Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Remaining friends with Trump supporters, good idea?
America's Debate > Political Debate > General Political Debate
Pages: 1, 2
Google
CruisingRam
This board has pretty much gone dead, a few die-hards, but the main reason IMHO is that most sane people have pretty much thrown up their hands and walked away from any attempt to debate the right wing anymore, most believing they have gone so far down the road of fascism that there is no way to debate or even have a sane conversation with those kind of people. You can see by the pretty inane threads here now, nothing really controversial that goes to the heart of the real problem in America, It is not that Trump exists, and the Republican party as we know it today exists, it is that there are millions who support this filth. Pretty much, being a republican today is nothing more than being a member of the new American version of the Nazis, except you tend to hate Muslims and Mexicans instead of Jews and gypsies.

Considering that Trump literally lies outright and the right wing seems to not really care, and when I mean lie- there is no nuance or reality to it whatsoever, Not debatable points, nothing to do with facts- just makes crap up and it's okay. Same with Fox news. So there doesn't seem to be much point in debating a right winger anymore, just resist them, and this has been pretty much coming since Reagan decided to go the Christo-facsist way with conservatism in America. He has taken even to going about calling the press that fact check him "the lying press" (Hitler: Luggenpresse)

Some of the important elements of fascism:


1) The primacy of the group. Supporting the group feels more important than maintaining either individual or universal rights. (any Trump speech will pretty much show this)

2) Believing that one's group is a victim. This justifies any behavior against the group's enemies. ( um, duh?)

3) The belief that individualism and liberalism enable dangerous decadence and have a negative effect on the group. (Reagan started this, and fox news has run with it, pretty much the entire Republican party is completely fascist in this regard, as is many on this board now)

4) A strong sense of community or brotherhood. This brotherhood's "unity and purity are forged by common conviction, if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary."

5) Individual self-esteem is tied up in the grandeur of the group. Paxton called this an "enhanced sense of identity and belonging." (MURICA!)

6) Extreme support of a "natural" leader, who is always male. This results in one man taking on the role of national savior. (Making America great again! Though modern times women can be fascist leaders- Sarah Palin, Ann Coultier, Margeret Thatcher)

7) "The beauty of violence and of will, when they are devoted to the group's success in a Darwinian struggle," Paxton wrote. The idea of a naturally superior group or, especially in Hitler's case, biological racism, fits into a fascist interpretation of Darwinism. (Trump has called for violence against his opponent several times)

Another important aspect is "the rebirth myth"- "Making America great again"- I think it is just as important as anti-liberalism in fact. Without it, you don't have fascism able to gain power from what I have seen.

Another set of definitions of fascism, which pretty much are ticked off one by one by anyone that even remotely supports the republican party today:

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

So, the question is, there used to be a time you could "agree to disagree".

Does that still exist?

Would have the majority of Germans that DID NOT vote for Hitler had a much safer history if they had stopped being friends with those that voted for Hitler?

Can you reason with a Fascist, or a Trump supporter?

Do you believe that being a Trump supporter is NOT a fascist position and why?

Most importantly, should you cut all ties with a Trump supporter and do everything you can to legally either shun or destroy them as fascists?
Google
Mrs. Pigpen
We had a thread with a similar list A while back, in case anyone is interested in viewing it.
My opinion hasn't changed since then.

I don't have a lot of time right now because I have to prepare a dinner for 100 people at my home, without help (except from our oldest who is home from college).
Just doing my bit to support the military....which is an ipso facto fascist endeavor apparently. Only a fascist would want to support those people! Hey, it's a farewell for a female officer...which violates the "sexism" criteria...oops, well, best not think too hard on that one.

We had a thread on why Trump won pretty recently and actually saw a lot of old contributors back for a short time, to engage in that topic.
Most people in my experience voted against Hillary more than for Trump.
The same people who would call that sexist don't seem to have trouble not voting for Palin, so it's a little hard to take that claim seriously.

I'd say as a general rule one shouldn't be friends with anyone you have an open dislike and contempt for. That should be obvious, no?
Typically people are able to tell when someone dislikes them and has contempt for them so the issue of breaking that "friendship" shouldn't be much of a problem.
Unless it's a person with Asperger's or some profound level of autism.
akaCG
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ May 2 2017, 10:38 AM) *
...
... I have to prepare a dinner for 100 people at my home, without help (except from our oldest who is home from college).
Just doing my bit to support the military....which is an ipso facto fascist endeavor apparently. Only a fascist would want to support those people! Hey, it's a farewell for a female officer...which violates the "sexism" criteria...oops, well, best not think too hard on that one.
...

I hope it's not too late, and not too much of an imposition, but I told some fascist acquaintances of mine about the wonderful fascist dinner party you're putting on, and they were so excited about joining in that I couldn't resist just telling them how to get there. They're already on their way. I don't know exactly what time they'll arrive (especially the ones who're flying in from Pennsylvania), I'm afraid. Anyway, here are their names (in case you have a guest list to check off and stuff):

From Pennsylvania: Rob Hughes, Mary Ellen Estel, Megan and A.J. Hammons, David and Michelle Barnett, Dr. Joseph Chiaro and his wife, Donna.

From Orlando: Marisa Santiago, Mandy Diaz, Amapola Hansberger, Louis Gutierrez, Juan Torres.

If you need to find out a bit more about their fascist credentials and stuff ...

http://nypost.com/2017/04/22/how-trump-vot...first-100-days/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/201...ty_has_won.html

I dearly wish I could join too, but I have a prior commitment tonight that I just can't miss: one of the local schools is putting on an inspirational choral number, as well as a rousing marching/chanting routine in celebration and honor of our Great Leader President.



EDITED TO ADD my answer to one of the "debate" questions in this thread's OP:

So, the question is, there used to be a time you could "agree to disagree". Does that still exist?

It certainly continues to exist here, which bears a striking resemblance to the map of the U.S.. Not so much here, which doesn't.
CruisingRam
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ May 2 2017, 04:38 AM) *
We had a thread with a similar list A while back, in case anyone is interested in viewing it.
My opinion hasn't changed since then.

I don't have a lot of time right now because I have to prepare a dinner for 100 people at my home, without help (except from our oldest who is home from college).
Just doing my bit to support the military....which is an ipso facto fascist endeavor apparently. Only a fascist would want to support those people! Hey, it's a farewell for a female officer...which violates the "sexism" criteria...oops, well, best not think too hard on that one.

We had a thread on why Trump won pretty recently and actually saw a lot of old contributors back for a short time, to engage in that topic.
Most people in my experience voted against Hillary more than for Trump.
The same people who would call that sexist don't seem to have trouble not voting for Palin, so it's a little hard to take that claim seriously.

I'd say as a general rule one shouldn't be friends with anyone you have an open dislike and contempt for. That should be obvious, no?
Typically people are able to tell when someone dislikes them and has contempt for them so the issue of breaking that "friendship" shouldn't be much of a problem.
Unless it's a person with Asperger's or some profound level of autism.


Wow, I replied to that one, talk about a long time ago- 2005. Since that time, it has become pretty evident that all the liberals (with what, maybe two die hards stlill left) that have left this board, and have ever posted, were 100% correct with the trends of this nation.

The Iraq war was a disaster, and supporting the Iraq war shows either how stupid you are or how much you really hate America, etc.

yes, we are the most militarized nation on earth- even more so than North Korea.

Faux news is now literally an arm of the government and the republican party. (Zucker from CNN was spot on)

If you are a republican, you are now a racist. There is no more middle ground. Your hatred of Islam and Mexicans is pretty evident. Just admit it.

My old friend wertz posted this in 2005, lets see how we have evolved since then:

Which of the 14 features does the United States have?

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism This would really only apply if there were a rise in overt patriotism with politicians resorting to jingoist sloganeering and, as Britt describes it, "prominent displays of flags and bunting... pride in the military... and demands for unity". Well, we've seen none of that in the US recently, have we?

Ah Wertz. Wow, had you lived to see this election. Just wow.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights This would really only apply if a country were, say, employing torture or abusing prisoners or incarcerating people without due process - and we've certainly seen none of that lately. It might also apply, I suppose, if a country passed legislation that curbed any of its traditional rights like obtaining records without judicial oversight or surreptitious search warrants and seizures without court review - and, God knows, that could never happen here. And, I guess, this could also refer to things like securing rights for certain classes of people - like, say, heterosexuals - and excluding other classes of people - say, homosexuals - from those same rights. And we know that would would never happen here.

and it has become worse since. It was sarcasm then. Now it is daily reality old friend

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause Unless some perceived external threat were conjured up to instill fear in a majority of people in order to garner support for the ruling elite - like, oh I don't know, let's say "terrorists", for example - this could never apply. Of course, implied threats from within could be used to the same end - like creating some bugaboo along the lines of "a homosexual agenda" or even something as insidious as "activist judges" - but the American people would never fall for something like that, right? As this kind of thing is generally used to shift blame for failures, something as simplistic as "obstructionism" in a legislative body would probably also count, but again, no one in our government would stoop to that kind of tactic - nor would they resort to labelling their opposition as "traitors" or even "unpatriotic". So we needn't lose any sleep over that one.

The new regime hates the constitution, said as much. Hates checks and balances. It isn't even tongue and cheek anymore

4. Supremacy of the Military As Britt puts it in his assessment of the seven fascist regimes he analyzes, "A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite." That would never happen here in a million years.

Even worse since 2005 my friend.

5. Rampant Sexism In our post-feminist age, this would probably only apply if, say, a majority of business or religious leaders or legislators or judges were still male. Or - hahaha! - if women still earned less then men for doing the same job. It could also be argued that any questioning of reproductive rights would count as rather rampant sexism - and, of course, homophobia would be another class of sexism altogether - but, here in the US, we've moved beyond all that.

Yep, it got worse. So much worse. Can you imagine a President elected by a minority of US citizens, but those citizens are okay with a scumbag that says "just grab them by the pussy?

6. Controlled Mass Media This would only be a symptom of a fascist state if the media were in the hands of very few multinational corporations, all of which supported, collaborated with, and profited through deals engineered by the central government. As all of our national dailies and newsmagazines are owned by individual entrepreneurs and all of our television networks are in the hands of small independent companies that never indulge in lobbying and would perish at the thought of parroting government press releases, we have nothing to fear here, either. As Joe pointed out, Judith Miller alone is enough to demonstrate that we have an eminently free press. She was able to single-handedly invent justification for an invasion of Iraq with no interference from the federal government whatsoever - while on the payroll of a "liberal" paper!

Now Faux news is literally the propaganda arm of the Cheeto Twitler

7. Obsession with National Security Good grief. Until we establish a cabinet level agency specifically dedicated to national security in addition to a "Defense Department" and our leadership makes perceived external threats the top issue in all of their discourse or until our defense spending accounts for 80% of our national debt and agencies as diverse as the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation dedicate up to 50% of their budgets to homeland security, this is just a paranoid fantasy.

get to take this to the next level, the moron the moron's elected says that Obama wire tapped his building.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined This one is just outrageous. As has already been stated, our Constitution stringently guarantees separation of church and state. No leader would even dream of advocating a "faith-based" initiative, no legislator has even contemplated framing a law based on the narrow moral beliefs of a single religion, no court has ever even had to hear a case based on the establishment clause, and not one citizen could even conceive of the US as "a Christian nation" any more than they could think of the US as "a Hindoo nation".

The new republican/nazi party wants to literally force muslims to wear public identification.

9. Corporate Power is Protected As we all know, the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted to treat corporations as individuals. Therefore, corporations themselves pay federal income tax with no more exemptions or loopholes than you or I and, should they commit fraud or pollute the air or water or knowingly endanger their employees or consumers, they are immediately liquidated and imprisoned. No corporation has ever profitted from ties to the government. Why, we even prohibit corporate leaders from holding public office, just so there's no conceivable conflict of interest. Right?

10. Labor Power is Suppressed We all know that in the good ol' US of A, labor unions are the ultimate authority in determining the rights of every worker in the country. Such a ridiculous notion as a "right to work" state will never fly here, no illegal immigrant can possibly find a job before every single citizen is gainfully employed, no worker can have so much as one cent of their pension threatened by white collar crime, not a single job can be farmed out to cheaper labor in another country, and everyone who earns a living wage (which is, well... everyone, right?) is guaranteed health benefits. So, obviously, we don't have to worry about this, either.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts Puh-lease! Intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Edward Said and J.K. Galbraith and Arthur Schlesinger are among the most respected people in the country! And until artists like Robert Mapplethorpe or Andres Serrano have their work banned from publicly funded galleries or there are books removed from our school libraries or films are subjected to ratings and censorship or internet content is proscribed, this will be no threat at all.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment This would only apply if we punished victimless crimes or tried to abolish prostitution or regulated gambling or instituted something as flawed as "three strikes" laws or as inhuman as capital punishment or declared a "war" on drugs. Clearly, there's not a whiff of fascism in relation to crime in the US.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption This one doesn't even bear addressing. Hello - this is the United States we're talking about, people. Corruption? Cronyism? Don't make me laugh!

14. Fraudulent Elections As we all know, the United States still uses nothing but paper ballots, so that there's a record of every vote - and that each of those votes is counted by hand. There has never been and will never be a disputed election here, never mind an election that requires extraordinary intervention by the Supreme Court in order to decide a vote in favor of the loser or which requires oversight by an international body. Until there comes a day when someone can say "democracy is full of stories about voting irregularities" as though this were to be expected, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Oh wertz, it has become so much worse than this- it's a thread unto it's own.

I do not, of course, see any of the above as necessarily indicating that the US is headed toward fascism. But, as fascism is essentially an extremist reaction to liberalism, every step away from the progressive agenda of our founders is a step toward a fascist state. Again, I feel that Eco's description of "Ur-Fascism" is much more enlightening than Britt's historical list - and even more closely reflects some of what is happening in our country under our current leadership (even though it was written in 1995). It's worth a look.

I don't think even you Wertz were capable of seeing how far this board, it's members and the US were going towards fascism

Eco concludes his piece with a quote from FDR and it bears repeating here: "If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land." Are we moving forward? Are we bettering the lot of our citizens? All of our citizens? And through peaceful means? Or is fascism growing in strength in our land?




Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 2 2017, 08:56 PM) *
yes, we are the most militarized nation on earth- even more so than North Korea.


That would depend on your definition of "militarized".
If it's human manpower, only roughly one out of every 300 US citizens is in the military. The DPRK has mandatory conscription and its percentage is a lot higher.
It's also a police state.

We do have the best military in the world. That's why we have security commitments all around the globe and people ask us to help them out.
When we make security commitments we're responsible for the security of those we've made commitments with, and that requires military kit and troops and a lot more expense than just policing one's own borders.

If your measure is military effectiveness we are definitely more "militarized" than the DPRK.
But by that measure just about every first world country is now "more militarized" than Nazi Germany.

If your argument is that we're becoming more militarized...
Before the first Gulf war we had around 130 fighter squadrons in the US and today we have 55.
Most of those squadrons are manned about 50 percent or less than 25 years ago.
Trouble
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 1 2017, 08:51 PM) *
This board has pretty much gone dead, a few die-hards, but the main reason IMHO is that most sane people have pretty much thrown up their hands and walked away from any attempt to debate the right wing anymore, most believing they have gone so far down the road of fascism that there is no way to debate or even have a sane conversation with those kind of people. You can see by the pretty inane threads here now, nothing really controversial that goes to the heart of the real problem in America, It is not that Trump exists, and the Republican party as we know it today exists, it is that there are millions who support this filth. Pretty much, being a republican today is nothing more than being a member of the new American version of the Nazis, except you tend to hate Muslims and Mexicans instead of Jews and gypsies.

Considering that Trump literally lies outright and the right wing seems to not really care, and when I mean lie- there is no nuance or reality to it whatsoever, Not debatable points, nothing to do with facts- just makes crap up and it's okay. Same with Fox news. So there doesn't seem to be much point in debating a right winger anymore, just resist them, and this has been pretty much coming since Reagan decided to go the Christo-facsist way with conservatism in America. He has taken even to going about calling the press that fact check him "the lying press" (Hitler: Luggenpresse)

Some of the important elements of fascism:


1) The primacy of the group. Supporting the group feels more important than maintaining either individual or universal rights. (any Trump speech will pretty much show this)

2) Believing that one's group is a victim. This justifies any behavior against the group's enemies. ( um, duh?)

3) The belief that individualism and liberalism enable dangerous decadence and have a negative effect on the group. (Reagan started this, and fox news has run with it, pretty much the entire Republican party is completely fascist in this regard, as is many on this board now)

4) A strong sense of community or brotherhood. This brotherhood's "unity and purity are forged by common conviction, if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary."

5) Individual self-esteem is tied up in the grandeur of the group. Paxton called this an "enhanced sense of identity and belonging." (MURICA!)

6) Extreme support of a "natural" leader, who is always male. This results in one man taking on the role of national savior. (Making America great again! Though modern times women can be fascist leaders- Sarah Palin, Ann Coultier, Margeret Thatcher)

7) "The beauty of violence and of will, when they are devoted to the group's success in a Darwinian struggle," Paxton wrote. The idea of a naturally superior group or, especially in Hitler's case, biological racism, fits into a fascist interpretation of Darwinism. (Trump has called for violence against his opponent several times)

Another important aspect is "the rebirth myth"- "Making America great again"- I think it is just as important as anti-liberalism in fact. Without it, you don't have fascism able to gain power from what I have seen.

Another set of definitions of fascism, which pretty much are ticked off one by one by anyone that even remotely supports the republican party today:

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

So, the question is, there used to be a time you could "agree to disagree".

Does that still exist?

Would have the majority of Germans that DID NOT vote for Hitler had a much safer history if they had stopped being friends with those that voted for Hitler?

Can you reason with a Fascist, or a Trump supporter?

Do you believe that being a Trump supporter is NOT a fascist position and why?

Most importantly, should you cut all ties with a Trump supporter and do everything you can to legally either shun or destroy them as fascists?



That is a pretty fast and loose definition. The point of debate is to discuss the merits and flaws of any given subject through oration. That hasn't happened on campuses because every time a "Trump" supporter (think Milo, Cernovich) says something the crowd goes nuts and everything is shut down. To allude to violence on the Trump side misses the reaction of the students and misses the enormity of the no-go zones placed around free speech. Personally I think the degradations you are referring to are simply the descent into empire Chalmers Johnson warned about years ago. And that ain't a left or right thing so much as a corruption thing.

We'll have to agree to disagree with your definition of fascism. A more typical use of the word is the merger of state and corporate power. Trump is merely the latest incarnation of a bipartisan evolution. To damn him is to damn the process which started 25 years ago.

One of the more astute observers was Mussolini himself who defined fascism as "the horror inspired by a comfortable life." All you have described CruisingRam is an entrenchment or polarization of the sides. So the question I have has the comfortable life come and gone? If so you may have to alter the parameters of the discussion.

I'm having difficulty wrapping my mind around what is so terrible or exceptional about the current iteration of supporters that makes it taboo to talk? Help!
Mrs. Pigpen
Since I have insomnia...
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 2 2017, 08:56 PM) *
Faux news is now literally an arm of the government and the republican party. (Zucker from CNN was spot on)

If you are a republican, you are now a racist. There is no more middle ground. Your hatred of Islam and Mexicans is pretty evident. Just admit it.


A liberal blogger's thoughts related to this topic

QUOTE
Roberts says that these neutral gatekeeper institutions “tend to draw their personnel from left-leaning demographics”, as if this was just a big fuss about 105 New Englanders for every 100 Texans. I would like to counter with a report from a friend who graduated from a top university last year:

I was at my graduation last weekend, and the commencement address was basically about twenty minutes of vitriolic insults directed at Trump.
And in between burying my head in my friend’s shoulder in discomfort and laughing nervously, I was thinking about the family of this guy in my class.

He’s the first person in his family to go to college. He drove an hour every day to go to a somewhat better high school because there was an epidemic of gang violence at his local school. Against the odds, he did well, and got into college, where he has continued to get good grades and play sports and generally do things that make parents proud.

His family is not well off. They’re Mexican-American. And they’re Trump supporters.
(snip)

My mom thought this speech was So Courageous. When I suggested that it might have been more courageous to say something that not everyone there agreed with, she replied, “the students maybe, but a lot of the parents looked unhappy.”

