final negotiations were completed by Democrats during the Bill Clinton Administration. As an example of the differences that were applied, simply look to the latest scam attempt called TPP. Democrats are all for it, yet Republicans are not. There's a reason for this. Now, to look upon NAFTA favorably is foolish for the US citizen. Of course free trade is a good thing, however trade imbalance is not. Manipulating your Country's currency value is not. This is exactly why factories across the US, about 70,000 of them, have shut down and relocated outside the USA. NAFTA is the "Globalist" answer to redistribution of wealth. The idea is to take jobs and industry from one Country and give them to another that has been less fortunate. 70,000 factories. That's a lot of Americans out of work. So this has not been the best thing for the US. Let's combat poverty sure, but not at the cost of creating it here within the US as a result. NAFTA has been disastrous for the US and nothing short of a miracle for Mexico and China. However, enough is enough. NAFTA must go or be renegotiated completely. That's the only answer that will work. Democrats were and are responsible for the final draft and approval of NAFTA. If you're in the US, you have witnessed the results, unless you have been shielded in one of the West Coast states. Our industrial middle "rust belt" has been all but destroyed. To deny this is beyond ignorance. To deny that Democrats tend to group minorities within large cities likewise. To deny Democrats have purposely left an entire group of people out of the American dream is outrageous. I only hope these same people find relief during the Trump admin. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,662

22nd November 2016, 06:53 PM	#209
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 38,527	Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY I only hope these same people find relief during the Trump admin. Hope is not a method. (Shamelessly stolen from General Gordon Sullivan, Chief of Staff, US Army, mid 1990's).
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

22nd November 2016, 12:10 PM	#201
NoahFence Banned Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 22,131	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 Whoever said it was disqualifying? What disqualifies Hillary is that she didn't win 270 electoral votes. There were many factors going into that, although I suspect the main one was that most people wanted a change. My goodness. Ignorant of basic facts? Didn't see that coming.

22nd November 2016, 12:11 PM	#202
sunmaster14 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by Distracted1 Most people? I think so. Many of them didn't want the kind of change that Trump represented, and still voted for Hillary or didn't vote at all, but I think most people are kind of sick of the status quo. This was a change election. The only reason the Democrats still had a decent chance of winning was that the Republicans ended up with the wackiest nominee in modern history.

22nd November 2016, 12:28 PM	#204
sunmaster14 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by Distracted1 The only people we can objectively say had an opinion one way or the other were the ones who actually voted, and fewer of them voted for Dirty Don than for Crooked Hillary. As for the use of "wackiest" when describing Trump...Okay, why not. I guess Mussolini was "a hoot"? It's a bit early to compare Trump favorably with Mussolini, don't you think? Even the Nobel Prize committee waited 9 months into Obama's Presidency before giving him the Peace Prize.

22nd November 2016, 05:53 PM	#206
portlandatheist Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,609

22nd November 2016, 06:57 PM	#210
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,662	Originally Posted by Mumbles In truth, the GOP basically walked away from a serious commitment to equality in 1877, which led to the collapse of Reconstruction and a move to Jim Crow and terrorism. By around 1900, the lily-white movement had become a force in the GOP, which is exactly what the name says. This is part of why Black Americans were ready to support FDR when he put together the New Deal, despite the fact that even that was largely (but not entirely) crafted to keep them out as well. But the notion that either party is historically "the" party of racism is laughable. Laughable from a certain point of view that is. I have two words for you. "Robert Byrd" Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,662

22nd November 2016, 06:58 PM	#211
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,662	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor Hope is not a method. (Shamelessly stolen from General Gordon Sullivan, Chief of Staff, US Army, mid 1990's). Hope and Change was a scam in 2008, I'll give you that. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 3,662

22nd November 2016, 07:07 PM	#212
sir drinks-a-lot Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Location: Cole Valley, CA Posts: 4,513	Originally Posted by portlandatheist https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...give_trump.png A very creative way to present a bad argument.
	__________________ I don't like that man. I must get to know him better. --Abraham Lincoln

22nd November 2016, 07:25 PM	#213
phiwum Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 12,718	Originally Posted by Travis I would if it was a real scandal. Using a private server that may have been less secure and may have led to inadvertently disclosing secrets is not a big deal to me. Actually purposefully selling secrets? That I would care about. If it violated explicit rules, then it was a real scandal. If she was not altogether honest, it was again a real scandal. I think both of these things are true, but I'm not too well informed on the issues.

