Maybe Trump will not be such a terrible president.

[Hercules56]

I'm now gonna try being Mr. Positive.

Trump is NOT Ted Cruz. He's also NOT Ben Carson. Those two guys would have been a disaster, no doubt about it. Especially Ben Carson, the moronic idiot.

Trump already has a legacy. He's already rich. He doesn't need to answer to anyone. He doesn't depend on donors to run for President. If he loses in 2020, he'll just go back to his real-estate deals.

This means he can do what he wants, including going against Conservative agendas and principles.

He's a New Yorker, from Queens. He's always been pretty socially Liberal. He has New York daughters.

He might just work with the Democrats. He might just sometimes, NEED the Democrats to pass things most Republicans don't want.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Stacko

He's not going to change.

Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!

It's just going to be magnified.

ETA: For a laugh:

We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

What a difference four years makes in the validity of protest.

You just don't get it. When Dump wins, it's a fair election and everyone should sit down and shut up. When he losses, it's an elite-rigged farce, and everyone should revolt. Pretty straight-forward, man.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I'm now gonna try being Mr. Positive.

Trump is NOT Ted Cruz. He's also NOT Ben Carson. Those two guys would have been a disaster, no doubt about it. Especially Ben Carson, the moronic idiot.

Trump already has a legacy. He's already rich. He doesn't need to answer to anyone. He doesn't depend on donors to run for President. If he loses in 2020, he'll just go back to his real-estate deals.

This means he can do what he wants, including going against Conservative agendas and principles.

He's a New Yorker, from Queens. He's always been pretty socially Liberal. He has New York daughters.

He might just work with the Democrats. He might just sometimes, NEED the Democrats to pass things most Republicans don't want.

But what if some bitch reporter starts bleeding from wherever?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

You just don't get it. When Dump wins, it's a fair election and everyone should sit down and shut up. When he losses, it's an elite-rigged farce, and everyone should revolt. Pretty straight-forward, man.

Well, Trump said he would accept the results of the election, if he wins.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Well, Trump said he would accept the results of the election, if he wins.

Thank you. At least someone gets it.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

Thank you. At least someone gets it.

What's to get? Trump won fair and square. Is he supposed to ask for a recount?

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by marplots

What's to get? Trump won fair and square. Is he supposed to ask for a recount?

how could he have won fair and square if the system is rigged, as he said?

[The Great Zaganza]

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.

my point exactly: they think they can "catch" homosexuality if they don't fight it, or at least be seen to be sympathetic to gays, thus opening themselves up to accusations of being gay themselves. It's always the same when groups define themselves by who they exclude.

Instead of "gay" you can insert "witch", "unbeliever", "Jew" etc.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

how could he have won fair and square if the system is rigged, as he said?

I don't think the system is rigged. Therefore I think he won fair and square. If you would like to make a case that the system is rigged, I'll certainly consider it.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally Posted by Stacko

He's not going to change.

Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!

It's just going to be magnified. :

Four years or more of this insane clown pussy (grabber).

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by marplots

What's to get? Trump won fair and square. Is he supposed to ask for a recount?

It was fair and square only because he happened to win. Had he happened to lose, it would have been rigged and stolen. That's what to get. I need to use his system my next tennis match.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

It was fair and square only because he happened to win. Had he happened to lose, it would have been rigged and stolen. That's what to get. I need to use his system my next tennis match.

If you are going to accept someone else's definition of fair and square it seems disingenuous to then claim that definition is flawed. On the other hand, if you don't accept their definition, you can hardly complain about a counterfactual (what he would have done had he lost) that depends on it.

It's like arguing about something God may have done in the bible while simultaneously claiming God doesn't exist. Pick one or the other. Here's a hint: Drop the counterfactual (Trump lost) because things that didn't happen are darned hard to find cites to support.

A charge of hypocrisy won't stick if the thing needed to demonstrate it didn't happen in this universe.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by marplots

If you are going to accept someone else's definition of fair and square it seems disingenuous to then claim that definition is flawed.

It's not flawed. Heads I win, tails you lose is a very effective strategy... and ethical too!

[marplots]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

It's not flawed. Heads I win, tails you lose is a very effective strategy... and ethical too!

It's very popular at ISF. We phrase it differently though: "Either you agree with me or you are wrong." Sometimes we add additional epithets and colorful adjectives, but the structure stays the same.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Wait a second... I thought Donald was going to make the generals come up with a plan to defeat ISIS.