Seventy percent of the parents there had family incomes over six figures. (More, probably, since low-income parents are less likely to attend graduation.) A lot of them are members of the self-perpetuating intellectual/economic elite. This probably isn’t true of the few Trump supporters among them.


Perhaps similar to to how only left wing vaginas "count", only left wing Mexicans count.

QUOTE
And the same thing is happening in the media. For example, in this very piece, Roberts cites a Vox poll showing that Trump supporters are more likely to be authoritarians. Vox has pushed this same claim many more times: Authoritarianism: The Political Science That Explains Trump, The Rise Of American Authoritarianism: A Niche Group Of Political Scientists May Have Uncovered What’s Driving Donald Trump’s Ascent, The Rise Of American Authoritarianism Explained In 6 Minutes, The Best Predictor Of Trump Support Is Authoritarianism.

Okay. But Vox is working off an internal poll that it hasn’t released (or at least I can’t find it) meaning no one has any idea if the sample size and methodology are okay. And some political science professors tried the same exercise around the same time with excellent methodology and a sample size of over a thousand and found the opposite – Trump supporters were less authoritarian than Cruz supporters, and no more authoritarian than Rubio supporters. They did find that Republicans were a bit more authoritarian than Democrats, but correctly noted that the measure involved is literally called “Right-Wing Authoritarianism”, is based on a scale invented by Theodor Adorno to prove conservatives had fascist tendencies, and only asks questions about child-rearing practices (you get marked as “authoritarian” if you have a traditional religious child-rearing style). And there are other investigations of authority that try to control for this sort of thing and sometimes find find liberals and conservatives are about equal in respect for authority.


Of course I'm selectively cherry-picking here. The article overall is not pro-Trump, but he is even handed and attempts to be objective and would not support your screed here.
In this article, he is pointing to exactly this type of communication style as the type of thing that is integral to the problem you (ostensibly) want to solve.
It's worth a read to anyone interested.

Edited to add:
I mentioned on another thread the problem with surrounding oneself with only people you agree with politically, marginalizing one's own opinions and placing anyone who doesn't fit into the "outlier" category. These ipso facto safe spaces aren't a reflection of reality. This happens to both sides. I can think of no better illustration than the following video.
Many people were against Chick fila's policies and this person erroneously believed the video of him berating a nice person at the Chick fila drive-thru would be well received for that reason.
He took this video and expected to receive applause and personal validation for a job well done (with perhaps the occasional, "haters" who could be ridiculed and easily dismissed).
Instead he lost a +200k income as a corporate CFO, and cannot find employment anymore.
Furthermore, the video had exactly the opposite impact he wanted.
Chick fila's popularity increased.

Chick fil a dude
akaCG
Some interesting stats about our nation’s top 10 poorest cities (as of 2013 or so; ascending order of poverty rate, rounded off; last year said city had a Republican mayor in parentheses; link):

El Paso: 25% (never in its history, which dates back to 1873)
St. Louis: 26% (1949)
Newark: 26% (1907)
Cincinnati: 27% (1984)
Philadelphia: 28% (1952)
Milwaukee: 30% (1908)
Buffalo: 30% (1965)
Cleveland: 36% (1989)
Detroit: 36% (1962)
Camden: 42% (1936)

With “friends” of underprivileged minorities like that, who needs racists?


ps (for good measure):

From a 2014 article titled “The U.S. Cities Where the Poor Are Most Segregated From Everyone Else” (descending rank order, i.e. from worst to "best"):

1. Milwaukee-…

3. Philadelphia-Camden-…
4. Cleveland-...
5. Detroit-…

7. Buffalo-…

9. Baltimore-…



ps2:

"Look how much [the] African-American community has suffered under Democratic control. To those I say the following: ... What the hell do you have to lose?"

entspeak
A couple of things:

First, there seems to be this misconception that, because you choose not the be friends with someone, you close yourself off to their opinions. That isn't true. I have no friends that are Trump supporters. This doesn't mean I am unwilling to listen to the opinions of Trump supporters, it just means we don't share core views that I find important to maintain a friendship. But the same can be said for some Clinton supporters and other liberals and conservatives. I've dropped liberal friends who engage in the same sort of behavior and rhetoric as the conservatives I can't be friends with - it's a person problem, not limited to one party or political bent.

I've had some constructive exchanges with Trump supporters on Twitter and in person. I am not friends with these people, but that doesn't mean we can't engage in constructive discourse.

Second, the notion that all Republicans are racist and fascist is preposterous and not supported by facts.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(entspeak @ May 4 2017, 07:05 AM) *
First, there seems to be this misconception that, because you choose not the be friends with someone, you close yourself off to their opinions. That isn't true. I have no friends that are Trump supporters. This doesn't mean I am unwilling to listen to the opinions of Trump supporters, it just means we don't share core views that I find important to maintain a friendship. But the same can be said for some Clinton supporters and other liberals and conservatives. I've dropped liberal friends who engage in the same sort of behavior and rhetoric as the conservatives I can't be friends with - it's a person problem, not limited to one party or political bent.

I've had some constructive exchanges with Trump supporters on Twitter and in person. I am not friends with these people, but that doesn't mean we can't engage in constructive discourse.

Second, the notion that all Republicans are racist and fascist is preposterous and not supported by facts.


All good points.
My answer above regarding echo chamberism was in the context of the style of the topic post, and also what I see in life (both online and off line).
It is true one doesn't have to close oneself off to other opinion but in life it does seem to happen that way for most people.
Google
akaCG
QUOTE(entspeak @ May 4 2017, 08:05 AM) *
...
Second, the notion that all Republicans are racist and fascist is preposterous and not supported by facts.

Even the notion that more than a tiny minority of Republicans are racists and fascists is preposterous. As preposterous as the notion that more than a tiny minority of Democrats are deranged enough to actually believe that Republican = Racist and Fascist.

ps:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-wh...hite-democrats/
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ May 4 2017, 08:16 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ May 4 2017, 07:05 AM) *
First, there seems to be this misconception that, because you choose not the be friends with someone, you close yourself off to their opinions. That isn't true. I have no friends that are Trump supporters. This doesn't mean I am unwilling to listen to the opinions of Trump supporters, it just means we don't share core views that I find important to maintain a friendship. But the same can be said for some Clinton supporters and other liberals and conservatives. I've dropped liberal friends who engage in the same sort of behavior and rhetoric as the conservatives I can't be friends with - it's a person problem, not limited to one party or political bent.

I've had some constructive exchanges with Trump supporters on Twitter and in person. I am not friends with these people, but that doesn't mean we can't engage in constructive discourse.

Second, the notion that all Republicans are racist and fascist is preposterous and not supported by facts.


All good points.
My answer above regarding echo chamberism was in the context of the style of the topic post, and also what I see in life (both online and off line).
It is true one doesn't have to close oneself off to other opinion but in life it does seem to happen that way for most people.

Or at least for some people.

I have not ever met a Trump supporter, nor people who share his opinions -- whatever they may be. He's a moving entity, hard to tell what's inside there. However, I don't mingle so much any longer, and since a lot of my time is spent with music and guitars, there really isn't much room for debate.

But I do remember Nixon supporters. They got very, very quiet after his resignation. A similar thing will happen with Trump, probably more dramatic. Maybe it'll be public meltdown, maybe him getting arrested and hauled off to jail, and of course most likely, something entirely different than what I'm imagining.

Whatever it becomes, it's for sure that his present-day supporters will act the same as Nixon supporters did. Maybe some of his minions will get talk radio shows. Others might find Jesus in the pokey. There will be books galore written on the subject, TV/Hulu/Netflix specials.

Anyway, my circle of friends is extremely small, and a lot of what remains has strings and frets. If I manage to gig again, there will be more humans in the mix. There probably won't be anyone remotely like Trump due to how real estate moguls don't have anything in common with sonic Sherpas.
CruisingRam
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ May 2 2017, 05:11 PM) *
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 2 2017, 08:56 PM) *
yes, we are the most militarized nation on earth- even more so than North Korea.


That would depend on your definition of "militarized".
If it's human manpower, only roughly one out of every 300 US citizens is in the military. The DPRK has mandatory conscription and its percentage is a lot higher.
It's also a police state.

We do have the best military in the world. That's why we have security commitments all around the globe and people ask us to help them out.
When we make security commitments we're responsible for the security of those we've made commitments with, and that requires military kit and troops and a lot more expense than just policing one's own borders.

If your measure is military effectiveness we are definitely more "militarized" than the DPRK.
But by that measure just about every first world country is now "more militarized" than Nazi Germany.

If your argument is that we're becoming more militarized...
Before the first Gulf war we had around 130 fighter squadrons in the US and today we have 55.
Most of those squadrons are manned about 50 percent or less than 25 years ago.


It is the massive % of our GDP that makes us by far the most militarized society on earth. I believe we are at about 27% of the overall budget? Give or take a % or two? I believe we sstill spend more on our military than the next 7-8 developed countries that are our allies. To say we can't afford x or y social program while literally spending trillions on things like the gulf war is insane, literally insane. We can't afford to pay for college for all US citizens or health care because we need to feed our military machine, so yeah, we are by far the most militarized country in the world. We are actually as bad as north korea in this aspect- we are letting US citizens go without so that we can pay for our military on a massive, insane scale.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 4 2017, 02:13 PM) *
It is the massive % of our GDP that makes us by far the most militarized society on earth. I believe we are at about 27% of the overall budget? Give or take a % or two?


We spend 3.3 percent of our GDP on the military.
That's 16 percent of the overall budget. Operations and maintenance costs make up half of that.

QUOTE
I believe we still spend more on our military than the next 7-8 developed countries that are our allies.


"The next 7-8 developed nations allies" is a meaningless figure without context.
And those developed countries who are our allies should probably be investing in their military more too.
CruisingRam
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ May 4 2017, 09:55 AM) *
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 4 2017, 02:13 PM) *
It is the massive % of our GDP that makes us by far the most militarized society on earth. I believe we are at about 27% of the overall budget? Give or take a % or two?


We spend 3.3 percent of our GDP on the military.
That's 16 percent of the overall budget. Operations and maintenance costs make up half of that.

QUOTE
I believe we still spend more on our military than the next 7-8 developed countries that are our allies.


"The next 7-8 developed nations allies" is a meaningless figure without context.
And those developed countries who are our allies should probably be investing in their military more too.



Does that figure include discretionary spending? 5-10% more than that?

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-defe...-massive-2015-8

And I was wrong- our expeditures are more than double of Russia, Saudi Arabia and China combined- our "rivals" in the military (okay, Saudi Arabia, though technically our ally, but with friends like those, who needs enemas?) - this is a straight up fact that we are a militarized society, and ANY talks of cutting the military brings out the very worst of the goose stepping types. We have been in some kind of military conflict for more than 90% of our nations history, most of it military adventurism and outright bad behavior by us- the second gulf war is a perfect example.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 4 2017, 04:14 PM) *
Does that figure include discretionary spending? 5-10% more than that?


I don't know what you're talking about CR.
I think the entire military budget is "discretionary spending".
That's why when it comes time to make cuts to the budget the military is the first on the chopping block.
There's only about 32 percent of the entire federal budget is in the discretionary spending category.
The military makes up half of it.
It's also why they attach pork projects to it.
That's why recently a base put two million dollars into a gym (construction project that brought jobs to that district) when there wasn't 100,000 available to pay for jet fuel to train...the actual reason the base was there in the first place.

Just as a side note, we don't know how much China spends on military. They aren't that forthcoming. We don't even know their real GDP.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ May 4 2017, 05:36 PM) *
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 4 2017, 04:14 PM) *
Does that figure include discretionary spending? 5-10% more than that?


I don't know what you're talking about CR.
I think the entire military budget is "discretionary spending".
That's why when it comes time to make cuts to the budget the military is the first on the chopping block.
There's only about 32 percent of the entire federal budget is in the discretionary spending category.
The military makes up half of it.
It's also why they attach pork projects to it.
That's why recently a base put two million dollars into a gym (construction project that brought jobs to that district) when there wasn't 100,000 available to pay for jet fuel to train...the actual reason the base was there in the first place.

Edited to add:
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 4 2017, 04:14 PM) *
And I was wrong- our expeditures are more than double of Russia, Saudi Arabia and China combined- our "rivals" in the military (okay, Saudi Arabia, though technically our ally, but with friends like those, who needs enemas?) - this is a straight up fact that we are a militarized society, and ANY talks of cutting the military brings out the very worst of the goose stepping types. We have been in some kind of military conflict for more than 90% of our nations history, most of it military adventurism and outright bad behavior by us- the second gulf war is a perfect example.


And who are China, Saudi, and Russia involved in security agreements with?
To my knowledge, Syria is about the only one asking Russia to help out. They aren't involved in security agreements around the globe. That's what I mean by context. What are the security obligations and what are costs to gains?
I have spent not one dollar on golf in my entire life. Tiger Woods has spent millions. Are my budget and Tiger's a reasonable comparison?
What if I need to win a golf game against Tiger Woods?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ry_expenditures

Seems the principle at work here is that cutting government expenditures for someone else is a lot easier than cutting expenditures for yourself. This is likely why Trump supporters and Trump detractors don't get along.

Related, everybody thinks their expenditures are vital for the nation. For example, the US military would be in sad shape if it weren't for citizens having good enough jobs to pay the taxes that support the military. Thank God(in) for divas racking up millions gleaned from their tween and sexually frustrated middle-aged male followers/voyeurs!

So support the arts if you wanna play global militaristic politics, eh? Then the fly boys will get their gas, thereby filing the sky with the sound of freedom that prompts guitarists to buy stuff like sound suppression (heh) materials, more powerful amps and so on. It's the circle of economic life.

I'd probably not get along with Trump supporters because our president is such a moron when it comes to how life actually works. Kill the middle class and you kill America, pointing it toward a dystopia to rival N. Korea or those nations in Africa suffering famine (pant pant, hyperbolic spasms). How better to do this than putting health care out of reach for tens of millions? You know, while keeping wages flat in an economy that is healthiest with inflation at around 2% per year, unemployment around 5%?

Meanwhile, our beloved leader admires tyrants in other countries while bitching about how Congress thwarts his greatest glories.

Yeah, I'd not get along with Trump supporters. It's a good thing I don't even want to try. Like a broken string, the only thing to do is change it. There's no fix for the broken string itself other than recycling.

I'm thinking kitty chow, KFC-sourced.
net2007
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 1 2017, 10:51 PM) *
This board has pretty much gone dead, a few die-hards, but the main reason IMHO is that most sane people have pretty much thrown up their hands and walked away from any attempt to debate the right wing anymore, most believing they have gone so far down the road of fascism that there is no way to debate or even have a sane conversation with those kind of people. You can see by the pretty inane threads here now, nothing really controversial that goes to the heart of the real problem in America, It is not that Trump exists, and the Republican party as we know it today exists, it is that there are millions who support this filth. Pretty much, being a republican today is nothing more than being a member of the new American version of the Nazis, except you tend to hate Muslims and Mexicans instead of Jews and gypsies.

Considering that Trump literally lies outright and the right wing seems to not really care, and when I mean lie- there is no nuance or reality to it whatsoever, Not debatable points, nothing to do with facts- just makes crap up and it's okay. Same with Fox news. So there doesn't seem to be much point in debating a right winger anymore, just resist them, and this has been pretty much coming since Reagan decided to go the Christo-facsist way with conservatism in America. He has taken even to going about calling the press that fact check him "the lying press" (Hitler: Luggenpresse)

Some of the important elements of fascism:


1) The primacy of the group. Supporting the group feels more important than maintaining either individual or universal rights. (any Trump speech will pretty much show this)

2) Believing that one's group is a victim. This justifies any behavior against the group's enemies. ( um, duh?)

3) The belief that individualism and liberalism enable dangerous decadence and have a negative effect on the group. (Reagan started this, and fox news has run with it, pretty much the entire Republican party is completely fascist in this regard, as is many on this board now)

4) A strong sense of community or brotherhood. This brotherhood's "unity and purity are forged by common conviction, if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary."

5) Individual self-esteem is tied up in the grandeur of the group. Paxton called this an "enhanced sense of identity and belonging." (MURICA!)

6) Extreme support of a "natural" leader, who is always male. This results in one man taking on the role of national savior. (Making America great again! Though modern times women can be fascist leaders- Sarah Palin, Ann Coultier, Margeret Thatcher)

7) "The beauty of violence and of will, when they are devoted to the group's success in a Darwinian struggle," Paxton wrote. The idea of a naturally superior group or, especially in Hitler's case, biological racism, fits into a fascist interpretation of Darwinism. (Trump has called for violence against his opponent several times)

Another important aspect is "the rebirth myth"- "Making America great again"- I think it is just as important as anti-liberalism in fact. Without it, you don't have fascism able to gain power from what I have seen.

Another set of definitions of fascism, which pretty much are ticked off one by one by anyone that even remotely supports the republican party today:

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

So, the question is, there used to be a time you could "agree to disagree".

Does that still exist?

Would have the majority of Germans that DID NOT vote for Hitler had a much safer history if they had stopped being friends with those that voted for Hitler?

Can you reason with a Fascist, or a Trump supporter?

Do you believe that being a Trump supporter is NOT a fascist position and why?

Most importantly, should you cut all ties with a Trump supporter and do everything you can to legally either shun or destroy them as fascists?


Are you serious with this thread? Oh brother, what to do.....

So the reason we don't have as many active members at AD is because of conservatives? I highly doubt it, active membership started dropping off when Mike and Jamie stopped the radio program and stopped updating the site with new forums, that's common knowledge here.

Your theory is based on your own bias and completely disregards the fact that liberals and conservatives debate all over the internet in high numbers. If anything the amount of debating online has gone up and has gotten increasingly heated. You could go as far as to say that some people like arguing with those they consider unreasonable. As an example, I occasionally go to a website called Christianforums.com and the website has an Athiest following. Members who (in some cases) join the website just to let Christians know how ridiculous they think they are.

Your theory fails on so many levels that I wonder how you develop your opinions. I've read your comments here for years and it's usually the same, its almost as if you wake up and tell yourself "I'm just going to say some liberal stuff today and see how it goes". Think outside the box for once. If you have a nonpartisan bone in your body it's begging to be exercised.

To address your feelings on Trump voters... Would I be friends with a Trump voter? If they're reasonable with me then yes!! Would you be friends with a Hillary voter? The left was responsible for more vulgar language and more violence during this election season than any political group by a long shot, and it's very easy to demonstrate. (try me)

Also, to tackle the very first two "elements of fascism" that you listed...

QUOTE
1) The primacy of the group. Supporting the group feels more important than maintaining either individual or universal rights. (any Trump speech will pretty much show this)

2) Believing that one's group is a victim. This justifies any behavior against the group's enemies. ( um, duh?)


There are groups on the left who are desperately lost in those types of mindsets and I'd be baffled by anyone who can't see that or acknowledge it. What you're really addressing is a problem that's present in many political and social groups. Would I be friends with a Hillary voter? If they weren't one of the protesters spouting violent rhetoric or assaulting others and if they treat me with respect for the position I hold then absolutely. Those people are out there on both sides of the isle, if you can't see that then you're looking in the wrong places or don't want to see it because reasonable Trump voters wouldn't help your agenda to taint that group.

So you're coming from one of two places here, either you're intentionally trying to taint a political group you can't stand, or you haven't been able to handle debating them. (possibly both) If you personally can't handle a debate then you're free to go whenever you want, and if it's that you want to degrade your political opponents and make them out to be horrible people.... Well man, you fit right in with the extremist who have divided us and frustrated about every sane person who would rather see people just get along and work together where possible.

Your misplaced blame in regards to waning AD participation comes from this type of thinking...

QUOTE
CruisingRam "liberal democrats have been 100% correct on every position they have taken since Bill Clinton- proven right in every way."


These are positions that are so extreme that I guarantee that Barak Obama himself would reject them. Yet the conservative members haven't given up talking to you have they? They're not so bad but (as I said), if you can't handle the debates or have a deep seeded disgust of your political opponents then you're free to go whenever you want Mr.






akaCG
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 2 2017, 09:56 PM) *

yes, we are the most militarized nation on earth- even more so than North Korea.

Good grief. What unadulterated piffle!

NK's military personnel, at about 6 million, comprise close to a quarter of its population. The U.S. active and reserve military personnel, at about 2 million, comprise about ... 0.6% of its population. NK's military eats up more than 20% of its GDP. The U.S.? About 3.3%.