22nd November 2016, 07:50 PM	#214
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 41,468	Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY Laughable from a certain point of view that is. I have two words for you. "Robert Byrd" Chris B. You're new around here? Been camping out with the boyz through the last ten years. "Oh, yeah!? Robert Byrd!" gives me Coulter Alt-History Bingo! I win with five across diagonally! (The premise being that Republican bigotry apologists will pull out certain cards in any discussion. You've got most of them, but "Oh, yeah?! Robert Byrd!" was the middle box.) So three words for you "Two Thousand Sixteen". What Beauregard P. Entwhistle III did back in '47 doesn't interest us. The fact that Lincoln freed the slaves has nothing to do with voter oppression in the 20teens. The Dixiecrats be dead, bro! The Klan votes GOP. The neo-nazis vote GOP. The alt-right is bragging that they won the election for the GOP. The bigots in the country, regardless of how high one pegs the number, if they vote, vote GOP. You are welcome to agree with their programs but don't try to sell us on that Coulter Crap... that the Republicans are the REAL party of the black voter. If you do, at least gin up your game. "Nyah nyah, you're the party of the Klan and bigotry" winds up biting you in the ass.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

22nd November 2016, 08:29 PM	#215
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,706	Originally Posted by phiwum With due respect, the fact that Hillary violated rules by having her own email server, very likely to avoid FOIA requests, is troublesome for anyone who prefers transparency. That she seemed to prevaricate about the presence of classified information is also troublesome. I think she would've been a decent president. I also think that her (more or less understandable) tendency for privacy was troubling, especially when it leads to apparent violations of rules. We might wonder whether transparency is appropriate for a Secretary of State, but that's another matter. The email thing bothered me, not because a private server can't be secure or because the gov't does security better, but because it seemed intended to avoid transparency rules. Perhaps, but transparency doesn't seem to be a factor when it comes to Trump, who's financial and current dealings are opaque.
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

22nd November 2016, 08:31 PM	#216
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,706	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 I think so.. You can think what you want. Facts do not support your opinion.
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

22nd November 2016, 08:36 PM	#217
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' . Posts: 16,921	Originally Posted by The Don It's a strange world when having a husband who is a philanderer and alleged sexual predator is disqualifying but being a philanderer and proudly boasting about sexual assualts oneself is not Who made that argument?
	__________________ " The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "

22nd November 2016, 08:40 PM	#218
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,706	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg Who made that argument? Trump supporters did, when they voted for Trump.
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

22nd November 2016, 08:50 PM	#219
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' . Posts: 16,921	By the same token, Hillary voters supported a rapist enabler... Which one did you go for?
	__________________ " The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "

22nd November 2016, 08:52 PM	#220
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,706	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg By the same token, Hillary voters supported a rapist enabler... Which one did you go for? What rape are you referring to and by whom?
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

22nd November 2016, 09:06 PM	#221
ChristianProgressive Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 2,828	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 I think so. Many of them didn't want the kind of change that Trump represented, and still voted for Hillary or didn't vote at all, but I think most people are kind of sick of the status quo. This was a change election. The only reason the Democrats still had a decent chance of winning was that the Republicans ended up with the wackiest nominee in modern history. Not really. Looking at the exit polling data seems to indicate that this was very much a "vote against the other side" election. Large numbers in both parties had reservations about their candidate, but hated the other one more. Hillary was just too toxic and it motivated the Republican base. If Bernie had been the nom, the Rs wouldn't have had all the corruption stuff to smear him with.

22nd November 2016, 09:09 PM	#222
Roger Ramjets Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 5,334	Originally Posted by The Don It's a strange world when ~~having a husband who is a philanderer and alleged sexual predator~~ being a Democrat is disqualifying but being a philanderer and proudly boasting about sexual assualts oneself is not IOKIYAAR
	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

22nd November 2016, 09:14 PM	#223
ChristianProgressive Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 2,828	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 Whoever said it was disqualifying? What disqualifies Hillary is that she didn't win 270 electoral votes. There were many factors going into that, although I suspect the main one was that most people wanted a change. In context, Don was referring to the claim that they disqualified her so people should not have voted for her, and that Trump's supporters voted against her when Trump himself did very similar things. If morals were consistently applied evenly, then people should have massively voted 3rd party or not voted at all.

22nd November 2016, 09:16 PM	#224
ChristianProgressive Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 2,828	Originally Posted by Travis I would if it was a real scandal. Using a private server that may have been less secure and may have led to inadvertently disclosing secrets is not a big deal to me. Actually purposefully selling secrets? That I would care about. And now the Don is making official calls on his own unsecured phone lines. The functional theme of politics in the US right now seems to be naked hypocrisy. BTW: Bannon isn't the only problematic link to no-nazisim and the really dark end of that part of the political spectrum. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08...ovement/212502
	Last edited by ChristianProgressive; 22nd November 2016 at 09:38 PM.

22nd November 2016, 09:35 PM	#225
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,447	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Perhaps, but transparency doesn't seem to be a factor when it comes to Trump, who's financial and current dealings are opaque. Keeping things in perspective is quite reasonable, so long as one isn't trying to give a free pass to one's preferred side, like more than a few people did and are doing very obviously.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

22nd November 2016, 09:39 PM	#226
Roger Ramjets Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 5,334	Originally Posted by sunmaster14 I think most people are kind of sick of the status quo. This was a change election. The grass is always greener on the other side of the hill, and many people are sick of living in the real world where problems are hard and solutions are messy. But will they find it any better on the other side? Reality doesn't go away just because you are sick of it. I predict a lot of Trump supporters are going to be very disappointed in the next 4 years. Just like the Tea Party, and all the other idiots who think that knee-jerk reactions and simplistic solutions are the answer to all their problems. Quote: The only reason the Democrats still had a decent chance of winning was that the Republicans ended up with the wackiest nominee in modern history. If they had ended up with Bush then Hillary would have been a shoe-in.
	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

22nd November 2016, 10:08 PM	#227
portlandatheist Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,609	Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot A very creative way to present a bad argument. true, its completely ad hom but it is also very funny.