Or fire them.

Can't remember which was which.

Neither can he.

[Jrrarglblarg]

Originally Posted by Stacko

He's not going to change.

Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!

It's just going to be magnified.

ETA: For a laugh:

We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

What a difference four years makes in the validity of protest.

I made the mistake of scrolling down in the comments of the second link and found this

Quote:

Crowley ‏@jdcrowley
@realDonaldTrump You should fill one of your swimming pools with dicks, swim to the bottom and take a deep breath until you drown. In dicks.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by marplots

It's very popular at ISF. We phrase it differently though: "Either you agree with me or you are wrong." Sometimes we add additional epithets and colorful adjectives, but the structure stays the same.

Hmmm, if only I could get my broker to buy into this.....

Is Trump University still accepting applications?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Enthusiasm = "Lock her up!! Lock her up!! Lock her up!!"

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

Build that wall!!!

Just for clarity... should I assume that everything you ever say should be taken dead literally, and that you never ever exaggerate or embellish your sentiments? I just want to make sure I respond appropriately to all of your future posts, in light of how you operate.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

A bit of projection, there? Because I can admit that I'm ignorant of a lot of things, and I have absolutely no problem letting those who know what they are doing handle things when I don't. You seem to be demanding that a bunch of people who have no idea what they are doing, nor want to learn, jump in and handle those things. I think that's a very bad idea.

And that's the core concept you are missing.

I'm suggesting no such thing.

I am, however, suggesting that liberals in general might want to stop insulting and demeaning a significant chunk of the country's citizens.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Good news, though: they can become informed and fact-filled, and then their opinions will count! All it takes is a little effort and some rationality.

Ahh... so currently, their voices should be ignored? Their opinions don't count?

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Just for clarity... should I assume that everything you ever say should be taken dead literally, and that you never ever exaggerate or embellish your sentiments? I just want to make sure I respond appropriately to all of your future posts, in light of how you operate.

Ah, so they were all just havin' a good 'ol time at the expense of common decency.

Screaming "Fire" in a theater going to be protected by the 1st Amendment now?

**** that.

All those people chanting that can die as far as I'm concerned.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Tell me, what would be the appropriate degree of respect I should give to somebody who tells me 'faggots shouldn't be able to get married, it's against God'? Am I allowed to disagree with them, or is it disrespectful? Do I have to say I find their opinion equally valid as my own even though they do not feel that way about my opinion? And of course my opinion about gay marriage, if implemented, affects me and not them, whereas their opinion if implemented affects me and not them.

You are asking me to give opposing viewpoints everything they want without any concession to my viewpoints on a matter that infringes my civil rights and not theirs, on the basis of 'being respectful'.

No, I'm not asking you to give opposing viewpoints everything they want. Nor am I expecting you to give respect to individuals who treat you poorly.

I am, however, asking that you don't assume that anyone and everyone who voted against your candidate holds that viewpoint. Don't cast everyone who didn't vote your way as demons and vilify the entire group of people.

FFS, I didn't vote for your candidate. I really, strongly, dislike Clinton. If I were in a different state, I might actually have voted for Trump as the lesser evil in my personal opinion. Not because I like him, not because I support what a small portion of asshat republican idiots spew with respect to gender, race, or sexuality. Simply because in my personal opinion, Clinton is *worse*.

Does that magically transform me into a homophobic gay-basher that you feel justified spewing vitriol at?

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Ahh... so currently, their voices should be ignored? Their opinions don't count?

Correct.


Their opinions are based on fantasy.

Let me put it to you this way -
You just found out your brother died. Major bummer. Even worse, he was murdered by a gang. You're really, really upset!

Later, you come to find out it was false. Your brother is fine, and it was mistaken identity.

Trumptards of the world, for some reason ignore that your brother is fine and go on a scorched earth campaign against those who you, for some unfathomable reason, still think were responsible for their murder.

Same thing with Trumptards.

"They're coming fer our gunzzz!!"

no they're not. Here's the proof....

"They're still coming fer our gunzzzz!!"

No, really. They're not. See - we went through the whole presidency and you still have your guns.

"THEY'RE COMING FOR OUR GUNZZZ!!"

morons.

Isn't finding out something you're afraid of isn't going to happen a GOOD thing?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I'm suggesting no such thing.

I am, however, suggesting that liberals in general might want to stop insulting and demeaning a significant chunk of the country's citizens.