Here, for perspective, are some more examples of military expenditures as a % of GDP (descending order):

Israel: 5.8
Russia: 5.3
Singapore: 3.4
U.S.: 3.3
Iran: 3.0
S. Korea: 2.7
India: 2.5
France: 2.3

Hobbes
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ May 1 2017, 08:51 PM) *
This board has pretty much gone dead, a few die-hards, but the main reason IMHO is that most sane people have pretty much thrown up their hands and walked away from any attempt to debate the right wing anymore, most believing they have gone so far down the road of fascism that there is no way to debate or even have a sane conversation with those kind of people. You can see by the pretty inane threads here now, nothing really controversial that goes to the heart of the real problem in America, It is not that Trump exists, and the Republican party as we know it today exists, it is that there are millions who support this filth. Pretty much, being a republican today is nothing more than being a member of the new American version of the Nazis, except you tend to hate Muslims and Mexicans instead of Jews and gypsies.


A better example of Trump Derangement Syndrome could not be found...and the main reason not much debate occurs, here or elsewhere, is because TDS and constructive conversation live in completely different realms, and the two can never cross.

Not that there isn't lots to criticize about Trump...but having any reasoned discussion about it is completely impossible. Not because of the right...because of the left. You know, those supposedly inclusive types that would willingly see anyone who even tries to be objective about Trump shot dead in the street. That type of inclusion. You can't have reasoned discussions with that...so there isn't any point in even trying.
droop224
Great post CR!

Let me start by answering the question in the title. 100% yes you should still remain friends with conservatives if they are your friends. In my opinion the average modern American conservative is not evil, he\she simply corrupt. And that's ok because we are all human and we are all corrupt, but as we like to say in bro-slang... "there are levels to this sh.." And the average has been corrupted to homicidal levels.

The other day I'm on Facebook and a fellow Marine makes a statement to his post. There are some protesters blocking traffic in this video and one of the cars got fed up and slowly started to move in on the protestors. Then the protestors merge on the car and the accelerates and runs them over, just runs them over the people. Who dies? I don't know. Was there some emergency that caused the car to have to plow through humans? I don't know. Its just a video with a caption of "Play stupid liberal games, win stupid liberal prizes. Blocking road = getting run over!" But the post the Jarhead response "LOL" The group making the post was called "the patriot federation" (is it me or do "patriots" all seem homicidal, call it the Hernandez effect) Now here is a man with a wife and children. An honest man, I think, to what ever degree we can be honest in our current society. But in his mind, a human being life is so devalued by the fact that they are protesting and blocking traffic that he "LOL" the idea of people being run over in the street.

I want to say. "You think it would be funny if your children are run over or your wife" Of course I know the answer to this, but of course as AKACG is bound to say "Good grief!" these are different scenarios. I mean its different if someone intentionally runs over your kids as they innocently walk home for school compared to someone intentionally running over someone for blocking traffic. I mean their life loss value by being liberal protestors standing in front of traffic.

And this is the heart of the corruption of the average conservatives and why their corruption. Their ability to devalue human life with LABELS! Whether it you are Black, Hood, Ghetto, Terrorist, Insurgent, Liberal, protestor, Hollywood Elite, Etc.. you are something "other"! every label is an attempt to devalue your humanity. So they aren't killing human beings, they are killing "insert label" And i'll explain why this is important to me a little later.

You take an American liberal and you get someone crying about injustice and lack of inequality, take them at their worst and you get someone becoming way too hysterical in their complaints... "Oh men can't pretend to be women... we are eating too much chicken... we are murdering trees" I think many on the left are getting a little annoyed at millennial progressives, as Chris Rock said it "We keep complaining to the Refs that the other team plays dirty, but we need to get back on defense". The point is hey far left American liberals are whiny.

BUT.....

You take the American Conservative and you start pushing them to the right and you get a more and more homicidal person. And I am picking that word "homicidal" so that none of you confuse that with "murderous". Conservative are becoming more homicidal, but they aren't any more murderous than any other group in America. This is a direct correlation to conservatives greater ability to devalue human life. This doesn't make them evil or unworthy. It is just natural. In fact I would argue that it is more natural than what liberalism proposes.

They care about themselves, they care about their family, their friends, their community, their country just like anyone else. However they lack the empathy necessary to care about something "other" And for whatever psychological reason it is easier to create the feeling of "otherness" with a label. And then killing that "other" becomes no more morally wrong then eating chicken on Monday night.

The liberal has to clean that corruption from the average conservative by moving the "otherness" created by a label into "that is human life, just like your children are human, your spouse is human, your siblings are human, etc" This is not an easy task, especially when very powerful humans and nature itself actively fight against this. I believe the only way you can do this is through bonds of relationships. That conservative mindset has to see you as "not other" to even receive a message. Then you have to raise a metaphoric mirror to the conservative so that the "humanity" of the "other" outweighs the "otherness".

That's how you defeat racism and that how you defeat fascism. You show them their lack of humanity. You strip away their justifications and arguments in why they are right to act as if humans, aren't really human. And you show them that is a human being just like some human you love and you are treat them as if they are less the human. I think this corrects their moral compass and alleviates some of the corruption.

QUOTE(AkaCG)
Good grief. What unadulterated piffle!

NK's military personnel, at about 6 million, comprise close to a quarter of its population. The U.S. active and reserve military personnel, at about 2 million, comprise about ... 0.6% of its population. NK's military eats up more than 20% of its GDP. The U.S.? About 3.3%.

Here, for perspective, are some more examples of military expenditures as a % of GDP (descending order):

Israel: 5.8
Russia: 5.3
Singapore: 3.4
U.S.: 3.3
Iran: 3.0
S. Korea: 2.7
India: 2.5
France: 2.3


The only debate where it comes to question if we are the most militarized nation of the world starts with us arguing on what militarized means as Mrs P suggests.

And for some reason that is the new thing when debating my conservative compadres here on ad.gif. You guys seem to have trouble defining concepts in a neutral way. Freedom, liberal(ism), terrorism, but its part of the fun.

A prayer to the ad.gif gods... please stop eating my posts. OK I will save first since I thought about it




net2007
Droop

I give you credit for this line...

QUOTE
Let me start by answering the question in the title. 100% yes you should still remain friends with conservatives if they are your friends. In my opinion the average modern American conservative is not evil,


I don't believe in evil but lets just say that I agree that modern conservatives are not inherently bad people and if you have a conservative friend or one who's a Trump supporter that it isn't a reason not to be friends with them. You lose me on your elaboration of this though....

QUOTE
They care about themselves, they care about their family, their friends, their community, their country just like anyone else. However they lack the empathy necessary to care about something "other" And for whatever psychological reason it is easier to create the feeling of "otherness" with a label. And then killing that "other" becomes no more morally wrong then eating chicken on Monday night.


Is it your position that this is inherently a conservative problem, and if so are you willing to substantiate the idea that conservatives lack empathy for other groups, while liberals aren't guilty of similar behavior? You mentioned something about conservatives needing a cleansing, that it's the job of liberals to do this but personally, I don't view liberals and conservatives as anything but two different groups with two different viewpoints. Both groups have demonstrated selfishness and often have problems with being close minded. That's unfortunate and needs to be addressed but I think it's a human issue that's become a widespread problem in our divided nation, but as they say, it takes two to tango, or more specifically over 300 million to various degrees.

CruisingRam,

I should have toned back my last reply to you some, you're a long time member here and AD needs to keep the diehards but there was good reason for the attitude I gave you. It's not that you asked whether or not people should be friends with Trump supporters, the primary topic is okay, it's the fact that you included AD in your arguments and took jabs at the website and half of its members in one fell swoop. You suggested the remaining threads on this website are inane and blamed an entire group, who happen to be your political opponents, for this downfall. You're inaccurate on both accounts, given that only the diehards are left on AD many of the remaining threads are actually quite good and come from those who are serious about debating. AuthorMusician has had a great deal of good threads, I don't usually agree with him on the political ones but he addresses a range of topics, you may appreciate his political viewpoints. On the conservative end of things, I don't see rampant useless threads or threads that would do something like scare away most of the members.

I'm open to constructive criticism on my last one...

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...#entry100034853

Can you explain how my topic could scare others away or doesn't address an important current event?

More importantly, I'm sure you're aware that Mike and Jamie are gone. New forum subsections are not being created, the radio program is gone, the annual poll that we had is gone. Have you considered this? It comes in combination with the fact that liberals and conservatives are debating all over the internet in high numbers (as I had mentioned earlier.) If people left AD because conservatives are too unreasonable to debate with, then why do so many other forums have a large amount of conservative and liberal members who debate regularly?
Trouble
QUOTE(droop224 @ May 9 2017, 10:46 AM) *
Great post CR!

Let me start by answering the question in the title. 100% yes you should still remain friends with conservatives if they are your friends. In my opinion the average modern American conservative is not evil, he\she simply corrupt. And that's ok because we are all human and we are all corrupt, but as we like to say in bro-slang... "there are levels to this sh.." And the average has been corrupted to homicidal levels.


If there is any sincerity to the above statement droop, then I would suggest not throwing undo invective at the people who choose not to support Hilliary Clinton. And to be honest, refusing to support one candidate did not translate into supporting the other. Is it imaginable that a segment of society that had concerns with the way the country was run did not want to perpetuate the problem? If I could encapsulate the entire election it would be, "I'm tired with issues A, B, and C. I am think it time to focus inward and shift focus on issues D, E, and F. The response? Excuse me? How dare you. How could you even think that? And then the denial game which is then picked up and spun by the media. That is the last six months of politics in a nutshell.

Now, if you can give a little and realize a vote against wasn't a pro vote, then there is room for a difference of opinion.

QUOTE
The other day I'm on Facebook and a fellow Marine makes a statement to his post. There are some protesters blocking traffic in this video and one of the cars got fed up and slowly started to move in on the protestors. Then the protestors merge on the car and the accelerates and runs them over, just runs them over the people. Who dies? I don't know. Was there some emergency that caused the car to have to plow through humans? I don't know. Its just a video with a caption of "Play stupid liberal games, win stupid liberal prizes. Blocking road = getting run over!" But the post the Jarhead response "LOL" The group making the post was called "the patriot federation" (is it me or do "patriots" all seem homicidal, call it the Hernandez effect) Now here is a man with a wife and children. An honest man, I think, to what ever degree we can be honest in our current society. But in his mind, a human being life is so devalued by the fact that they are protesting and blocking traffic that he "LOL" the idea of people being run over in the street.


Did you know this Marine personally? If so I'd just telly him up and get it straight from the horse's mouth. If not, may I ask why you would use social media to come to a conclusion about anything when after witnessing a complete breakdown by the media? To me it is like seeking medical advice from the guy selling marijuana on the street corner rather than a doctor. The chances of distortion are pretty high.

QUOTE
And this is the heart of the corruption of the average conservatives and why their corruption.

Their corruption??? Most of the altercations of violence I saw this election were against conservative groups.

QUOTE
...Their ability to devalue human life with LABELS! Whether it you are Black, Hood, Ghetto, Terrorist, Insurgent, Liberal, protestor, Hollywood Elite, Etc.. you are something "other"! every label is an attempt to devalue your humanity. So they aren't killing human beings, they are killing "insert label" And i'll explain why this is important to me a little later.


Are you sure this wasn't a media meme? Some colossally unprofessional stuff was published from major media outlets. I mean exceptionally bad. All of it had "ist" labels of some sort. It was odd, the discourse at the street level was above and beyond anything off of big media so you can see my skepticism.




QUOTE
You take an American liberal and you get someone crying about injustice and lack of inequality, take them at their worst and you get someone becoming way too hysterical in their complaints... "Oh men can't pretend to be women... we are eating too much chicken... we are murdering trees" I think many on the left are getting a little annoyed at millennial progressives, as Chris Rock said it "We keep complaining to the Refs that the other team plays dirty, but we need to get back on defense". The point is hey far left American liberals are whiny.

BUT.....

You take the American Conservative and you start pushing them to the right and you get a more and more homicidal person. And I am picking that word "homicidal" so that none of you confuse that with "murderous". Conservative are becoming more homicidal, but they aren't any more murderous than any other group in America. This is a direct correlation to conservatives greater ability to devalue human life. This doesn't make them evil or unworthy. It is just natural. In fact I would argue that it is more natural than what liberalism proposes.


I would argue the centrist ideas of the last two decades of inclusion have produced nothing but antagonism. The notion of "injustice" has become as warped and probably more so than terrorist or anti semite. Haven't you found it odd droop that as liberal values shifted from protecting worker unions they embraced sexual activism and a whole host of go no where issues? Co-opted! Just like the EPA! And yes if you want to go far enough back like a century or more, the conservatives actually represented small business and limited war. So can we agree that both sides have devolved in ways antithetical to the public's interest?


QUOTE
They care about themselves, they care about their family, their friends, their community, their country just like anyone else. However they lack the empathy necessary to care about something "other" And for whatever psychological reason it is easier to create the feeling of "otherness" with a label. And then killing that "other" becomes no more morally wrong then eating chicken on Monday night.

The liberal has to clean that corruption from the average conservative by moving the "otherness" created by a label into "that is human life, just like your children are human, your spouse is human, your siblings are human, etc" This is not an easy task, especially when very powerful humans and nature itself actively fight against this. I believe the only way you can do this is through bonds of relationships. That conservative mindset has to see you as "not other" to even receive a message. Then you have to raise a metaphoric mirror to the conservative so that the "humanity" of the "other" outweighs the "otherness".

That's how you defeat racism and that how you defeat fascism. You show them their lack of humanity. You strip away their justifications and arguments in why they are right to act as if humans, aren't really human. And you show them that is a human being just like some human you love and you are treat them as if they are less the human. I think this corrects their moral compass and alleviates some of the corruption.


The only debate where it comes to question if we are the most militarized nation of the world starts with us arguing on what militarized means as Mrs P suggests.

And for some reason that is the new thing when debating my conservative compadres here on ad.gif . You guys seem to have trouble defining concepts in a neutral way. Freedom, liberal(ism), terrorism, but its part of the fun.

A prayer to the ad.gif gods... please stop eating my posts. OK I will save first since I thought about it


But are we really talking about racism? And what makes you so sure it is a Liberal burden to clean? Some might argue it was the other way around. Further, little media is going in the other direction. Google pathological altruism. The mass importation of people without attention to viable work skills. This is an issue for all western nations. Imagine a country pushed beyond its carrying capacity in every measure. There was a time importing people grew the economy so we did it. In fact, even if mistakes were made it still usually worked out if the country was sparsely populated to begin with. Now, not so much. The dynamic changed. But we're still doing it hoping that going through the motions will cycle back to happier times. This altruism has reduced the country to a crazy cat lady zone. The cats are not cared for. The house is not cared for. The society is not cared for. The mentality of focusing on the individual always adds to the problem and misses the larger picture.

Now before you pick up the Liberal man's duty to prosthetalize to the unwashed masses let me paint this picture for you droop.

I am prepared to argue this is a systemic problem where Mr. Obama did not slow down or halt the job losses that hollowed out the country. Did he start it? No. But Mr. Obama's plan was to restart a construction boom phase by courting foreign investment in conjunction with loose immigration, History may see this as a gasoline induced moment of inflection. Imagine a map burning from the center outward. Only the port cities with heavy manufacturing which were positioned to capitalize on immigrant labour benefited. Everywhere else just flooded people into cities with minimal employment except for the housing contractors which were happy to keep building houses because everyone had credit. Look at the electoral maps. Watch the rust belt change over time! All Trump's election was was an attempt to tighten labour through immigration and (hopefully) engage is less overseas fighting. He's backtracked alot on the second point but Trump's mandate for refocusing attention within America is still valid. The problem is the newly minted citizens have a vested interest in maintaining the existing social dynamics of the previous decade. Except anyone who has grown up in a western country (Europe especially) knows this trend is not sustainable.

The alternative is to throw pejoratives at any (ostensible) Trump or non-Hilliary supporter. There is your hate zone and possibly the source of our current woes?
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(droop224 @ May 9 2017, 11:46 AM) *
I want to say. "You think it would be funny if your children are run over or your wife" Of course I know the answer to this, but of course as AKACG is bound to say "Good grief!" these are different scenarios. I mean its different if someone intentionally runs over your kids as they innocently walk home for school compared to someone intentionally running over someone for blocking traffic. I mean their life loss value by being liberal protestors standing in front of traffic.

And this is the heart of the corruption of the average conservatives and why their corruption. Their ability to devalue human life with LABELS! Whether it you are Black, Hood, Ghetto, Terrorist, Insurgent, Liberal, protestor, Hollywood Elite, Etc.. you are something "other"! every label is an attempt to devalue your humanity. So they aren't killing human beings, they are killing "insert label" And i'll explain why this is important to me a little later.


The majority of cities with the highest violent crime and murder rates in America voted for Hillary.
So I don't think there's a lot of empirical data to support the assertion that non-Hillary supporters are more "corrupt" or murderous or more likely to "devalue humanity".

Statistics for felons in jail

QUOTE
The study looked at three states which are reminding convicts that they can vote after leaving jail: New York, New Mexico and North Carolina.

They provided the following Democrat-to-Republican breakdown in felon party registration patterns:

– New York: 61.5 percent register Democratic, 9 percent register Republican

– New Mexico: 51.9 percent Democratic, 10.2 percent Republican

– North Carolina: 54.6 percent Democratic, 10.2 percent Republican


Hm. Maybe those felons value humanity more than non-felons and are less violent than non-felons. But I doubt it.
droop224
Net2007
QUOTE
I don't believe in evil but lets just say that I agree that modern conservatives are not inherently bad people and if you have a conservative friend or one who's a Trump supporter that it isn't a reason not to be friends with them. You lose me on your elaboration of this though....
Yeah I'm not a big fan of the word evil either. I use it because generally people believe in it. To an extent the word "bad" isn't accurate either. I think conservatives are inherently less humane than liberals. And I think the policies you support justify this characterization.

QUOTE
Is it your position that this is inherently a conservative problem, and if so are you willing to substantiate the idea that conservatives lack empathy for other groups, while liberals aren't guilty of similar behavior? You mentioned something about conservatives needing a cleansing, that it's the job of liberals to do this but personally, I don't view liberals and conservatives as anything but two different groups with two different viewpoints. Both groups have demonstrated selfishness and often have problems with being close minded. That's unfortunate and needs to be addressed but I think it's a human issue that's become a widespread problem in our divided nation, but as they say, it takes two to tango, or more specifically over 300 million to various degrees.
I'll try to substantiate my position, but I think its up to you to be receptive. How about this:

QUOTE(net2007 @ Apr 8 2017, 11:04 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Apr 7 2017, 08:40 AM) *
President Trump has ok'd the launch of around 49 or so cruise missiles on an air base in Syria from which a chemical air attack on Syrian people, most importantly to him, children in diapers, was initiated.

Was this strike a good move, a bad move, or just one more ineffective attempt at controlling state-sanctioned (by Syria) terrorism?

What do you expect will happen as a direct result of this cruise missile strike domestically and/or internationally?


Although risks are involved, I think it's good that we kicked some booty here. To touch on the Trump administration, the obvious short-term gain is the fact that Trump is seen, as before, as a man of action. The Obama administration got a lot of heat for issuing an idol threat and is now receiving scrutiny for their deal with Russia to remove chemical weapons from Syria....



So human beings lost their lives so that Trump can be seen as a "man of action" and this was a "gain" in your words. You also characterized the death of these human beings at our hands as "Kick(ing) some booty" So you are completely flippant at the idea that these sons, brothers, sister, daughters, fathers, mothers, whatever lost their lives. According to reports of the deaths some of these people were children.

So allow me to ask would you reaction be the same if a human being started killing our military from on our soil? I remember Trump made a list of people killed by terrorists because he felt there was not enough attention being brought to how much death was occurring. But in those cases each death was around 1-2 people including the perpetrator of the attack.

QUOTE(Trouble)
If there is any sincerity to the above statement droop, then I would suggest not throwing undo invective at the people who choose not to support Hilliary Clinton. And to be honest, refusing to support one candidate did not translate into supporting the other. Is it imaginable that a segment of society that had concerns with the way the country was run did not want to perpetuate the problem? If I could encapsulate the entire election it would be, "I'm tired with issues A, B, and C. I am think it time to focus inward and shift focus on issues D, E, and F. The response? Excuse me? How dare you. How could you even think that? And then the denial game which is then picked up and spun by the media. That is the last six months of politics in a nutshell.