23rd November 2016, 12:40 AM	#228
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 24,097	Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY Travis, I knew you would mention the Republican connection with NAFTA. I will just point out the all important final negotiations were completed by Democrats during the Bill Clinton Administration. As an example of the differences that were applied, simply look to the latest scam attempt called TPP. Democrats are all for it, yet Republicans are not. There's a reason for this. Now, to look upon NAFTA favorably is foolish for the US citizen. Of course free trade is a good thing, however trade imbalance is not. Manipulating your Country's currency value is not. This is exactly why factories across the US, about 70,000 of them, have shut down and relocated outside the USA. NAFTA is the "Globalist" answer to redistribution of wealth. The idea is to take jobs and industry from one Country and give them to another that has been less fortunate. 70,000 factories. That's a lot of Americans out of work. So this has not been the best thing for the US. Let's combat poverty sure, but not at the cost of creating it here within the US as a result. NAFTA has been disastrous for the US and nothing short of a miracle for Mexico and China. However, enough is enough. NAFTA must go or be renegotiated completely. That's the only answer that will work. Democrats were and are responsible for the final draft and approval of NAFTA. If you're in the US, you have witnessed the results, unless you have been shielded in one of the West Coast states. Our industrial middle "rust belt" has been all but destroyed. To deny this is beyond ignorance. To deny that Democrats tend to group minorities within large cities likewise. To deny Democrats have purposely left an entire group of people out of the American dream is outrageous. I only hope these same people find relief during the Trump admin. Chris B. Americans do not have a right to all the jobs. Jobs belong to people. People who may or may not be in the USA. I don't care about America. I care about the whole world. Eventually an equilibrium will be reached and low skill jobs will stop leaving America. In the meantime the best course of action for Americans is to try and improve their skills.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale Humor blog

23rd November 2016, 12:53 AM	#229
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 31,334	Originally Posted by Distracted1 Most people? Standard GOP tactic, polling less than 50% of the votes cast, indeed attracting fewer votes than your opponent somehow represents a rock-solid presidential mandate because the 45% of eligible voters who didn't bother to register and/or vote can be counted as tacitly supporting your candidate OTOH a president who polls comfortably more than 50% of the votes cast and overwhelmingly wins the electoral college does not have a mandate and must be blocked at every turn because.......melanin

23rd November 2016, 12:57 AM	#230
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 31,334	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg Who made that argument? The Trump campaign and its fellow travelers when they said not to vote for Hillary because she didn't divorce Bill for playing hide-the-sausage with other women. Of course had she done so then she would instead have been castigated for divorcing him. OTOH thrice-married Trump is a perfect advert for traditional Christian family values

23rd November 2016, 12:58 AM	#231
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 31,334	Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive And now the Don is making official calls on his own unsecured phone lines. I really am not you know

23rd November 2016, 02:48 AM	#232
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,447	Originally Posted by Travis Americans do not have a right to all the jobs. That's enough said, really, to grasp the credibility of your position. No Americans claimed that Americans have a right to all the jobs in the first place here, after all. Originally Posted by Travis Jobs belong to people. And your thoughts on the loss of jobs to non-people or automation actually reflect this? Originally Posted by Travis People who may or may not be in the USA. I don't care about America. I care about the whole world. Eventually an equilibrium will be reached and low skill jobs will stop leaving America. In the meantime the best course of action for Americans is to try and improve their skills. While it's good that you're thinking of all humanity, one of a good government's primary roles is to be an administration who are directly seeking to improve the lot of their citizens. Pushing jobs out of the hands of their citizens is generally not a sign of the government act being a good one.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon. Last edited by Aridas; 23rd November 2016 at 02:49 AM.

23rd November 2016, 03:40 AM	#233
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a post-fact world Posts: 91,292	Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg By the same token, Hillary voters supported a rapist enabler... What rape?

23rd November 2016, 06:08 AM	#234
sunmaster14 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets The grass is always greener on the other side of the hill, and many people are sick of living in the real world where problems are hard and solutions are messy. But will they find it any better on the other side? Reality doesn't go away just because you are sick of it. I predict a lot of Trump supporters are going to be very disappointed in the next 4 years. Just like the Tea Party, and all the other idiots who think that knee-jerk reactions and simplistic solutions are the answer to all their problems. Any movement is going to use simplistic catch phrases. What's truly idiotic is when the President of the US actually thinks simplistic solutions will work. We've had 8 years of that crap. Time for a change. Quote: If they had ended up with Bush then Hillary would have been a shoe-in. What's that? You sure she wouldn't have been a loch?

23rd November 2016, 06:11 AM	#235
sunmaster14 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by Argumemnon What rape? Bill Clinton likely raped Juanita Broaddrick, although I suspect you already knew of the allegation.