Insulting and demeaning them by pointing out that they don't know things? I'll remind you of my admission of being ignorant of a lot of things. When I make a claim about, say, insurance to you which is totally wrong and it's obvious I don't know what I'm talking about, are you being insulting and demeaning if you tell me I'm wrong? Are you being insulting and demeaning if you claim that your inside knowledge of the field and long history of study in the field gives your opinion greater weight? Or is this only the case when someone else knows more about something than you do?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Ahh... so currently, their voices should be ignored? Their opinions don't count?

I'd like you to point where in my post I said or implied this.

My meaning is clear: they are uninformed, a situation they can correct but choose not to. It doesn't matter whether they "should" be ignored: they will be. If they remedy the situation then they should have more success getting heard. Incidently, they might get jobs at the same time.

But let me add this: if someone's concern is the aliens hidden at area 51, should those concerns be addressed when the person has no intention of changing their minds or believing a more rational explanation? How much time would you spend trying to un-crazy the uninformed if they don't listen to reason?

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Mythbusters proved you could indeed polish a turd.

I'm not looking forward to it, but it's not necessarily a disaster. At least he's not George W Bush.

Once polished, did the turd no longer have the chemical composition of a turd?

Because that's what the phrase is meant to conclude :9.

[marplots]

It's a case of "choose your enemies wisely, for you will become them."

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

I'd like you to point where in my post I said or implied this.

My meaning is clear: they are uninformed, a situation they can correct but choose not to. It doesn't matter whether they "should" be ignored: they will be. If they remedy the situation then they should have more success getting heard. Incidently, they might get jobs at the same time.

But let me add this: if someone's concern is the aliens hidden at area 51, should those concerns be addressed when the person has no intention of changing their minds or believing a more rational explanation? How much time would you spend trying to un-crazy the uninformed if they don't listen to reason?

And what Emily's Cat is saying is that telling them they are stupid, ignorant crazies who aren't worth arguing with until they learn to listen to reason is the least productive thing you can possibly say. Even if they might have been willing to listen to you before, they sure as hell aren't now.


I'm also going to try to inject some hope into the situation: consider Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose name I am happy to delegate to my spellcheck. Action star, steroid aficionado, surprisingly good governor of California. He had been a solid Republican before his term, and had no political experience going into it. Two years into his term, having accomplished pretty much nothing due to party deadlock, he starts worrying about his legacy. Over the better judgment of his Republican peers, he starts to slide centrist and compromise with Democrats. And it works. He had no political career to ruin. He didn't need the job. So when the hyperpartisanship so endemic to American politics got in the way, he just went around it, the way your typical politician is incapable of. As a result, Arnie was one of the state's best governors in recent memory, in terms of sheer ability to get things done.

It may not be fair to compare Donnie to Arnie, but hold on to a grain of salt until we see how he reacts in office, when he can't just fire someone who doesn't do what he wants. I give it six months before Trump and the GOP are in all-out war and he starts recruiting Democrats as allies.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

And what Emily's Cat is saying that that telling them they are stupid, ignorant crazies who aren't worth arguing with until they learn to listen to reason is the least productive thing you can possibly say. Even if they might have been willing to listen to you before, they sure as hell aren't now.

Sure, but who's doing that now?

Certainly not me. I'm just telling them that they're wrong and possibly uninformed about the real issues. That they were lied to by the person they elected. How is that being nasty to them?

Sure, some posters here have reacted strongly to the election but most of them are usually more tempered in their statements.

And finally, a lot of them are _not_ willing to listen. What do you to with them?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Where is your poll data that shows that the people chanting "Build the Wall" at trump events don't actually expect him to build the wall?

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?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by fuelair

No, they hope with all their cold little dead hearts and souls that he can and will. They really are and always will be deplorables. They have no worth. If there was a god they would all be in hell (assuming Jesus also existed given HIS rules for them)!!!!!!!!!

This. This is why democrats lost this election.

You have just condemned and vilified EVERYONE who didn't vote the way you wanted them to. You've just insisted that they are worthless and have actively wished ill upon them.

That's HALF the citizens of the country that you, explicitly you, have just treated with utter disregard and hatred.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Correct.


Their opinions are based on fantasy.

And again, this is why democrats lost.