Now, if you can give a little and realize a vote against wasn't a pro vote, then there is room for a difference of opinion.
First, Hillary is a hawk. Just to be clear my point is not liberal vs conservative politicians nor is it an argument about Republican vs Democrat. In a two party system people need to find a home, the democratic party is a home for many liberals, yes, but can we agree being a democrat neither makes you liberal or left, I hope. One of the main reason is America as a country leans greatly politically right. And allow me to broaden this out the struggle societies face with liberal vs conservative mindsets extend far beyond just our country's political spectrum, but for debate purposes I'm just keeping it here. Corruption is the price of power and we are the most powerful nation in the world.

Also I do want to state that I am issuing an "invective" at all, but that depends on how you use the word homicidal and how you are using the word invective. I do not mean to insult or be abusive when I use the word homicidal, but invective could mean critical and I am being very critical. But that being said it isn't about the candidate or politician, it is about the sell to the people. It is what sell to a platform. It is about us the people of America. If Hillary got into office our policies would be just as homicidal the world wide. Maybe domestically she would have worked on the homicidal nature of our LEOs with some domestic policy, but that's it.

But are we going to ignore the sales pitch difference? Trump sold them homicide. I'll kill the family of our enemy. I'd kill some one in the middle of time square and no one would care because my followers are so loyal. Bang, bang, bang, bang. Remain unpredictable when using nukes. Lets not make it seem that in this case I am being hyperbolic and inflammatory. These are all things he said on the run up to become President. Donald Trump IS NOT the problem; I tell every liberal I know that and I have said it on this board before. There are certain things I may say that aren't pleasant to hear, but in a way that is good because that shows the essence of morality is there, even if the moral compass is corrupt.

Fact or Fiction Dropping nukes is a homicidal act. Pretty basic right. Killing the family members of people you deem to be an enemy is homicidal. Fact or Fiction Shooting people in the middle of time square is homicidal. And yes war itself is a homicidal action we as a nation undertake.

So now I challenge you trouble, or anyone else that want to partake in the "well they are all kind of the same rhetoric", what homicidal platforms are sold to the liberal audience? I can think of one questionable one. Abortion. Now, I say its questionable because for me the science is clear that the upon conception their is distinct human life growing in a woman, but its unclear on when that distinct human life raises to the status of a being with sentience. But if there are other political platforms that liberals are sold that is clear cut homicidal, please give it to me. If Clinton comes out in the Democratic Primary and says "we need to kill the family members of people that we deem terrorists", does that boost her poll numbers amongst liberals? Be fair, be honest.

QUOTE
Did you know this Marine personally? If so I'd just telly him up and get it straight from the horse's mouth. If not, may I ask why you would use social media to come to a conclusion about anything when after witnessing a complete breakdown by the media? To me it is like seeking medical advice from the guy selling marijuana on the street corner rather than a doctor. The chances of distortion are pretty high.
Oh I absolutely knew him, but what exactly would I "get" from the horses mouth? Seriously. I'm not sure if you are on facebook and understand how it generally works. But if you put something on your wall depending on your caption you are kind of showing support or disdain for something. I'm just confused as to what you think someone could gain with a conversation. "Hey buddy you think its ok to run someone over blocking traffic?... I couldn't tell with you posting that video with the caption 'Play stupid liberal games, win stupid liberal prizes. Blocking road = getting run over!' on your wall and stating 'lol'. You want me to get clarification of what is amusing to the guy about a car riding through a bunch of humans?

To your second point, well taken, but confused as to why you think that I trying to inform my position via facebook posts. That's just me mentioning some things that corroborate my viewpoint and by noo means am I passing it off as legitimate evidence. Now I could tell you that in general conservative on this board and in real life a vibe that lacks humanity and embraces social Darwinism. But this brings up a good point trouble, what would we look at to understand psyche of conservatives vs liberals? I've Googled and read documents on the difference of psychological difference of Conservatives vs. Liberals should we look at that? What about their politics, earlier I asked you what is the conservative platform being sold, now I ask you what is it they want to buy? Supply and Demand, right? So you have the last Democrat win with a message of "hope, change, yes WE can" to our current president "I ALONE can fix this" The conservatives regularly gravitate to leaders with authoritative personalities. They regularly back policies that lack in humanity. So I leave it to you, what would you like to see us use as a barometer to measure the accuracy of my statement.

QUOTE
Their corruption??? Most of the altercations of violence I saw this election were against conservative groups.
1. you must have forgotten the trump rallies, but I can link some videos. 2. You don't see mass support for the violence committed by actors on the left by the left. The violence, destruction, and death from right wing politics is largely condoned and justified by conservatives. I can bring up, war, sanctions, police brutality, or just humans killing unarmed children of color with conservative support if they claim self defense. See the argument would be that the violence and inhumanity isn't present the argument would move to "That's different it was justified". But I haven't seen liberals in masses or the LIBERAL media attempt to justify violence committed by people on the left at Trump protest. 3. I am not laying rage or any emotion of anger only at the feet of conservatives, please understand that. I am a human. I feel every emotion that a conservative feels including negative feelings. I feel fear, rage, anger, hopelessness, anxiety, greed, lust, etc I just try to avoid having my politics being informed by those feelings. I'm not seeking someone to lead me to greatness and superiority.

QUOTE
I would argue the centrist ideas of the last two decades of inclusion have produced nothing but antagonism. The notion of "injustice" has become as warped and probably more so than terrorist or anti semite. Haven't you found it odd droop that as liberal values shifted from protecting worker unions they embraced sexual activism and a whole host of go no where issues? Co-opted! Just like the EPA! And yes if you want to go far enough back like a century or more, the conservatives actually represented small business and limited war. So can we agree that both sides have devolved in ways antithetical to the public's interest?
Hey I think that that much of the liberal movement being coopted by gender and sexual orientation politics sucks. I HATE it. I hate that their struggle of inequality has raised to prominence over racial inequality and economic equality. Not because their struggle isn't worthy, but because the effects of their inequality and injustices are so superficial when compared to the effects economic and racial inequalities. That being said, I'm still happy that any injustice is being addressed. But your point brings up two significant counter points.

Point 1: The fact that the White working class votes against its economic interests because it would prefer to hold on to certain beliefs, whether those believes stem from nationalism, racism, or religion. All I can think about is Dayton Rocker on this. Just from knowing the little I know or believe I know I can tell you that there is not a debate on race where me and that guy would agree. I'm not stating
I would argue the centrist ideas of the last two decades of inclusion have produced nothing but antagonism. The notion of "injustice" has become as warped and probably more so than terrorist or anti semite. Haven't you found it odd droop that as liberal values shifted from protecting worker unions they embraced sexual activism and a whole host of go no where issues? Co-opted! Just like the EPA! And yes if you want to go far enough back like a century or more, the conservatives actually represented small business and limited war. So can we agree that both sides have devolved in ways antithetical to the public's interest DR is a racist. I'm a former Marine and so is he, so he has been in mixed company. Just in a debate of race, my guess is we would clash. but my point is when I see DR debate politics IMO he gets the impact of economic equality trumps all this other stuff. I am huge on correcting racial inequality, but I GET that the injustices created by economic inequality trumps racial inequality. Do you get my point? Let me go a little further, the devastation, pain, and overall harm to Americans that is done because of economic equality for outweighs what can be done because Blacks are being integrated in to the school, because Mexicans are doing lawn service, or even because al quaeda and ISIS are attacking us. Poverty is killing people. Lack of Healthcare is killing people. And yet that working class White person chose the party that has consistently backed policies to increase wealth inequality because they would rather be poor than have a man and a man say they are "married"

I go back to what I teach my kids on Republican platform. Three Rs. Rich, Racist, Religious, that's the platform they sell. And you don't have to be all three. I totally get why a person is an atheist Black wealthy businessman doing quite well in the current economy and just wants the government out his\her way to make more money! But then, there are the other two groups that if you are flat broke and you are letting gender or racial politics trump economic inequality that's on you.

Because the facts of economic inequality is right in everyone's face. The statistics are there.

Point 2. Yes there has been a devolving of the platforms of the left and right. And.... uuuugggghhhh How can I put this so you understand? You seem to be trying to get me to see "Same thing happening on the Right is happening on the Left" The effect the outcome of that devolvement has is different. Lets just agree that the left was trying to deal with the most prominent injustice of economic inequality and it has devolved to whining about lil Johnny wanting to be lil Jennifer on the flip side of that lets agree that the conservative politics was one of limited war but they have devolved into wanting a military force who can and will strike if America is not respected. OK trouble. If you are asking me "Droop, can't you see that both the left and right have BOTH devolved in their political positions" For the sake of not arguing the answer "Yes, trouble, yes I can see the comparison" Now, I ask you, brother Trouble, can you see the.... VAST, GRAND CANYON-WIDE DIFFERENCE between the effect lil Johnny pretending he is a girl and going into the girls bathroom and the mass extinguishing of human life and the mass increase of human suffering caused by elective wars, sanctions and government destabilization around the world? Can you see the difference? I mean it may seem I was emotional because of the CAPS and bold lettering, but even on a purely logical level can you see the difference?

QUOTE
But are we really talking about racism? And what makes you so sure it is a Liberal burden to clean? Some might argue it was the other way around. Further, little media is going in the other direction. Google pathological altruism. The mass importation of people without attention to viable work skills. This is an issue for all western nations. Imagine a country pushed beyond its carrying capacity in every measure. There was a time importing people grew the economy so we did it. In fact, even if mistakes were made it still usually worked out if the country was sparsely populated to begin with. Now, not so much. The dynamic changed. But we're still doing it hoping that going through the motions will cycle back to happier times. This altruism has reduced the country to a crazy cat lady zone. The cats are not cared for. The house is not cared for. The society is not cared for. The mentality of focusing on the individual always adds to the problem and misses the larger picture.
I'm not trying to discuss racism to any great extent, but its hard to talk politics domestic or globally without touching racism. Racism is a big part of the current American politics and its been a great motivating factor in how the political parties have come to some of their positions. Its a key factor in my opinion on why working class whites do not vote for their wallets, not the only reason, of course. As for pathological equation I will debate you any day on that if you even pretend that exists in this nation to any meaningful degree, but not this debate. There is a huge difference between giving too much and taking less. Now, the outcome might look similar, but if I take a hundred dollar from you every week and then I stop taking that hundred, I might be out a hundred dollars, but that is not altruism and definitely isn't pathological.

And yes it is the job of liberals to clean the corruption from the conservatives of our society, that IS my point. Because we are in the same society. I am not Black before I am Human. I am not American before I am Human. Humanity should trump racism, nationalism, religion. My humanity should not stop at the border of my nation. Back to your point of pathological altruism, this is not saying that we SHOULD give all our wealth away its saying we shouldn't have our freaking foots on the necks of other countries ensuring greater wealth for ourselves.


QUOTE
Now before you pick up the Liberal man's duty to prosthetalize to the unwashed masses let me paint this picture for you droop


I am prepared to argue this is a systemic problem where Mr. Obama did not slow down or halt the job losses that hollowed out the country. Did he start it? No. But Mr. Obama's plan was to restart a construction boom phase by courting foreign investment in conjunction with loose immigration, History may see this as a gasoline induced moment of inflection. Imagine a map burning from the center outward. Only the port cities with heavy manufacturing which were positioned to capitalize on immigrant labour benefited. Everywhere else just flooded people into cities with minimal employment except for the housing contractors which were happy to keep building houses because everyone had credit. Look at the electoral maps. Watch the rust belt change over time! All Trump's election was was an attempt to tighten labour through immigration and (hopefully) engage is less overseas fighting. He's backtracked alot on the second point but Trump's mandate for refocusing attention within America is still valid. The problem is the newly minted citizens have a vested interest in maintaining the existing social dynamics of the previous decade. Except anyone who has grown up in a western country (Europe especially) knows this trend is not sustainable.


Then bring it. "All Trump's election was was an attempt to tighten labour through immigration and (hopefully) engage is less overseas fighting. He's backtracked alot on the second point but Trump's mandate for refocusing attention within America is still valid." LOL whatever you want to tell yourself. you are certainly as entitled to your opinion as I am mine. But how did you say it to me in your post. "To me it is like seeking medical advice from the guy selling marijuana on the street corner rather than a doctor." To get a silver spooned billionaire whose whole existence is to increase his personal wealth at any cost, to include getting his clothes made with foreign labor and use foreign labor to clean his hotels as the silver bullet to the labor woes of the rust belt; To get a draft dodging businessman whose only service of him or his children was to increase his personal wealth who PLEDGED to kill ISIS\ISIL and make the biggest strongest military (because ours apparently is strong enough even though it is the strongest) ever, which would be respected as the person to engage in less overseas fighting. I mean, c'mon... trouble... c'mon really? I mean what are you going to do with a bigger stronger military, was their some war on our shores I was unaware of?

Trouble, if they would have voted for Rand Paul, everything you said would have made sense. But they didn't they voted for trump, not just over Hillary. Over Paul, Rubio, Kasich, Bush even Cruz.

QUOTE
The alternative is to throw pejoratives at any (ostensible) Trump or non-Hilliary supporter. There is your hate zone and possibly the source of our current woes?
Please get off this Hillary kick. I don't like her, Man. You could have voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. I hope I have said enough to make you at least see this is not about throwing pejoratives for non Hillary supporters. There is an alternative you didn't mention. Call a spade a spade. Advocating for actions that will result in death is advocating for homicidal actions. Advocating for the death of humans to take place when there is no immediate threat to our lives, is corrupt. I mean if someone was advocating for the death of you and your family I'm pretty sure you wouldn't call that an act of good.

QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ May 11 2017, 03:31 AM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ May 9 2017, 11:46 AM) *
I want to say. "You think it would be funny if your children are run over or your wife" Of course I know the answer to this, but of course as AKACG is bound to say "Good grief!" these are different scenarios. I mean its different if someone intentionally runs over your kids as they innocently walk home for school compared to someone intentionally running over someone for blocking traffic. I mean their life loss value by being liberal protestors standing in front of traffic.

And this is the heart of the corruption of the average conservatives and why their corruption. Their ability to devalue human life with LABELS! Whether it you are Black, Hood, Ghetto, Terrorist, Insurgent, Liberal, protestor, Hollywood Elite, Etc.. you are something "other"! every label is an attempt to devalue your humanity. So they aren't killing human beings, they are killing "insert label" And i'll explain why this is important to me a little later.


The majority of cities with the highest violent crime and murder rates in America voted for Hillary.
So I don't think there's a lot of empirical data to support the assertion that non-Hillary supporters are more "corrupt" or murderous or more likely to "devalue humanity".

Statistics for felons in jail

QUOTE
The study looked at three states which are reminding convicts that they can vote after leaving jail: New York, New Mexico and North Carolina.

They provided the following Democrat-to-Republican breakdown in felon party registration patterns:

– New York: 61.5 percent register Democratic, 9 percent register Republican

– New Mexico: 51.9 percent Democratic, 10.2 percent Republican

– North Carolina: 54.6 percent Democratic, 10.2 percent Republican


Hm. Maybe those felons value humanity more than non-felons and are less violent than non-felons. But I doubt it.



Now, there is so much to unpack in these few statements, I'm not sure if you feel like dealing with it. A lot of it lays at the feet of racial politics and systemic racism. For one the institutional racism that sees Minorities especially Blacks to be locked up, I recommend watching the documentary 13th from Netflix. Two, minorities are conservative too, because of the perceived racism and dog whistles of racism from the Republican party is not a viable option for most of us. So that is a double whammy of racism which change the effect of those statistics you present.

And believe me I am not arguing your statistics at all. I accept those numbers as facts, but you are changing the discussion when you move it from "conservative vs liberal" to "Democrat vs. Republican" is all I am saying And by making about a prison system that doesn't match the racial make up of our country you are unwittingly dealing with racial politics.. Now that's just one thing to unpacks
there are other things

Let discuss the idea of what makes something corrupt in the sense that I am using it. I've called conservatives homicidal, not murderous. These words CAN be used synonymously, I admit, but I was clear to state in my last post that I DID NOT mean murderous and I did not want people to interpret it that way. Every murder is homicide, but every homicide is not murder. That's because murder is illegal homicide. So you can be a completely homicidal soldier and never be murderous. You can the desire to kill or see the deaths of other humans and NEVER be murderous. So I need the word homicide or homicidal to be used if you are going to counter my argument or else you are changing the narrative to something I am not claiming nor am I trying to say.

Joe Horn controversy is a perfect example of my beliefs of the corruption of conservatives in general. Conservatives in mass supported Joe Horn. To recap this man killed two robber of his neighbor's house by shooting them in the back, with police arriving at the scene in time to handle it. He had homicidal intent told the operator he was going to shoot them then went out and did it. There was no immediate threat to anyone's life, but he ran out told them he would shoot and shot them in the back, then ran back in and said "I had no choice"

becoming homicidal with police on the way is corrupt and inhumane, in my opinion. Defending someone who runs out to kill someone over stolen jewelry is corrupt, the act lacks compassion for human life. it puts the sanctity of property above the sanctity of human life. When wealth and property are of greater importance than human life to a person, I believe their moral compass has become corrupt. I don't know the robbers, I don't love the robbers, but my moral compass tells me that their human life was worth more than jewelry they stole.

Conservatives more so than liberals seem to defend homicide when a threat to human life or imminent attack does not exist. Do you think this is an unfair or unwarranted characterization by me? Joe horn executed those men for stealing, plain and simple and conservatives in large part supported his actions.

On the flip side. You bring up felons, which means you bring up people convicted of crimes. you don't see liberals arguing "its okay to kill someone because he owes you money" Liberal for the most part aren't defending someone who chases a kid behind a building and then kills the unarmed kid, because "allegedly" the kid chased by the armed adult attacked him. Liberal, for the most part, make it seem like it was alright to chase a kids walking home from the store and then kill him because you decided that you were going to make sure he wasn't a thief.

Lastly, what a long day of posting....

The toughest thing I could sell to you that I believe to be true. The psyche of criminals is very conservative. If you ever take the time to understand the psychology of conservatism and how that manifests itself. The rules and codes are creates and it is expected you follow them or there needs to be consequences to make examples so others don't. Your main concern is the well being is your family and you have to defend it at all cost. You must make people respect you or you will be perceived to be weak, so even if you have to use force to make an example, it is ok. C'mon Mrs P, tell me this doesn't sound familiar, tell me this doesn't sound Presidential to a conservative!!
Mrs. Pigpen
Wow, Droop....hope you didn't have to type that one more than once. laugh.gif flowers.gif
I'm afraid to even get started. I'll copy and paste to a document if this takes too long. I've been burned by the ad.gif (bots? ghosts?) before too.

I'll just respond to your response to me and read the rest later:

QUOTE(droop224 @ May 12 2017, 09:05 PM) *
Now, there is so much to unpack in these few statements, I'm not sure if you feel like dealing with it. A lot of it lays at the feet of racial politics and systemic racism. For one the institutional racism that sees Minorities especially Blacks to be locked up, I recommend watching the documentary 13th from Netflix. Two, minorities are conservative too, because of the perceived racism and dog whistles of racism from the Republican party is not a viable option for most of us. So that is a double whammy of racism which change the effect of those statistics you present.
And believe me I am not arguing your statistics at all. I accept those numbers as facts, but you are changing the discussion when you move it from "conservative vs liberal" to "Democrat vs. Republican" is all I am saying And by making about a prison system that doesn't match the racial make up of our country you are unwittingly dealing with racial politics.. Now that's just one thing to unpacks
there are other things


But I'm not making it "about the prison system". I'm responding to your assertion that conservatives "devalue humanity" and are more likely to be corrupt and murderous cough, "homicidal" (because their labels make it "easier to kill people"). That seems a pretty easy argument to refute with statistics.
Not "hey look at the guy who wrote LOL on Facebook!" but actually look at the real world. The bars on the windows in bad neighborhoods aren't there for decorative reasons. And I am reasonably sure if you want to see someone go medieval on your (expletive) all you have to do it wear a "Make America Great Again...vote Trump" tee shirt around there.

What about the guy who ran over those people? Why is that of less concern than the LOL on Facebook? Who was that guy? Well....I did a quick perusal and it seems there are a whole lot of faux claims that Trumpers ran over protestors. One was in Brazil and if that was the guy I can pretty much guarantee he's not a Trump supporter. What i see, and have seen since the campaign of 2016, are a lot of liberal protestors crashing Trump rallies and purposely causing violence.

QUOTE
Let discuss the idea of what makes something corrupt in the sense that I am using it. I've called conservatives homicidal, not murderous. These words CAN be used synonymously, I admit, but I was clear to state in my last post that I DID NOT mean murderous and I did not want people to interpret it that way. Every murder is homicide, but every homicide is not murder. That's because murder is illegal homicide. So you can be a completely homicidal soldier and never be murderous. You can the desire to kill or see the deaths of other humans and NEVER be murderous. So I need the word homicide or homicidal to be used if you are going to counter my argument or else you are changing the narrative to something I am not claiming nor am I trying to say.
Joe Horn controversy is a perfect example of my beliefs of the corruption of conservatives in general. Conservatives in mass supported Joe Horn. To recap this man killed two robber of his neighbor's house by shooting them in the back, with police arriving at the scene in time to handle it. He had homicidal intent told the operator he was going to shoot them then went out and did it. There was no immediate threat to anyone's life, but he ran out told them he would shoot and shot them in the back, then ran back in and said "I had no choice"
becoming homicidal with police on the way is corrupt and inhumane, in my opinion.


DO you really think this person would be safe in his home after confronting members of a Columbian drug ring?
Criminals escape and kill again when police are on the way. I know a person who (sadly, didn't have a gun) saw robbers in his driveway. There had been a string of robberies in the neighborhood an it was his turn, apparently. There was a key in the ignition so he took the key out and through it in the bushes, called 911, cops were on the way. The robbers came out and saw him and demanded the key. After he said he threw it in the bushes they beat his head in with a lead pipe and he went to the hospital in a coma. Did the police get there and arrest the robbers? Not at that time but they found them later. They were a part of a big crime ring with entire storage rooms filled with stolen stuff and a ton of money from the proceeds. They hire the best lawyers and served very little time. Crime pays.

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

QUOTE
Defending someone who runs out to kill someone over stolen jewelry is corrupt, the act lacks compassion for human life. it puts the sanctity of property above the sanctity of human life. When wealth and property are of greater importance than human life to a person, I believe their moral compass has become corrupt. I don't know the robbers, I don't love the robbers, but my moral compass tells me that their human life was worth more than jewelry they stole.


It has nothing to do with property it has to do with freedom***. Lots of blood was spilled over that, and lots of people like to give (horsepattootie) lip service to it, "I disagree with what you say but would fight to the death for your right to say it..." (often the same people storm a Trump rally).
Take a look at the amount of freedom people have when crime runs rampant. There isn't any. I've lived in both types of places, many times, and I can speak from experience that in high crime areas people become prisoners in their own homes (and they don't feel safe there either).

A heavily agenda-ized elite are protected from the effects.
They have armed guards and live in gated communities. They point in moral outage and do absolutely nothing. “Caring” is only meaningful when coupled with action.

QUOTE
The toughest thing I could sell to you that I believe to be true. The psyche of criminals is very conservative. If you ever take the time to understand the psychology of conservatism and how that manifests itself. The rules and codes are creates and it is expected you follow them or there needs to be consequences to make examples so others don't. Your main concern is the well being is your family and you have to defend it at all cost. You must make people respect you or you will be perceived to be weak, so even if you have to use force to make an example, it is ok. C'mon Mrs P, tell me this doesn't sound familiar, tell me this doesn't sound Presidential to a conservative!!


What you are describing above is the psyche of humanity in general, not conservatives. Or animals in general. Humans are animals and if we didn't take our own interests into account we wouldn't have survived as a species. Humans are both individual and social animals so things that benefit the overall community typically benefit individuals too.** Groups that become too large (since we're tribal we do best in groups of about 150, if memory serves) require a set of rules/laws...smaller groups can police themselves better than larger and often don't even require laws. This has been studied on the educational level too and applied to charter schools, but I digress.

Yes, criminals are humans. Stronger humans (aka those with power) tend to defend their interests more directly than weaker humans. A weaker human will attempt to manipulate the strong (using carrots, or pity, and so forth) to promote their interests.

**AN irony considering a couple of CR's "points about fascism" such as community are really very positive things that enable humanity to thrive and survive. Or sports teams, for that matter.

***Security is a key element to keeping society civil and functional. People become very violent and predatory when they feel threatened. When they are in unsafe environments their cortisol levels rise and they are in fight/flight mode all the time. It's a very unhealthy way to live and a catastrophic environment for raising a healthy stable family. This should be pretty obvious. Go to a large dangerous city and see how people treat each other, then go to a safe town where no one locks the doors and see how they treat each other.

Link tangential to the last bit I just added: Sinek on the qualities that make for great leaders.
It's about leadership and the work environment but really applies to so much more than that. It applies to basic human environments and society at large.
net2007
QUOTE
QUOTE(droop224 @ May 12 2017, 10:05 PM) *

Net2007
QUOTE
I don't believe in evil but lets just say that I agree that modern conservatives are not inherently bad people and if you have a conservative friend or one who's a Trump supporter that it isn't a reason not to be friends with them. You lose me on your elaboration of this though....
Yeah I'm not a big fan of the word evil either. I use it because generally people believe in it. To an extent the word "bad" isn't accurate either. I think conservatives are inherently less humane than liberals. And I think the policies you support justify this characterization.


QUOTE
Is it your position that this is inherently a conservative problem, and if so are you willing to substantiate the idea that conservatives lack empathy for other groups, while liberals aren't guilty of similar behavior? You mentioned something about conservatives needing a cleansing, that it's the job of liberals to do this but personally, I don't view liberals and conservatives as anything but two different groups with two different viewpoints. Both groups have demonstrated selfishness and often have problems with being close minded. That's unfortunate and needs to be addressed but I think it's a human issue that's become a widespread problem in our divided nation, but as they say, it takes two to tango, or more specifically over 300 million to various degrees.
I'll try to substantiate my position, but I think its up to you to be receptive. How about this:

QUOTE(net2007 @ Apr 8 2017, 11:04 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Apr 7 2017, 08:40 AM) *
President Trump has ok'd the launch of around 49 or so cruise missiles on an air base in Syria from which a chemical air attack on Syrian people, most importantly to him, children in diapers, was initiated.

Was this strike a good move, a bad move, or just one more ineffective attempt at controlling state-sanctioned (by Syria) terrorism?

What do you expect will happen as a direct result of this cruise missile strike domestically and/or internationally?

Although risks are involved, I think it's good that we kicked some booty here. To touch on the Trump administration, the obvious short-term gain is the fact that Trump is seen, as before, as a man of action. The Obama administration got a lot of heat for issuing an idol threat and is now receiving scrutiny for their deal with Russia to remove chemical weapons from Syria....


So human beings lost their lives so that Trump can be seen as a "man of action" and this was a "gain" in your words. You also characterized the death of these human beings at our hands as "Kick(ing) some booty" So you are completely flippant at the idea that these sons, brothers, sister, daughters, fathers, mothers, whatever lost their lives. According to reports of the deaths some of these people were children.

So allow me to ask would you reaction be the same if a human being started killing our military from on our soil? I remember Trump made a list of people killed by terrorists because he felt there was not enough attention being brought to how much death was occurring. But in those cases each death was around 1-2 people including the perpetrator of the attack.


I think there was a little more to my arguments in that debate than you're letting on....

QUOTE
In large part I'm glad something was done, but I'm also thinking about how this could affect us down the road. Trumps style is to provoke those who provoke him or in this case others. If he's doing this he better have a long term strategy of some kind.


I also made mention of wanting boots off the ground in that thread, which I think should be reserved for when we're attacked directly or in some other extreme situation. I've been conflicted on the Syria strike and in respect to what to do with Assad, as a more thorough examination of that thread would reveal, but this thread isn't about Syria, so I'll leave it at that.

This was the most crucial section of my last reply to you.....

QUOTE
"Is it your position that this is inherently a conservative problem, and if so are you willing to substantiate the idea that conservatives lack empathy for other groups, while liberals aren't guilty of similar behavior?"


You took the approach of using me as an example of an unempathetic conservative, and simply dodged the rest of the question. I could do the same you did, to further substantiate and help you fill in the blanks a little. This was you in reference to conservatives...

"It's hard not to have contempt for you all."
"I take you all as serious as a teenager with a gun. On one hand, its just a teenager... on the other hand... he\she has a gun."
"Of course I caught on... I'm very liberal!! "


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...23107&st=60

So can you, as the more empathetic liberal, explain these comments because they seem intentionally rude, prejudice, and all encompassing?

Or if you want we can get off of the personal stuff because this is actually a microcosm of what's being seen nationally. Within the liberal base, there's a subsection of individuals who have made a habit out of pointing out how wrong or vulgar they think the things conservatives say or do are, all while saying or doing vulgar things, in some cases much worse things.

There are exceptions in every group but I don't think it can be demonstrated that conservatives are less empathetic or humane than liberals are but you're still welcome to try to substantiate. If the right, and therefore Trump supporters, all fit the types of descriptions that you (along with a highly vocal minority) give, then you and the OP may have had a point, but until some groundbreaking form of proof is presented, I'm viewing this as a form of venting coming from the far left, in other cases part of an agenda to force a narrative, and for others the result of not being willing to look deeper into what they and like-minded individuals are doing, and unlike with Syria, with this I have no internal conflict. The left and right share these defects of character, and the only thing that will improve this situation is to acknowledge and work on it. It can be done, but it'll take both sides putting in effort.

I'm going to be out on vacation for about a week, so I'll get back to any replies in a few days.
akaCG
QUOTE(droop224 @ May 12 2017, 10:05 PM) *
...
... by making [it] about a prison system that doesn't match the racial make up of our country you are unwittingly dealing with racial politics. ...
...

Our prison population (93% male, 7% female) doesn't match the gender make up (49% male, 51% female) of our country, either. Is that due to our country's misandrist politics?

droop224

QUOTE
Wow, Droop....hope you didn't have to type that one more than once. laugh.gif flowers.gif
I'm afraid to even get started. I'll copy and paste to a document if this takes too long. I've been burned by the ad.gif

(bots? ghosts?) before too.
Well call it Karma cause it only happens when I forget to save to a notepad or word.
QUOTE
But I'm not making it "about the prison system". I'm responding to your assertion that conservatives "devalue humanity" and are more likely to be corrupt and murderous cough, "homicidal" (because their labels make it "easier to kill people"). That seems a pretty easy argument to refute with statistics.
I understood what you were doing and basically what I was pointing out is that you weren't refuting what I was saying once you switched the argument to Republican vs Democrat.

Now I don't want to look like I am back tracking, because I really am not, but I want to a second to clarify some very key terms I am using the words. I think I've made enough corrections that the fault lies with me not better explaining how I am using the term so that you guys can better digest exactly what I am writing to you. So key terms I want to clear homicidal, liberal and conservative:

Homicidal. Of or relating to homicide, (homicide meaning a human killing a human) So I am using it as an adjective to describe "the desire to kill other humans" I don't mean you personally want to kill another human. Lets say you want a nuke to be dropped on the middle east, I'm describing your desires as homicidal and I am describing you as homicidal for having those desires. Lets say you are happy that a plane crashed into the twin towers I'm describing you, at the very least, as a bit homicidal, because the death of humans is bringing you joy. And yes lets say you are the one actually killing, legally or not, than I'd call your actions homicidal. Lets say we have a policy that says we should kill the family members and you support the policy... the idea of having such policy is homicidal, the policy would be homicidal, any people who support or encourage such a policy I am describing as homicidal.

Now most people, not all, support some instance of homicide or policies of homicide, maybe the death penalty, castle laws, self-defense, acts of war, etc So for me this is not a Black\White issue(of course with me nothing is) but rather a gradient very homicidal (you'd kill people for speeding if you could) to (barely homicidal you should kill only when your life is in imminent danger.)Homicide is a very objective term. Justifiable homicide is very subjective. Easy.

Conservative and Liberal: Now this is harder to define. If you read what I've before you know I believe we all have some "left" and some "right" in us. I don't know what left is or what right is but often we use the term "liberal and conservative" to describe them. Other times I may be using liberals as a person practicing some form of liberalism. But if you all read what I wrote in the posts you'll see me use words like "psyche" and "mindset" . I'm using the word to define a more psychological profile, that thing that informs us: I am conservative or I am liberal; I am very conservative or I am very liberal. If there is a better word to describe this identifying psyche I'm up to change. Now in our current political two party structure many liberal minded people may join democrats and many conservative minded people may join Republicans... a hundred years ago this may have been reversed. The point is this psyche, in my opinion, goes beyond political parties, beyond America, beyond our current time and we liberals vs conservatives compete within our society, every society, for control of our future.To exemplify this psyche I would say this. That's psyche that says it us vs them go to the conservatives. The psyche that says they ARE us goes to the liberal. Its very hard to put in words for me but i'll look for some articles to better articulate.

All this written and defined, let me reiterate my assertion. Conservatives are more homicidal

QUOTE
Not "hey look at the guy who wrote LOL on Facebook!" but actually look at the real world. The bars on the windows in bad neighborhoods aren't there for decorative reasons. And I am reasonably sure if you want to see someone go medieval on your (expletive) all you have to do it wear a "Make America Great Again...vote Trump" tee shirt around there. What about the guy who ran over those people? Why is that of less concern than the LOL on Facebook? Who was that guy?

Well....I did a quick perusal and it seems there are a whole lot of faux claims that Trumpers ran over protestors. One was in Brazil and if that was the guy I can pretty much guarantee he's not a Trump supporter. What i see, and have seen since the campaign of 2016, are a lot of liberal protestors crashing Trump rallies and purposely causing violence.
I think you are making similar points to trouble. One, the person in the car could have been a bleeding heart liberal with a dying gold fish needing to rush to protected park in the middle of Bolivia. Not the point. Point is there was a protest that blocked traffic and the American I know had such little respect for life that he laughed at the people being run over.

This isn't evidence of ANYTHING. It is an example of something I see quite often from conservatives. If I see someone burning a flag, I am not surprised to see a conservative friend of mine say that person should be shot. It happens quite often. Its as if they don't see the difference between cotton and plastic and human beings.

But now that I have explained to a greater degree what I see as homicidal, do you all still disagree with me. For instance, acts of war are extremely homicidal, dropping bombs is extremely homicidal, sanctions that result in mass death of the country being sanctioned is extremely homicidal.

QUOTE
DO you really think this person would be safe in his home after confronting members of a Columbian drug ring?
Criminals escape and kill again when police are on the way. I know a person who (sadly, didn't have a gun) saw robbers in his driveway. There had been a string of robberies in the neighborhood an it was his turn, apparently. There was a key in the ignition so he took the key out and through it in the bushes, called 911, cops were on the way. The robbers came out and saw him and demanded the key. After he said he threw it in the bushes they beat his head in with a lead pipe and he went to the hospital in a coma. Did the police get there and arrest the robbers? Not at that time but they found them later. They were a part of a big crime ring with entire storage rooms filled with stolen stuff and a ton of money from the proceeds. They hire the best lawyers and served very little time. Crime pays.
Is your friend still alive? Did they come back and kill him? If he had his gun, he would have killed them right? Ask him if he is alive.

Joe Horn didn't have to run out the house and he didn't have to kill those men. He made a choice that said the property of his neighbor was more important than the human life of thieves. And he went out and executed them, then played it off like "I had to do it" And many people, especially conservatives, defend that type of homicide. My guess is they hope they can have the "courage" to be just as homicidal in that situation, but not be "murderous".

QUOTE
I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.
You carry a gun because you are afraid and you want to be prepared for the worst the world can throw at you. This may sound like another insult, but its not. It is simply my opinion based on the research I've read, videos I seen, and closely interacting with conservatives throughout my life. Conservative see threats, everywhere... I want to note that being afraid does not in any way equate to being cowardly. I think conservatives are more afraid but that is a feeling, but cowardice and bravery are actions that can only exist with the existence of fear. In other words, your fight or flight mode doesn't even come into the picture until we add fear into that recipe. In my experience with conservatism there is nothing that indicates to me they are more likely to go into flight mode or act cowardly when afraid, quite the opposite. Often their fear puts them in fight mode, maybe usually because they are in a position of superiority. I mean, really, who runs from a fight they think they can win.

So case and point is the quote above and the first question you ask as you relate the story of the friend to me. "DO you really think this person would be safe in his home after confronting members of a Columbian drug ring?" More or less, yes. Joe Horn is still alive after KILLING two people from a Columbian drug ring. So yeah I think he would still be safe. Your friend is still alive even though the thieves who robbed him assaulted him, they could have certainly killed him, and they are out and they haven't come back to kill him or all the other people they have robbed. I'm not denying you the possibility that a thief can come back and murder someone, but its just a possibility with such a low probability that its now worth being afraid of and it certainly doesn't raise to the level of executing a human being.

I wish I could make you truly understand, thieves are human beings too. I guess I just have experience in violent criminal activity in my youth, went to the Marines saw how things were different and how things were so much the same and it gives me a wider perspective to understand.

QUOTE
It has nothing to do with property it has to do with freedom***.
This is the most important part of your post to me. This is the part where the liberal has to stand up to the conservative and say "No!!" No it was not about freedom, it was about property. I can stretch that out to say it was about Joe Horn's ego, his homicidal desires\curiosity, maybe. But freedom, c'mon (horsepattootie mrsparkle.gif ). I know I can't MAKE you believe any different then what you WANT to believe. But I can see clearly that nothing Joe Horn did made me or any other American or any other person in the world more free, not even the neighbor who whose items were almost stolen. Joe Horn killing thieves at the Micro level for stealing property or laws that allow all of us to kill thieves at the macro level do not make me any more or less free. They have nothing to do with my freedom.

Let me tell you what it does deal with, because to be an American conservative is to be in constant denial of what you truly are and what you truly fight for. This denial is not your fault, you've been fed the cow manure sandwich all your lives just like me. Our country was founded liberal values but the founding fathers, for the most part, only used those values for their own personal gain. You can't believe that a person who has slaves FIGHTS for freedom. I mean, you can believe it (who am I to stop you), but again, c'mon... So since the founding of our nation liberal believes and concepts were usurped used as propaganda by people who were not liberal. And you show Mrs P how that continues to this day.

No one in any society is fighting for complete freedom. Freedom is chaotic. The liberal fights for more freedom. The conservative fights for more control. I fight for equality and you fight for superiority. Now you could say that Joe Horn killed for security, greater order, or control, but not freedom. Now you can say Joe Horn killed because he thought himself superior and the property of his neighbor superior than the life of some low level thieves, but you can't claim freedom or equality.

That's my swim lane. And you are welcome to swim in my swim lanes whenever you want. When your heart is full of compassion for your fellow man\woman and you are feeling idealistic with great humanity, come on over and take a dip. But don't do your conservative thing then claim freedom.

QUOTE
Lots of blood was spilled over that, and lots of people like to give (horsepattootie) lip service to it, "I disagree with what you say but would fight to the death for your right to say it..." (often the same people storm a Trump rally).
Take a look at the amount of freedom people have when crime runs rampant. There isn't any. I've lived in both types of places, many times, and I can speak from experience that in high crime areas people become prisoners in their own homes (and they don't feel safe there either).
Yeah, I remember being taught the same thing. But we haven't spilled blood as a nation for freedom in a very long time. To be sure there is some oppressed people to be looked at or some story of atrocity to motivate and engage us to war, but look at the results and you see the fight was for the following, or at least the perception of the following: Authority, Superiority, Control, Security and Dominance. When have we freed a people then said come on back with us we freed you now we will take you to safety.

At best it goes.. We freed you now you do what we say.

But this is hugely important to the next point which is justification. We are human we are all corrupt. We all justify our actions on an individual level. I just don't see the liberal platform justifying killing human beings on a whole sale level. I mean what is the counter argument. "Yeah, liberals like to kill people and justify it by _______."

Justification is important for moral compasses, I guess. If I act in a way that I think lacks humanity or compassion for my fellow man, I might want to justify that act(s). If I didn't feel a need to justify I likely don't have a moral compunction one way or another. The corruption for us all is when we justify in a way that is false. Like when you say ... he had to kill the thieves, for freedom.

QUOTE
A heavily agenda-ized elite are protected from the effects.
They have armed guards and live in gated communities. They point in moral outage and do absolutely nothing. “Caring” is only meaningful when coupled with action.
They block traffic. They speak up. We can't kill the conservative out of ourselves or our society, we can only educate it out, struggle with it, or live with it.