You are insisting that the opinions and voices of HALF the country don't count, aren't worth listening to, and should have no say. Talk about violations of civil liberties! Talk about disenfranchisement! Holy cow, you are seriously standing by your claim that HALF the people in this country should be ignored simply because you think you know better than them. This is exactly the sort of arrogance and elitism that caused democrats to lose this election.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Insulting and demeaning them by pointing out that they don't know things? I'll remind you of my admission of being ignorant of a lot of things. When I make a claim about, say, insurance to you which is totally wrong and it's obvious I don't know what I'm talking about, are you being insulting and demeaning if you tell me I'm wrong? Are you being insulting and demeaning if you claim that your inside knowledge of the field and long history of study in the field gives your opinion greater weight? Or is this only the case when someone else knows more about something than you do?

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"?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

I'd like you to point where in my post I said or implied this.

Right here:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Yes they are ignorant bumpkins whose ignorant, fact free opinions shouldn't count.

Good news, though: they can become informed and fact-filled, and then their opinions will count! All it takes is a little effort and some rationality.

You imply that their opinions current should not count, and that they should only be counted once they've reached the level of education that you deem fit.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

My meaning is clear: they are uninformed, a situation they can correct but choose not to. It doesn't matter whether they "should" be ignored: they will be. If they remedy the situation then they should have more success getting heard. Incidently, they might get jobs at the same time.

But let me add this: if someone's concern is the aliens hidden at area 51, should those concerns be addressed when the person has no intention of changing their minds or believing a more rational explanation? How much time would you spend trying to un-crazy the uninformed if they don't listen to reason?

Do you believe that fully half the USA is so ignorant that it is appropriate to ignore their voices with respect to the governing of the nation to which they belong?

[sts60]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I'm now gonna try being Mr. Positive.

Please, may I have some of your Kool-Aid?

Originally Posted by Hercules56

He might just work with the Democrats. He might just sometimes, NEED the Democrats to pass things most Republicans don't want.

If the Democrats have sufficient smarts, they will do some flattery and outreach; Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi have made overtures with regard to infrastructure and jobs:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Sure, but who's doing that now?

Certainly not me. I'm just telling them that they're wrong and possibly uninformed about the real issues. That they were lied to by the person they elected. How is that being nasty to them?

Sure, some posters here have reacted strongly to the election but most of them are usually more tempered in their statements.

Well, problem A is that your words don't exist in a vacuum. Everything those other people tell them gets lumped into what you're saying when you say the same thing in a slightly nicer manner. You may not mean the more hurtful sentiments, you probably will never even know what they are, but they're there in the minds of your audience and it's something you need to take into consideration. It's what the SJWs would probably describe as a "culture" or some sort, like "Elitist Culture."

Problem B is that ignorance doesn't mean imperceptiveness: it's not hard to pick up on someone being smugly patronizing.

Quote:

And finally, a lot of them are _not_ willing to listen. What do you to with them?

Listen to them instead. If someone's not willing to listen, it's because they're trying to talk, and what they really want to get across is almost never what their words literally mean.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

You imply that their opinions current should not count, and that they should only be counted once they've reached the level of education that you deem fit.

I certainly didn't mean that their right to vote should be revoked or anything, although now that I think about it the idea is appealing: a minimum amount of education before you can make decisions about how your country is governed?

Quote:

Do you believe that fully half the USA is so ignorant that it is appropriate to ignore their voices with respect to the governing of the nation to which they belong?

You didn't answer my question: What do you do with unreasonable conspiracy theorists who don't listen to reason? At what point do you ignore people's concerns?

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

And again, this is why democrats lost.

You are insisting that the opinions and voices of HALF the country don't count, aren't worth listening to, and should have no say. Talk about violations of civil liberties! Talk about disenfranchisement! Holy cow, you are seriously standing by your claim that HALF the people in this country should be ignored simply because you think you know better than them. This is exactly the sort of arrogance and elitism that caused democrats to lose this election.

You seem triggered, do you need a safe space away from the micro-aggressions?

P.S. along with being flippant, I'm making a clever point about how conservatives engage in the exact same kind of thing you're decrying.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Listen to them instead.

And then what, when you realise that their concerns are based on nonsense but they won't change their minds? Cater to them anyway? Build a fake alien craft so you can vindicate their beliefs?

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

And again, this is why democrats lost.

You are insisting that the opinions and voices of HALF the country don't count, aren't worth listening to, and should have no say. Talk about violations of civil liberties! Talk about disenfranchisement! Holy cow, you are seriously standing by your claim that HALF the people in this country should be ignored simply because you think you know better than them. This is exactly the sort of arrogance and elitism that caused democrats to lose this election.

I think the word you want is "deplorable."