QUOTE
What you are describing above is the psyche of humanity in general, not conservatives. Or animals in general. Humans are animals and if we didn't take our own interests into account we wouldn't have survived as a species. Humans are both individual and social animals so things that benefit the overall community typically benefit individuals too.** Groups that become too large (since we're tribal we do best in groups of about 150, if memory serves) require a set of rules/laws...smaller groups can police themselves better than larger and often don't even require laws. This has been studied on the educational level too and applied to charter schools, but I digress.
Plenty of room for us to agree here, but nuanced differences using the same verbiage.

I believe what I am describing is the struggle for humanity. Humanity is an ideal. If we can both agree that humans are animals, than humanity would be more than an animal. Its idealistic because we can never truly be more than an animal, but we can create societies that further remove us from nature and animal like aggression. My feelings is that the left vs right, liberal vs conservative, are just ways to say "shades of humanity vs. shades of nature". This battle exist in each of us on an individual level and it exists on social level and there is all kinds of "grey". So this goes back to my original ideal that it is no for the liberals to hate their conservatives in their society, anymore than we can hate the conservative in ourselves, but rather struggle against conservatism and their desire to revert us back to two option state of mind, fight or flight, good or bad, with us or against us, live or die.

Man more I want to say but I got to go so no editing as usual...lol

QUOTE(Net2007)
You took the approach of using me as an example of an unempathetic conservative, and simply dodged the rest of the question. I could do the same you did, to further substantiate and help you fill in the blanks a little. This was you in reference to conservatives...

"It's hard not to have contempt for you all."
"I take you all as serious as a teenager with a gun. On one hand, its just a teenager... on the other hand... he\she has a gun."
"Of course I caught on... I'm very liberal!! "


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...23107&st=60

So can you, as the more empathetic liberal, explain these comments because they seem intentionally rude, prejudice, and all encompassing?
Listen compassion is for the loss of life, not your ego. I stand by that critique Net. You talk about putting "boots on the ground" like you don't understand the homicide that comes with that, the loss of human life that comes with that, like a "teenager, with a gun"

Right let me break this down in a way you can see.

Lets say China puts an army on our soil in Oregon. You understand people have to die and be killed right. You understand then I bet you that the Chinese are defending themselves they are attacking us. For some reason conservatism as a whole hasn't showed me the ability to grasp this similar concept when they call out for "strength" and "action".

Those people are going to want to kill us because we invaded them, then we are going to have to kill them, because they are trying to kill us because we invaded them. The homicidal tendencies of the current average conservative needs to be addressed and dealt with. That moral compass needs to be recalibrated.

Net do you understand the amount of death that happens when we invade a country or destabilize it?









Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(droop224 @ May 18 2017, 01:27 PM) *
Conservative and Liberal: Now this is harder to define. If you read what I've before you know I believe we all have some "left" and some "right" in us. I don't know what left is or what right is but often we use the term "liberal and conservative" to describe them. Other times I may be using liberals as a person practicing some form of liberalism. But if you all read what I wrote in the posts you'll see me use words like "psyche" and "mindset" . I'm using the word to define a more psychological profile, that thing that informs us: I am conservative or I am liberal; I am very conservative or I am very liberal. If there is a better word to describe this identifying psyche I'm up to change. Now in our current political two party structure many liberal minded people may join democrats and many conservative minded people may join Republicans... a hundred years ago this may have been reversed. The point is this psyche, in my opinion, goes beyond political parties, beyond America, beyond our current time and we liberals vs conservatives compete within our society, every society, for control of our future.To exemplify this psyche I would say this. That's psyche that says it us vs them go to the conservatives. The psyche that says they ARE us goes to the liberal. Its very hard to put in words for me but i'll look for some articles to better articulate.


I bolded the last bit, Droop, to highlight the topic here. The very topic itself is abjectly, very clearly, “us against them”. Your statement here is almost Poe’s law level ironic in that context.

Second, who are “they” in the “they are us” statement? Are you making the assessment that liberals are more likely to identify with criminals and terrorists? Okay, I won't argue…but that’s not really a good thing.

QUOTE
I think you are making similar points to trouble. One, the person in the car could have been a bleeding heart liberal with a dying gold fish needing to rush to protected park in the middle of Bolivia. Not the point. Point is there was a protest that blocked traffic and the American I know had such little respect for life that he laughed at the people being run over.
This isn't evidence of ANYTHING. It is an example of something I see quite often from conservatives. If I see someone burning a flag, I am not surprised to see a conservative friend of mine say that person should be shot. It happens quite often. Its as if they don't see the difference between cotton and plastic and human beings.


Or the American-you-know has a penchant for **schadenfreude. A lot of people do (both left and right). Like when some folks were giddy at the prospects of all those “misogynists” being led into combat by a woman they despised. Hillary applauded at the prospects my soul will burn in a special place in hell if I didn’t vote for her, didn’t she?
Wertz had a topic entitled, “hilarious rape” to discuss the penchant for de rigueur humor of male on male prison rape which didn’t seem exclusive to either liberals or conservatives. Actually I'll provide a link and we can see for ourselves. CR’s was the first response, then a very short term but VERY liberal poster named Iona piped in with her estimation that a “basic understanding of humor” includes prison rape and the Europeans are more sophisticated in matters of humor, and so forth.

I will say this. It sounds to me like the people picketing in the middle of a highway and stopping cars don’t have a lot of respect for their own lives. If they did, they wouldn’t elect to stand in front of cars on the highway. Especially pounding on cars (if it’s the video I saw). So there's also a sort of "Darwin Award" aspect to it. Which some people also find funny (the reason Darwin Awards exist). So it's a Darwin award/schadenfreude combo.

QUOTE
Is your friend still alive? Did they come back and kill him? If he had his gun, he would have killed them right? Ask him if he is alive.


If he’d had a gun he wouldn’t have been beaten into a coma with a lead pipe. blink.gif Yes, he’s still alive but intent was to kill him. And, yah, if there were fewer people on this earth that rob and attempt to beat peaceful people to death on their own property the world would be a better place.

QUOTE
QUOTE
I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

You carry a gun because you are afraid and you want to be prepared for the worst the world can throw at you. This may sound like another insult, but its not. It is simply my opinion based on the research I've read, videos I seen, and closely interacting with conservatives throughout my life. Conservative see threats, everywhere... I want to note that being afraid does not in any way equate to being cowardly. I think conservatives are more afraid but that is a feeling, but cowardice and bravery are actions that can only exist with the existence of fear. In other words, your fight or flight mode doesn't even come into the picture until we add fear into that recipe. In my experience with conservatism there is nothing that indicates to me they are more likely to go into flight mode or act cowardly when afraid, quite the opposite. Often their fear puts them in fight mode, maybe usually because they are in a position of superiority. I mean, really, who runs from a fight they think they can win.


Conservatives are more proactive about their own safety and the safety of others.
I cannot imagine, for instance, learning a friend was just beaten into a coma with a lead pipe and then determining "Hey they obviously didn't mean to kill you! Lucky you! Good thing they got away and you didn't harm them..."
Conservatives are not more fearful. They aren’t the ones who need counseling and anti-depressants because someone wrote “vote for Trump” in chalk on the sidewalk. I’ve lived in “conservative” areas and “liberal” areas. I was more afraid in the “liberal” areas by far. I have lived in conservative areas (four years in one with an extremely high LEGAL immigrant population...more immigrants than native Americans and the majority from South America, Puerto Rico, and Cuba) more recently and haven’t locked my car or front door in almost six years now. I don’t need to. Now if Columbian drug members started running around the place, my fear level would increase and my behavior would change accordingly. Fortunately they all appear go to softer targets (I would as well, in their position...the reason I don't want to provide them with a soft target).

That’s all for today….I might have time to post more later.
I'll just summarize to your other points that freedoms (aka rights) do not exist in a vacuum.
Yes, you are correct that total freedom is anarchy. My right to life does not exist independently of yours.
If I pose a reasonable threat to your life, then I lose my own Right to it.
One's right to freedom of movement requires that he/she responsibly respect the rights of others to privacy, property and security of person.
Therefore he/she must be responsible for his/her movement.

Edited to add: **I generally dislike schadenfreude. But I do like comedy noir.
This, for example. Satire is probably my favorite type of humor.

Edited again to add: Interesting tangentially related observation (re trust):
Russian Who Wants To Be A Millionaire contestants avoid asking the audience because they expect audience members to deliberately mislead them
This could be a very interesting topic in and of itself. We are a society that takes general pleasure when we see another person within our society succeed. By contrast, Russia seems to have the opposite perspective. This can extend to tribes as well...communities within societies at large.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(droop224 @ May 18 2017, 01:27 PM) *
I believe what I am describing is the struggle for humanity. Humanity is an ideal. If we can both agree that humans are animals, than humanity would be more than an animal. Its idealistic because we can never truly be more than an animal, but we can create societies that further remove us from nature and animal like aggression. My feelings is that the left vs right, liberal vs conservative, are just ways to say "shades of humanity vs. shades of nature". This battle exist in each of us on an individual level and it exists on social level and there is all kinds of "grey". So this goes back to my original ideal that it is no for the liberals to hate their conservatives in their society, anymore than we can hate the conservative in ourselves, but rather struggle against conservatism and their desire to revert us back to two option state of mind, fight or flight, good or bad, with us or against us, live or die.


Of course it's a struggle for humanity.
I read this today on a blog and agree with it, so I will add it to my post here:
QUOTE
The first rule of the entire world: you cannot keep what you cannot defend. The concept of “rights”, natural or otherwise, are subordinate to this first rule of the world.
Because this is true, “rights” generally degenerate into “abilities”.
Having a right does you no good if you cannot exercise that right. And your ability to exercise that right depends exclusively on your ability to defend your ability to exercise that right.

So – a corallary to the first rule: you may have a “right”, natural or otherwise – but your ability to exercise that right depends upon your ability to defend that ability.
In other words – you can’t do what someone stronger won’t allow you to do. “Rights” are irrelevant in all but philosophy classes. Ability to defend rules.

Ability to “defend” rules. Ability to defend most often requires alliances with others of some defensive ability. Alliances always require compromise. Compromise destroys purity of intent. Always. And everywhere. This is the world we have been given. Because there is always someone ready to take from us what we cannot defend, we can do no better. The history of nations and civilizations bears this out.

And yet, there is still Desiderata:
http://mwkworks.com/desiderata.html

With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.

AuthorMusician
Apparently, Trump's Republican support is waning. That means fewer Trump supporters, and that means fewer people having to decide whether or not to remain friends. However, if the question even arises, are those real friends to begin with?

I don't think so. True friendship is a stronger bond than political opinions about people who exist outside the actual realties. There may be direct impacts from policies being put into effect, and linking those policies to certain politicians is usually a valid thing to do, but true friendship, like true love, weathers these storms. Or good deals, depends on the policies.

The thing about true friendship/true love is that both are related. Another thing is that both are rare, relatively speaking. It's not so rare that most people don't ever experience one or both, and with billions of people in the world, the concept of rareness has to be expanded. It's similar to the concept of birth being a miracle. Ah, something that happens all the time isn't a miracle. It's a common occurrence.

What makes true friendship/love rare is that an individual's experience of them is highly restricted, usually. Only a few per lifetime -- not sure why, but it probably has something to do with energy capacities. Having too many of them can be, and usually is, exhausting.

Ergo, if you're wondering whether to maintain a relationship that is strained due to differences in political opinions, my advice is to limit that effort to something equal (thereabout) to the worth of the relationship.

An oddity in this is when a family (blood-related) member and you are at odds politically. The true love is automatic, but not true friendship. I haven't been able to figure this one out, and maybe there is no solution. This might very well be because there isn't any problem to begin with. It could be entirely natural and even healthy to not get along with certain family members due to differences in political opinions. I'm of the opinion that the differences run a lot deeper than politics and that it is actually being too much alike that's at the unresolvable core of the matter. With genetics, that's to be expected.

Plus some other things that are too specific for this thread, too personal/private, not Twitter material. Also not of much interest to anybody but me and a close friend (maybe). We need to keep in mind that we shouldn't share every stinking little detail about whatever is bugging us. But then it's necessary at times, and it's often difficult to tell, and so life remains interesting because of uncertainty/surprise.

Heh, for all his faults and recklessness, Trump certainly does keep people's attention if not their support. And that may be, in the end, his entire reason for existing: Revive people's interest in national politics. It's pretty hard to be apathetic when the POTUS is Trump, when policy could mean very serious things in people's actual realities. Bringing it back home to the tonic of the thread, his existence as POTUS could also be testing the resilience of human relationships. Stars have to explode to make life possible; gotta kiss a lot of toads; each generation has to make its own mistakes . . . and onward we go.
johnlocke
Where does one even begin with a post so narcissistic that the OP has literally dismissed any alternate opinion as racist, sexist, fascist and on and on in the first paragraphs, and continues on another 11 paragraphs and numbered questions about how terrible anyone with a different opinion?

This is the reason trump has supporters. How sickening. You reveal your ignorance.

More than the OP will ever know, he/she/they/zi/pher are the reason trump supporters even exist.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(johnlocke @ May 22 2017, 02:13 AM) *
Where does one even begin with a post so narcissistic that the OP has literally dismissed any alternate opinion as racist, sexist, fascist and on and on in the first paragraphs, and continues on another 11 paragraphs and numbered questions about how terrible anyone with a different opinion?

This is the reason trump has supporters. How sickening. You reveal your ignorance.

More than the OP will ever know, he/she/they/zi/pher are the reason trump supporters even exist.

Interesting theory -- so there's no reason other than intolerance of certain opinions for Trump's presidency? I guess that says something very important about Trump supporters:

Trump supporters are reactionary, responding to criticism of their views rather than moving on rational reflections regarding why those views are held by them. This means that Trump supporters are pretty easy to manipulate by pointing to their critics as the bad people out there that they need to thwart by voting for Trump.

However, it looks to me that there's more to this situation than simply a reaction to criticism. I see a strong desire for a savior figure, a messiah with the magical and exclusive ability to make things right. This is a reaction for certain, not to criticism but to living conditions becoming uncertain and frightening. So you have coal miners voting for Trump because he promises to maintain and even restore coal-mining jobs at the same pay rates as before they went away.

This is a very unstable support as a result of Trump not being magical and not having any special abilities. Believers in him won't continue to believe if he lets them down and/or actively makes their lives worse. A certain number of his supporters will hang on even after his fall from grace happens, which has arguably already occurred. I chalk that up to bullheadedness, also the idea of being contrary to promote one's individuality and superiority.

There's another facet to this, and that's the childish tactic of trying to bounce criticism back onto critics. A classic example is accusing critics of being intolerant of intolerance.

Ah yeah, we don't like spiders and snakes. I personally have no tolerance for religious zealots showing up at veterans' funerals to spew their nastiness toward grieving families. If it were up to me, I'd throw all these religious nut cases into the slammer and make them sort garbage for recycling. So it's a good thing I'm not a politician or judge, nor am I seeking politicians or judges who share my view on the matter. But I am okay with laws that push these protesters away from grieving families and have very little concern about the protesters' right to free speech.

On the other hand, I am okay with these types showing up at political events where their targets aren't weakened by grief. I simply don't support them or their heroes in a passive expression of disapproval.

That's where Trump is headed, passive disapproval. The GOP is heading toward active disapproval in that voters will be more difficult to attract, and the Party leadership knows it. The signs are already showing up in off-season elections.

Meanwhile, what's an uncertain and fearful electorate to do? Well, it already did it in the last election by not voting for Trump, instead for Clinton, by the millions -- and without the EC making the decisions in 2018, I expect the active disapproval of Trump to continue unabated and actually encouraged by Trump's and the GOP's actions between now and then.

But we will see. Outcomes don't have to be either logical or predictable when it comes to squishy human beings. Obviously, eh?
Mrs. Pigpen
WOW, JohnLocke?! Welcome back! flowers.gif
Lots of folks coming back after all these years.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 22 2017, 05:46 AM) *
QUOTE(johnlocke @ May 22 2017, 02:13 AM) *
Where does one even begin with a post so narcissistic that the OP has literally dismissed any alternate opinion as racist, sexist, fascist and on and on in the first paragraphs, and continues on another 11 paragraphs and numbered questions about how terrible anyone with a different opinion?

This is the reason trump has supporters. How sickening. You reveal your ignorance.
More than the OP will ever know, he/she/they/zi/pher are the reason trump supporters even exist.


Interesting theory -- so there's no reason other than intolerance of certain opinions for Trump's presidency? I guess that says something very important about Trump supporters:


Not really. Most people don't like having their character disparaged. I've often thought the Trojan horse "advocate" is a more powerful persuader than the most thoughtful dialogue. For example, I stopped being a Libertarian because of Libertarians...specifically maniacal Ivory tower ones who made "arguments" that were particularly absurd, personal, and/or inflammatory. The "bad advocate" is a really persuasive tactic (for the opposition).

QUOTE
Trump supporters are reactionary, responding to criticism of their views rather than moving on rational reflections regarding why those views are held by them.


Well, no, (in the case of the topic starter here, and in a good portion of the rest of the internet) they are responding to very personal attacks on their character, not rational debate of their views. When someone points at you and says, "racist" and "fascist" there's not much point in discussion.

My oldest son, too, has observed this phenomenon in college.
This election was more about the left and right hating each other than any other issue (though since Trump was outside of the establishment and folks are tired of the status quo that factor did weigh in "bigly" also).
A large portion of Hillary supporters jumped up and down with glee and smug satisfaction at the prospects of subjecting conservatives to Hillary, and a large portion of Trump supporters felt the same way about Trump.
If not for that motivation neither Hillary nor Trump would've won the primaries (IMO).
Each side picked what they thought would be worst (emotionally) for the other party.
Now that Trump won rather than reflecting on why, everyone is simply doubling down on the behaviors that got Trump elected in the first place.

Hobbes said as much (but better and more succinctly) in his post above.
johnlocke
It's funny that nothing has been gained or learned by the left with the election of Trump. They merely believe that America now agrees with everything they believe and sees that he is some sort of a conman and Russian spy.

I have news for you, that's not nearly an accurate assessment and more pain and disaffection awaits the left because they've learned nothing. Hell I bet they'd run Hillary Clinton again if they could.

I'll leave it at that. I'm not even debating at this point and I don't want to get in trouble for not answering the questions directly.

Perhaps I should go make an 18 paragraph thread with questions about why everyone who thinks differently than me is a fascist.
net2007
QUOTE(droop224 @ May 18 2017, 02:27 PM) *
QUOTE(Net2007)
You took the approach of using me as an example of an unempathetic conservative, and simply dodged the rest of the question. I could do the same you did, to further substantiate and help you fill in the blanks a little. This was you in reference to conservatives...

"It's hard not to have contempt for you all."
"I take you all as serious as a teenager with a gun. On one hand, its just a teenager... on the other hand... he\she has a gun."
"Of course I caught on... I'm very liberal!! "


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...23107&st=60

So can you, as the more empathetic liberal, explain these comments because they seem intentionally rude, prejudice, and all encompassing?
Listen compassion is for the loss of life, not your ego. I stand by that critique Net. You talk about putting "boots on the ground" like you don't understand the homicide that comes with that, the loss of human life that comes with that, like a "teenager, with a gun"

Right let me break this down in a way you can see.

Lets say China puts an army on our soil in Oregon. You understand people have to die and be killed right. You understand then I bet you that the Chinese are defending themselves they are attacking us. For some reason conservatism as a whole hasn't showed me the ability to grasp this similar concept when they call out for "strength" and "action".

Those people are going to want to kill us because we invaded them, then we are going to have to kill them, because they are trying to kill us because we invaded them. The homicidal tendencies of the current average conservative needs to be addressed and dealt with. That moral compass needs to be recalibrated.

Net do you understand the amount of death that happens when we invade a country or destabilize it?


I'll deal with you a little here, since I already have comments on Syria and did give the gist of it again, I'll offer you a more detailed picture of what I personally believe when it comes to war and how I define sympathy when related to those topics but I want you to offer something real on your end. When I initiated this trade off with you I wanted to know if you can substantiate that the right is inherently less empathetic than the left to back your claim, and wanted to know if you could demonstrate that the left isn't guilty of having a similar problem.

From there, you took a personal approach and used me as the example of an unempathetic conservative, but didn't address the left it in a sincere way. Here's what I'm talking about, I countered by quoting things like this....

"It's hard not to have contempt for you all."

This demonstrates a lack of compassion from the left, on your part, and contradicts your claim in a very direct way. If I were to pull in sources from elsewhere, believe me, there's a lot of material to work with, (some of it verging on domestic terrorism,) but the way you dealt with that quote alone was to say....

"Listen compassion is for the loss of life, not your ego."

You've addressed conservatives as a group, and a large one at that. "You all" does not mean "my ego", it means "you all" That comment comes in combination with other all encompassing and belittling remarks directed at those who oppose you politically.

With that said I'm not concerned about what you think of me personally because I understand that you're doing the same thing to others based on an ideology clash. To a great degree, you've taken a one size fits all approach so this is predictable. Secondly, as far as those who are okay with being intentionally insulting, I take their opinions on what they think is insensitive with a grain of salt. You may do the same regarding my criticisms of your remarks and that's fine but I'd argue that there's a difference between saying we should have kicked some booty in reference to a murderous dictator and lumping millions of people together and specifying that you believe they're like inhumane teenagers that you have contempt for, and saying similar things consistently. Perhaps that's comparable if you were to speculate on what I believe but that's a dangerous way to develop opinions. Seeking the truth is different than seeking information to back preconceived notions.

As I said, I'm willing to comment further on how I define sympathy in regards to Syria or war in general but I'd want you to address what I had to ask in a sincere way. Can you substantiate the idea that conservatives lack empathy for other groups while demonstrating that the left hasn't been guilty of similar behavior? Regardless of who you view as unsympathetic at AD, we'd have to get bigger to demonstrate if there's a difference in the level of compassion between the left and right. Address the left wing end of things a bit, when looking at this election and recent history have you been able to pick up on the fact that there's been more violence and vulgarity coming from the left than with other political groups in America? If so, how does this fit in and why wouldn't it be significant?

Call it empathy but I don't believe the left is inherently less humane than other groups despite all of this. I've tried to explain the vulgarity and lack of empathy seen on the left on multiple factors. If you were to acknowledge the problem you may point to Trump or conservatives, and while I think both groups are provoking each other I don't think it's fair or accurate to assume the left is simply responding to things conservatives do, and that's it. Here's the best short explanation I can give, I'd want to say outright that the left (as with the right) is a diverse group which consists of smaller groups within. No two people believe the same exact thing so we're really talking about tendencies and trends. I'd also point out that trends change. If liberals, (or more specifically progressives) tend to be more vulgar or violent, that could change as time goes by.

With all of that considered, if a progressive person who's on the fringe happens to get into making death threats, rioting, or continuously insulting others, I consider what effect media and academia has had. Some of these reactions may indeed be due to something a conservative said or did, but I always consider how much the media sensationalizes those things and often downplays positive stories which may offer another perspective of the right.

As far a colleges go, they're often sheltering our youth from conservative opinions while indoctrinating them with a more progressive viewpoint, one they're pushing to be the difference between being right and wrong. There are are also wild cards at play here, we never know what's going on in the personal lives of others, things which could be unrelated to their political stance. I don't take the position of these things being an excuse for treating others unfairly or resorting to violence, but I've always believed there are reasons people do the thigs they do. "Inherently" is a word which suggests the problem was always there and couldn't change for the better. You're going to have a hard enough time demonstrating the right is less empathetic or humane, let alone it being an inherent conservative problem. I still welcome you to try though.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ May 22 2017, 08:16 AM) *
WOW, JohnLocke?! Welcome back! flowers.gif
Lots of folks coming back after all these years.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 22 2017, 05:46 AM) *
QUOTE(johnlocke @ May 22 2017, 02:13 AM) *
Where does one even begin with a post so narcissistic that the OP has literally dismissed any alternate opinion as racist, sexist, fascist and on and on in the first paragraphs, and continues on another 11 paragraphs and numbered questions about how terrible anyone with a different opinion?

This is the reason trump has supporters. How sickening. You reveal your ignorance.
More than the OP will ever know, he/she/they/zi/pher are the reason trump supporters even exist.


Interesting theory -- so there's no reason other than intolerance of certain opinions for Trump's presidency? I guess that says something very important about Trump supporters:


Not really. Most people don't like having their character disparaged. I've often thought the Trojan horse "advocate" is a more powerful persuader than the most thoughtful dialogue. For example, I stopped being a Libertarian because of Libertarians...specifically maniacal Ivory tower ones who made "arguments" that were particularly absurd, personal, and/or inflammatory. The "bad advocate" is a really persuasive tactic (for the opposition).

QUOTE
Trump supporters are reactionary, responding to criticism of their views rather than moving on rational reflections regarding why those views are held by them.


Well, no, (in the case of the topic starter here, and in a good portion of the rest of the internet) they are responding to very personal attacks on their character, not rational debate of their views. When someone points at you and says, "racist" and "fascist" there's not much point in discussion.

My oldest son, too, has observed this phenomenon in college.
This election was more about the left and right hating each other than any other issue (though since Trump was outside of the establishment and folks are tired of the status quo that factor did weigh in "bigly" also).
A large portion of Hillary supporters jumped up and down with glee and smug satisfaction at the prospects of subjecting conservatives to Hillary, and a large portion of Trump supporters felt the same way about Trump.
If not for that motivation neither Hillary nor Trump would've won the primaries (IMO).
Each side picked what they thought would be worst (emotionally) for the other party.
Now that Trump won rather than reflecting on why, everyone is simply doubling down on the behaviors that got Trump elected in the first place.

Hobbes said as much (but better and more succinctly) in his post above.

The fallacy here, and on both sides for some who are on either side, is going from specific to general without drawing the lines to connect specific to general. So some right-wing types call liberals snowflakes and think they cry like little girls when someone points a machine gun at them, and some left-wing types call conservatives fascists and think they delight in bringing misery into people's lives.

However, the truth lies in the policies promoted on either side. This is how the electorate is looking at it now -- what is going to effect them, and will it make life easier or harder? Sure people don't like to be called names like commie pinko sex fiend, nattering nabob of negativity, dirty L word, devil spawn, and on and on, but in the end, it's policy that will determine who gets to run this country.

Maybe Trump supporters didn't buy into his sales pitches during the campaign and won't be disappointed when he fails to deliver or pulls bait/switches on them, but I doubt it. Polling numbers support this take, although I'm considering the polls with a few good shakes of salt. And take note that no debate involving name-calling is necessary when policies work against the electorate. The hard facts are right there to be viewed and judged in each voter's head.

A more telling and obvious piece of evidence is the movement of Republicans facing 2018 elections away from Trump. They are fully aware that no matter what it's called, the news for them isn't very good. This is especially true for GOP leaders who remember how the 2006 election season turned out, and how that extended into 2008. The principle I see at work here is the short shelf life of political capital garnered through fooling the electorate: Its volatile nature becomes very clear as reality unfolds, or put into a common metaphor, when the sun shines on it.

Regarding my experience with being a Libertarian, the start of my leaving the Party was reading Browne's book during the 2000 election season. The policy ideas stunk, such as selling off our national parks to service the national debt. No name-calling was required, but sunlight was.

We might be seeing the end to political hyperventilating that encourages name-calling, popularized by easy publication on the Internet. I say this because too much hyperbole becomes old quickly.

Meanwhile, I don't buy it that conservatives have stopped debating about Trump because they don't like being called fascists and the such. Looks to me it's because Trump & Crew are simply indefensible. There isn't anything to debate about a stinking, steaming pile. Even the optimist's stance that a pony could be nearby doesn't work. For example, Trump's handling of classified information is so much worse than Clinton's that nobody dares bring up Benghazi these days, let alone throwing her in jail.

And like I've mentioned, the humor is getting harder to find without becoming tearful for the nation.

Anyway, if your friends get all bent out of shape toward you whenever Trump comes up, either reconsider the strength of the friendship or try to change the subject. I'm thinking now that leaving the room on some kind of pretense is the smartest strategy -- like needing to study music and practice guitar. Lydia gets pretty upset over our POTUS, and she doesn't need any extra aggravation while we sell the shack and move into smaller/cheaper digs. Election Day 2018 will come soon enough, and things will either look a lot better or a lot worse, depending on POV, no matter how much angst is spent or names hurled around beforehand.

I'm looking forward to whether money can pull the GOP's butt out of the sling this time. Appears very doubtful, but there's enough uncertainty to keep it interesting.
droop224
Mrs P

QUOTE
I bolded the last bit, Droop, to highlight the topic here. The very topic itself is abjectly, very clearly, “us against them”. Your statement here is almost Poe’s law level ironic in that context.

Second, who are “they” in the “they are us” statement? Are you making the assessment that liberals are more likely to identify with criminals and terrorists? Okay, I won't argue…but that’s not really a good thing.
I'd argue that the question of topic is a question whether liberals or non Trump supporters should enter into a us vs them state of mind, which I clearly reject.


Next, I am making an assessment that liberals are more likely to identify with criminals and terrorist, and it IS a "good" thing. "criminal" and "terrorist" are simply labels that some use so that they can ignore the humanity of those human beings. I think liberals have the a better capacity to see the humanity of people that are not "us". And if you start looking at the policies liberals often fight and stand for you can see this. Whether the topic be about, race, gender, sexuality, people of a foreign country, liberals tend to side with the policy that identifies with humanity of the "other".

People don't wake up to become homicidal terrorist or criminals anymore than they wake up to become homicidal scout snipers, pilots (actual or drone), or mass destruction button pressers. There a long trail of social conditioning that allows that person to justify their homicidal behavior, both to\for themselves and to\for others.

Take our love for sniper Chris Kyle who committed so many homicides he can't even keep counts. He said if you want the official number go ask the navy. We glorify this man. Made a movie, wrote a book, made an event out of his funeral. This guy is famous for killing human beings. "But Droop he was fighting for his country saving the lives of other Americans while in combat" I get that but he was also part of an invading army killing human beings in THEIR homeland. Now if an invading force were to come into our homeland, I doubt you'd think them good guys. In fact I think you'd think you were in the right to kill them.

So this is not to take a crap on the men and women who serve, but to point out. What they do, we do. We may not commit homicide in the same manner. But we do it and we use justification to reason why doing so is morally permitted. Its the same human process. And it is GOOD that people do justify their homicide, because I believe the process of justifying only exist if there is a moral compass, regardless of how polluted and corrupted that compass has become. That mentality though does not simply exist amongst Americans, that mentality expands the world and that same justification of homicide is going to be used when attacking us, whether it be riding planes into building or flying planes over building dropping bombs.

So seeing the correlations and understanding they (others) are acting in a human manner, we liberals are better suited to determine the underlying issues, whether that be poverty, inequality, aggression, etc. and build bridges, figuratively speaking. Quite frankly the conservative minded people as of late seem only able to blow crap up(figuratively and actually). Whether that be "our" conservative or "their" conservatives.

QUOTE
Or the American-you-know has a penchant for **schadenfreude. A lot of people do (both left and right). Like when some folks were giddy at the prospects of all those “misogynists” being led into combat by a woman they despised. Hillary applauded at the prospects my soul will burn in a special place in hell if I didn’t vote for her, didn’t she?
Wertz had a topic entitled, “hilarious rape” to discuss the penchant for de rigueur humor of male on male prison rape which didn’t seem exclusive to either liberals or conservatives. Actually I'll provide a link and we can see for ourselves. CR’s was the first response, then a very short term but VERY liberal poster named Iona piped in with her estimation that a “basic understanding of humor” includes prison rape and the Europeans are more sophisticated in matters of humor, and so forth.

I will say this. It sounds to me like the people picketing in the middle of a highway and stopping cars don’t have a lot of respect for their own lives. If they did, they wouldn’t elect to stand in front of cars on the highway. Especially pounding on cars (if it’s the video I saw). So there's also a sort of "Darwin Award" aspect to it. Which some people also find funny (the reason Darwin Awards exist). So it's a Darwin award/schadenfreude combo.


Mrs P I have to say I love learning new terms from you. You keep me Google-ing. But no its not schadenfreude, its a lack of respect for the humanity of people. I put something in bold for you. See that statement, that is what I call "case and point".

How about we take that statement and apply it to law enforcement and military. Really. Are people too dumb to know what happens in combat zones? You try to kill people and they try to kill you. Every time one of those flag draped coffins come home, along with the medals and ribbons, slap a "Darwin Award" on that bad boy. OBVIOUSLY, you don't care about your life if you are with the military, especially being deployed with some invading force in some foreign country.

You think that is offensive at all? It shouldn't be to you, because it is exactly the same thing. If you put your life in a known dangerous position, you must not have a lot of respect for your own life. But I hope it is. I hope the idea of telling some spouse who lost their love one in the line of duty, domestically or in foreign lands, their loved ones didn't appreciate their own lives raises the hackles enough, just enough to be illustrative. I want to show why I feel that moral compass of the common conservative needs some serious tweaking.

Because at least then you would have to wonder why when its a group you don't respect their lives become unimportant to such a degree, but when its a group you respect, all of a sudden their live are worthy of respect.

I don't think someone who protest and puts their body and life on the line for whatever cause, lacks respect for their own lives. I think they are hoping the same thing that every military service member thinks or police officer thinks, "I hope nothing goes wrong and I make it home to my family." They don't devalue their own lives than any other human being that puts their self in a dangerous position.

QUOTE
If he’d had a gun he wouldn’t have been beaten into a coma with a lead pipe. blink.gif Yes, he’s still alive but intent was to kill him. And, yah, if there were fewer people on this earth that rob and attempt to beat peaceful people to death on their own property the world would be a better place.
Look I don't want to stay on something so personal or argue it to any large degree. I will say this if my son, not even a man fully grown had an incapacitated person in front of him and a lead pipe with an intent to kill, I'm pretty sure he could beat a person to death. In this case we have two grown men that are violent criminals. But hey, whatever you say. Point is they were arrested, they were let out, and they have not come back to kill your friend. So why should we believe that Joe Horn had to kill those men to save his own life, rather than just look at the facts and say this man killed two human beings over property?


QUOTE
Conservatives are more proactive about their own safety and the safety of others.
I cannot imagine, for instance, learning a friend was just beaten into a coma with a lead pipe and then determining "Hey they obviously didn't mean to kill you! Lucky you! Good thing they got away and you didn't harm them..."
Conservatives are not more fearful. They aren’t the ones who need counseling and anti-depressants because someone wrote “vote for Trump” in chalk on the sidewalk. I’ve lived in “conservative” areas and “liberal” areas. I was more afraid in the “liberal” areas by far. I have lived in conservative areas (four years in one with an extremely high LEGAL immigrant population...more immigrants than native Americans and the majority from South America, Puerto Rico, and Cuba) more recently and haven’t locked my car or front door in almost six years now. I don’t need to. Now if Columbian drug members started running around the place, my fear level would increase and my behavior would change accordingly. Fortunately they all appear go to softer targets I would as well, in their position...the reason I don't want to provide them with a soft target).
You don't lock your doors but "you carry a gun because a cop is too heavy" thumbsup.gif Of course you are more scared. Look fear is one of the most primal and natural feelings, and by far every human feels it. I want to reiterate that fear, in my opinion has nothing to do with cowardice. I am not in any way saying that conservatives are more likely to be cowards. You want to say you are more proactive about safety... toMAto, tomaTOE!! You see more threats, and you see a greater likelihood of threats coming to fruition than your liberal counterparts. Its a huge reason why you are so into POWER, showing Strength, respect for authority, its a big reason why conservatives are generally so much more against change too. You all see threats, everywhere. And again, I'm not saying you all want to run for the hills... the problem is when you all want to exterminate the "threats" even when its other humans.

I wonder can you all really really really grasp there is someone on the other side that thinks just like you about YOU. To them, you and your family, me and my family, all our families we are either evil or complicit in evil, worthy of extermination. The rationale for justifiably killing is the same.

QUOTE
The first rule of the entire world: you cannot keep what you cannot defend. The concept of “rights”, natural or otherwise, are subordinate to this first rule of the world.
Because this is true, “rights” generally degenerate into “abilities”.
Having a right does you no good if you cannot exercise that right. And your ability to exercise that right depends exclusively on your ability to defend your ability to exercise that right.

So – a corallary to the first rule: you may have a “right”, natural or otherwise – but your ability to exercise that right depends upon your ability to defend that ability.
In other words – you can’t do what someone stronger won’t allow you to do. “Rights” are irrelevant in all but philosophy classes. Ability to defend rules.

Ability to “defend” rules. Ability to defend most often requires alliances with others of some defensive ability. Alliances always require compromise. Compromise destroys purity of intent. Always. And everywhere. This is the world we have been given. Because there is always someone ready to take from us what we cannot defend, we can do no better. The history of nations and civilizations bears this out.

And yet, there is still Desiderata:
http://mwkworks.com/desiderata.html

With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.


Well that is not the first rule of the world. The first rule is... live. The next rule is die. Somewhere in between those actual rules is the practice of surviving. That being said I understand what the writer is saying, I SEE his\her truth. And I understand what you are saying as well in quoting it. Now try to understand what I am saying. Conceptually what he is saying is a very natural truth, it's very base, its something that any animal that has social ties intrinsically understands. Lions understand this, dogs understand this, apes understand this. That is why I am not disagreeing with the author sentiments, nor your agreement. It further illustrates my point and my stance on conservatism and its lack of humanity. For what is humanity, if not the ability to stop acting like a god damnn animal?!?!?!

Net 2007

QUOTE
I'll deal with you a little here, since I already have comments on Syria and did give the gist of it again, I'll offer you a more detailed picture of what I personally believe when it comes to war and how I define sympathy when related to those topics but I want you to offer something real on your end. When I initiated this trade off with you I wanted to know if you can substantiate that the right is inherently less empathetic than the left to back your claim, and wanted to know if you could demonstrate that the left isn't guilty of having a similar problem.

From there, you took a personal approach and used me as the example of an unempathetic conservative, but didn't address the left it in a sincere way. Here's what I'm talking about, I countered by quoting things like this....

"It's hard not to have contempt for you all."

This demonstrates a lack of compassion from the left, on your part, and contradicts your claim in a very direct way. If I were to pull in sources from elsewhere, believe me, there's a lot of material to work with, (some of it verging on domestic terrorism,) but the way you dealt with that quote alone was to say....

"Listen compassion is for the loss of life, not your ego."

You've addressed conservatives as a group, and a large one at that. "You all" does not mean "my ego", it means "you all" That comment comes in combination with other all encompassing and belittling remarks directed at those who oppose you politically.


Well, lets address this then. What is it you think I am in contempt of Net? Honestly, if you had to choose between conservative views and their human life, which would you think putting into context all I have said since you have read my posts? I have contempt for the mindset and the mindset can change. Look at my first post and acknowledge I am saying you should remain friends with Trump supporters. I'm not backing off my comment either, just making sure you don't make it seem like I HATE people who are conservative.

Next point, compassion. You can have utter contempt for a person views and still have extreme compassion for them and their hardships. The two, IMO, are not opposing concepts in any way.. So you are basically asking me how I can have compassion and contempt and I am befuddled, because I'm not quite sure why you think I can't? I think that is why I didn't address it, because for me I really didn't know how to address it, because your point, while I understood it, didn't make sense.

Its like some one says I need a water hose to tighten this bolt. Well I understand the concept of water hose, water, and tightening a bolt. But I don't quite understand why you want a water hose to tighten a bolt.

So I don't get why you bring up the analogy of conservatives being "like teens with guns" or my contempt for their views and beliefs and adjoin that to my comments of compassion. You are making a connection that I don't understand.

QUOTE
With that said I'm not concerned about what you think of me personally because I understand that you're doing the same thing to others based on an ideology clash. To a great degree, you've taken a one size fits all approach so this is predictable. Secondly, as far as those who are okay with being intentionally insulting, I take their opinions on what they think is insensitive with a grain of salt. You may do the same regarding my criticisms of your remarks and that's fine but I'd argue that there's a difference between saying we should have kicked some booty in reference to a murderous dictator and lumping millions of people together and specifying that you believe they're like inhumane teenagers that you have contempt for, and saying similar things consistently. Perhaps that's comparable if you were to speculate on what I believe but that's a dangerous way to develop opinions. Seeking the truth is different than seeking information to back preconceived notions.
The one size fits all approach is due to expedience and capability. I understand there millions of flavors of individuals that call themselves "conservative". Do you understand I understand this? However, 1. I haven't met every conservative in the world 2. even if I had I wouldn't be able to talk about them individually in a million posts on ad.gif. So, yes, I generalize.

When It comes to the conservative movements of Americans I base it on the the leaders they select, in small part, but the platforms sold to the conservatives in large part. You ever here the saying you have to give the base some raw meat.. or something like that. Both the politicians and the right and left do this. But what is the "meat" fed to the left and what is the "meat" fed to the right.

So you wanted me to substantiate How about this. The left wants everyone to have healthcare and access to medical services, the right wants the people that can afford it to have healthcare and medical services. The left shows compassion the right shows a lack of it.


















Mrs. Pigpen
I haven't read you whole response, but just wanted to clarify something that I thought was obvious when I wrote it, but apparently it wasn't:

Wait...I'll respond to one other one before it:
QUOTE(droop224 @ May 31 2017, 10:43 PM) *
QUOTE
If he’d had a gun he wouldn’t have been beaten into a coma with a lead pipe. blink.gif Yes, he’s still alive but intent was to kill him. And, yah, if there were fewer people on this earth that rob and attempt to beat peaceful people to death on their own property the world would be a better place.
Look I don't want to stay on something so personal or argue it to any large degree. I will say this if my son, not even a man fully grown had an incapacitated person in front of him and a lead pipe with an intent to kill, I'm pretty sure he could beat a person to death. In this case we have two grown men that are violent criminals. But hey, whatever you say.


They probably did think they killed him. They aren't medics, it's not like they were planning on only beating him right up to the edge of death but leave him in a comatose state just to be nice. I'm sure they didn't take a pulse. And I doubt they wanted to get brain splatter on their clothes. Good Lord, Droop.

QUOTE
You don't lock your doors but "you carry a gun because a cop is too heavy" thumbsup.gif Of course you are more scared.


"I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy"<-------Okay. This here portion I've drawn an arrow to is what we folks in the business call "humor" (or perhaps "levity").

It also makes the succinct point that a cop isn't going to be there at the moment of truth. Policemen agree with this statement and cops are, in general, very very positive about self defense and concealed carry. Just about every class on firearm defense is taught by a current or former law enforcement officer (or military serviceman).
I haven't actually brandished a weapon in years. I only did so in an environment where it was necessary.
Obviously if I'm not locking my doors currently i'm not concerned about being attacked.

That's all for this morning. Have to get on with my day I'll read more when I get a chance.

Wait....one more thing (from the portion I"ve read before this bit)...You've mentioned before that "total freedom" is chaotic. Yes, indeed.
What you are noting should make it patently obvious why society looks completely differently at law enforcement and military engagement*** than it does violent criminality.

**within a set of legal restrictions...there are still rules governing warfare and law enforcement and quite a lot of them...more and more even as time goes on
droop224
Mrs P

QUOTE
They probably did think they killed him. They aren't medics, it's not like they were planning on only beating him right up to the edge of death but leave him in a comatose state just to be nice. I'm sure they didn't take a pulse. And I doubt they wanted to get brain splatter on their clothes. Good Lord, Droop.
My point is... its not likely they gave a crap either way in the moment. They wanted his car he threw his keys and they beat them. Their actions were horrible. I don't think they cared if he lived and I don't think they much cared in the moment if he died.

QUOTE
"I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy"<-------Okay. This here portion I've drawn an arrow to is what we folks in the business call "humor" (or perhaps "levity").

It also makes the succinct point that a cop isn't going to be there at the moment of truth. Policemen agree with this statement and cops are, in general, very very positive about self defense and concealed carry. Just about every class on firearm defense is taught by a current or former law enforcement officer (or military serviceman).
I haven't actually brandished a weapon in years. I only did so in an environment where it was necessary.
Obviously if I'm not locking my doors currently i'm not concerned about being attacked.
laugh.gif See laughter face. I knew it was a joke and I knew the point you were making, which is MY point. You carry a deadly firearm around just in case something extremely unlikely happens. And when I say extremely, go look at the numbers. You talk about carrying a gun, even in a neighborhood where you don't need to lock your doors... just in case.

Tell me if I carried an umbrella everyday, and you asked me why and my response was in case it rains, would you think I was scared of rain? "But there is like 0% chance of rain today, droop." "Still, just in case." And look, that is ok. If that 1% chance thing happens where I get in an altercation requiring I need a firearm, I would wish I had it, won't I? But I don't have it, I don't carry it, and I don't feel like I need it "just in case." I'm not afraid that this very unlikely event just might happen, but I am also aware and acknowledge it can happen.

QUOTE
Wait....one more thing (from the portion I"ve read before this bit)...You've mentioned before that "total freedom" is chaotic. Yes, indeed.
What you are noting should make it patently obvious why society looks completely differently at law enforcement and military engagement*** than it does violent criminality.

**within a set of legal restrictions...there are still rules governing warfare and law enforcement and quite a lot of them...more and more even as time goes on
They are viewed as different, but not completely different. It has nothing to do with "freedom" its just the way we are programmed. You aren't a minority, so for you it may be vastly different, for me it is slightly different.

Case and point:

How you look at a Black teenager being chased behind a building and being killed, is vastly different than how I look at. How you look at a man killing two unarmed people for stealing from his neighbors house, is vastly different than how I look at it. And when we see countless videos of brutality by law enforcement, I am willing to bet that how I see it is vastly different than how you see it. Same applies in our global use of force.

Me and you are part of the exact same society. Now to the degree we are able to un-program ourselves is to the degree we no longer look at "us" as completely different. Syrians are human being, Iraqis are human beings, Afghans are human beings, Americans are human beings, Christians are human beings, Blacks are human beings, Whites are human beings, ETC.!!

Every thing I said before "are human beings" are labels programmed into us from birth to divide ourselves. I am as guilty as the next human in using labels. But remember what I said earlier with the "us vs. Them" philosophy of the right and the "they are us" philosophy of the left. The goal, for me, is to fight the more natural "us vs. them" philosophy and strive for the more humanitarian "they are us" philosophy seen on the left.

When you are dealing with foreign policy or defending the status quo, it is very easy to forget the human being on the other side of that policy. Whether its a war on terror or a war on drugs.
Hobbes
Droop,

You do realize all of these statement apply equally to the left....don't you? Indicating that the left is just as corrupt (your word) as the right.

No, given your post, you probably don't. You probably also don't realize that your post essentially shows how you discriminate against conservatives, and stereotype them....the very things you call out conservatives for doing. You further exemplify that not only do you stereotype and label them...but that you really don't have any interest in understanding them, but would rather just relegate them to the lower class of human you seem to think they are (corrupt, and less humane). Ironic, given the supposedly tolerant and inclusive outlook liberals are supposed to have, no?

FWIW, by and large, conservatives and liberals believe in the same goals, they just have different ideas on how to get there.
droop224
QUOTE(Hobbes)
Droop,

You do realize all of these statement apply equally to the left....don't you? Indicating that the left is just as corrupt (your word) as the right.

No, given your post, you probably don't.

You are right, I do not. The most important word here in my opinion is "equally". Hobbes, I will say again. We ARE all human. Individually we all have the same emotions, there is no emotion that the average "conservative" feels that the average "liberal" doesn't. We are all similar and yet we are all different. Now if you wanted to say that the politicians of the left and the politicians of the right are equally corrupt, I'd argue with you less. I'd be more supportive of that view.

However, I do stereotype you based on the platform conservatives consistently vote on. Based on the viewpoints conservative generally take. As I told Net I don't know every conservative in America and if I did I couldn't write about each and every one of you individually. If the liberal and conservative platform was the same we wouldn't have even two parties. I'm of a mindset that we need at least 8 to stop our democracy from being so corrupt and dysfunctional.

But we do not have the same views. Liberals tend to have separate views than conservatives tend to have. Yes I talk about those view in a general sense, how else can I do it?

QUOTE
You further exemplify that not only do you stereotype and label them...but that you really don't have any interest in understanding them, but would rather just relegate them to the lower class of human you seem to think they are (corrupt, and less humane). Ironic, given the supposedly tolerant and inclusive outlook liberals are supposed to have, no?
Here, you couldn't be more wrong. I say again, we all have conservative type psyche in us. It is a mindset. I do understand you all, because to a degree, I believe, I am you. Psyche I attribute to conservatism is very natural, it is very animalistic. It is closer to nature than liberalism will ever be. There is a reason why the concept of social Darwinism has its roots in conservative philosophy, it is very close to the rule of the jungle. Conservatism is not something that is beneath me, in my mind, it is something I think many of us on the left strive to elevate above. In any moment of fear, anger, or rage, I'm as conservative as they come.

But when I can be thoughtful, I choose the ideals of leftist politics, chief of which for me is equality.

Hobbes, Think about all the things I post, what is it about conservatives you think I don't understand? Try me.




Gray Seal
It is certainly a long winding list to determine what fascism is. Many of the items of the list are worthy of examination.

For example: Supremacy of the Military. We can not get through a athletic event without paying homage to the military. How many national holidays are now celebrate the military holidays?

At what level of spending on the military do you cross over from necessary defense to deliberate use of force upon sovereign nations? Is military supremacy determined by actions or by spending?

The brief exploration is just an example but how does it fit with the discussion on fascism?

I think understanding terms means the terms must be focused and to the point. These lists are not focused nor to the point. I observe that many arguing each side of the fascism question are actually in agreement and supportive of fascism. Progressives and neocons both like and support fascism.

Fascism is when private business serves government and bureaucrats. Simple and to the point. Focused determined of what fascism is. Our society requires business to submit to the whims of government. Regulation, licensing, taxation are the tools of this relationship. If a big business wishes to succeed in this world they better have their lobby ducks in a row. Campaign donations are king.

Big money controls elections. Voters obey the big money. The voters do this knowingly. Progressives think government is the basis for good via its use of force. Neocons think the use of force is necessary as it is a king-of-the-hill world of humans. Force and control domestically is fully supported along with force and control as the fulcrum of foreign policy.

It is one real happy party for all. Authoritarian methods are favored in today's elections. We just quibble about window dressing.

It is good to be fascist. If not for modern fascism what would we have?
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jun 4 2017, 05:42 PM) *
It is certainly a long winding list to determine what fascism is. Many of the items of the list are worthy of examination.

I kinda like Merriam-Webster on this:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

The definition references the Fascisti. I'd not encountered this history before, probably because Hitler and Mussolini got so much attention, and this movement did not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Fascisti

However, what's going on now looks more like crazy stupid than fascism. We've got a POTUS who really didn't want the job, can't read worth beans, doesn't understand squat, and is barely ambulant trying to do something -- nobody knows what, even his own crew. Now the word is out, and nobody wants to work for this chimp-chump.

Heh, and then there's the free-speech blathering that moved from Berkeley, CA to Portland, OR and from creeping communist-wannabees (from rich families) to pathetic punks emulating their comic book hero-villains.

Ah well, maybe the world's climate won't become irreversibly toxic in 20 years; maybe the USA will survive this most recent period of self-inflicted insanity; maybe things will turn around sooner than anyone dares to hope right now.

Or not. We'll see, and in the meantime, we can just leave the room if people get too weird about Trump. That might not be physically possible at times, so I recommend retreat into your own head. Just nod and say meaningless things, like "yah, sure" (Minnesotan for "bull crap not worth arguing about").

Gray Seal
I think of Mussolini and his government as the prototype fascism. The Nazi government had fascism, too. I do not equate fascism to be the synonym for Nazism. The fascism of Hitler and Mussolini was making big business beholden to the government, even if those businesses were technically private big business.

AuthorMusician, I had not heard about the fascisti group in Britain before your link.

The fascism I see in the United States did not start with Trump and unfortunately it will not end with Trump. Trump is another cog in the long list of Presidents controlled by hidden government. It is good people are speculating and wondering about fascism. I think for the most part people recognize fascism is a bad thing but they do not understand what fascism means nor why it is bad.

The window dressing of Trump continues to be attacked while the substance of government continues to expand and deteriorate.
net2007
QUOTE(droop224 @ May 31 2017, 11:43 PM) *
Net 2007
QUOTE
I'll deal with you a little here, since I already have comments on Syria and did give the gist of it again, I'll offer you a more detailed picture of what I personally believe when it comes to war and how I define sympathy when related to those topics but I want you to offer something real on your end. When I initiated this trade off with you I wanted to know if you can substantiate that the right is inherently less empathetic than the left to back your claim, and wanted to know if you could demonstrate that the left isn't guilty of having a similar problem.

From there, you took a personal approach and used me as the example of an unempathetic conservative, but didn't address the left it in a sincere way. Here's what I'm talking about, I countered by quoting things like this....

"It's hard not to have contempt for you all."

This demonstrates a lack of compassion from the left, on your part, and contradicts your claim in a very direct way. If I were to pull in sources from elsewhere, believe me, there's a lot of material to work with, (some of it verging on domestic terrorism,) but the way you dealt with that quote alone was to say....

"Listen compassion is for the loss of life, not your ego."

You've addressed conservatives as a group, and a large one at that. "You all" does not mean "my ego", it means "you all" That comment comes in combination with other all encompassing and belittling remarks directed at those who oppose you politically.


Well, lets address this then. What is it you think I am in contempt of Net? Honestly, if you had to choose between conservative views and their human life, which would you think putting into context all I have said since you have read my posts? I have contempt for the mindset and the mindset can change. Look at my first post and acknowledge I am saying you should remain friends with Trump supporters. I'm not backing off my comment either, just making sure you don't make it seem like I HATE people who are conservative.

Next point, compassion. You can have utter contempt for a person views and still have extreme compassion for them and their hardships. The two, IMO, are not opposing concepts in any way.. So you are basically asking me how I can have compassion and contempt and I am befuddled, because I'm not quite sure why you think I can't? I think that is why I didn't address it, because for me I really didn't know how to address it, because your point, while I understood it, didn't make sense.

Its like some one says I need a water hose to tighten this bolt. Well I understand the concept of water hose, water, and tightening a bolt. But I don't quite understand why you want a water hose to tighten a bolt.

So I don't get why you bring up the analogy of conservatives being "like teens with guns" or my contempt for their views and beliefs and adjoin that to my comments of compassion. You are making a connection that I don't understand.

QUOTE
With that said I'm not concerned about what you think of me personally because I understand that you're doing the same thing to others based on an ideology clash. To a great degree, you've taken a one size fits all approach so this is predictable. Secondly, as far as those who are okay with being intentionally insulting, I take their opinions on what they think is insensitive with a grain of salt. You may do the same regarding my criticisms of your remarks and that's fine but I'd argue that there's a difference between saying we should have kicked some booty in reference to a murderous dictator and lumping millions of people together and specifying that you believe they're like inhumane teenagers that you have contempt for, and saying similar things consistently. Perhaps that's comparable if you were to speculate on what I believe but that's a dangerous way to develop opinions. Seeking the truth is different than seeking information to back preconceived notions.
The one size fits all approach is due to expedience and capability. I understand there millions of flavors of individuals that call themselves "conservative". Do you understand I understand this? However, 1. I haven't met every conservative in the world 2. even if I had I wouldn't be able to talk about them individually in a million posts on ad.gif. So, yes, I generalize.

When It comes to the conservative movements of Americans I base it on the the leaders they select, in small part, but the platforms sold to the conservatives in large part. You ever here the saying you have to give the base some raw meat.. or something like that. Both the politicians and the right and left do this. But what is the "meat" fed to the left and what is the "meat" fed to the right.

So you wanted me to substantiate How about this. The left wants everyone to have healthcare and access to medical services, the right wants the people that can afford it to have healthcare and medical services. The left shows compassion the right shows a lack of it.





You're saying that the reason you generalize is that you can't get the opinions of millions of people but perhaps that's actually a reason you shouldn't generalize. I think I understand the explanation you're giving for it, it'd be easier to generalize about a large group but this is the kind of stuff that the right gets hammered for all the time, particularly white male conservatives, regardless of their reason.

Personally, I'm willing to look to see if there's an understandable reason people say the things they do but based on several of your comments I have a hard time believing that you don't have bad opinions or a lack of compassion for the people behind conservative beliefs because you've often addressed those people. I've seen some hints of exceptions to that, but I see more here apart from convenient phrasing. That's for you to work out but for what it's worth I think that you could, you're willing to communicate and you're intelligent so that helps.

To address the bigger picture here, you still haven't addressed the left wing end of things beyond suggesting that the left wants everyone to have healthcare while conservatives just want it for the rich. To me, that doesn't reveal a complete picture at all. I'm sure there are conservatives who don't care about what happens to the poor or take positions like opposing illegal immigration out of a prejudice for Mexicans. Actually, I've heard some things in my lifetime coming from the right which have bothered me. These days, I think the bulk of it happens online, almost as if being in a chat room creates enough distance for people to show their true colors without consequences. hmmm.gif

Having said that you're assuming a lot about the motivations behind why people take certain policy stances with a comment like this...

"How about this. The left wants everyone to have healthcare and access to medical services, the right wants the people that can afford it to have healthcare and medical services."

Less government is at the heart of conservative beliefs and that applies to many topics. I believe in balance, (as many moderates do) that the poor and disabled should pay less and be assisted but it shouldn't get to the point that the middle and upper class are discouraged, we have to think about both sides. However I don't assume that conservatives who are further to the right don't care about the poor. For some it's about not wanting to be forced to do things, they want to make the decision on their own to donate money or be generous in their personal life, and many do. So if you want to know if there are greedy conservatives, the answer is absolutely. I don't have a problem with pointing that out, I have a problem with all encompassing negative viewpoints which won't hold up in every circumstance.

The most glaring problem with your claim goes beyond this, if you can't address the problems seen on the left then you have nothing to compare conservatives to, in order to claim they're less empathetic or humane. It starts to sound like you're just pointing out things you don't like. I should add that this is one of the circumstances where you addressed people rather than conservative beliefs.....

"They care about themselves, they care about their family, their friends, their community, their country just like anyone else. However they lack the empathy necessary to care about something "other""

I don't see how this trade-off continues without repeating all of this in a loop unless you're willing to address the left in a sincere way. Can you substatiate the idea that conservatives lack empathy for other groups, while liberals aren't guilty of similar behavior?

When looking at this election and recent history have you been able to pick up on the fact that there's been more violence and vulgarity coming from the left than with other political groups in America? If so, how does this fit in and why wouldn't it be significant?
Ataal
I don't have much time to address everything. Still at work. However, I stopped in to see if anyone was discussing the Comey thing.

All I really have time for is why it's "dead here." Forums like this are considered "old school." Social media is where most people debate now. If you follow George Takei on Facebook, you'll know what I mean. If it was simply because of conservatives, George Takei's threads wouldn't have thousands of comments and sub comments debating back and forth. I cannot even fathom how CR came to that conclusion objectively.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Ataal @ Jun 8 2017, 07:03 PM) *
I don't have much time to address everything. Still at work. However, I stopped in to see if anyone was discussing the Comey thing.

All I really have time for is why it's "dead here." Forums like this are considered "old school." Social media is where most people debate now. If you follow George Takei on Facebook, you'll know what I mean. If it was simply because of conservatives, George Takei's threads wouldn't have thousands of comments and sub comments debating back and forth. I cannot even fathom how CR came to that conclusion objectively.

The Comey thing is still ongoing, since most of what he and the others have to say to the US Senators is in closed, classified meetings. Having gone through the Watergate thing live, the slowness of movement is understandable and expected. Real debate takes time and effort. The rest consists of comments, which is to debate as the song of a finch is to music. Nice, short, predictable but merely a tiny subset of the potential. Debate is indeed old school when looked at in this way, going far back into antiquity and getting more formalized with the ancient Greeks. Same can be said about music, for example the names of the modes, one of which is the major scale (Ionian).

Oh well, I bet people become sick of yakking away on social media. The real heavy lifting still happens in Congress and the courts, i.e., actual debate.

Real conversations also beat out what amounts to newer forms of an old idea: chat rooms. Talk about old digital school, eh? It'll be funny when the circle turns back, much like how pop music keeps heading back to old forms. I've noticed movement back to on-the-beat rhythms, away from syncopation, in music. The intervals remain the same because, like words in a language, there's only so many of them. Far fewer than words too, which means restrictive effects on emotions. But that's way tangent of the subject, except this way:

True believers can be dealt with only so many different ways. Not engaging in arguments that never go anywhere is one, and that's my currently preferred method. Worked in ancient Greece, still works, and will always work -- like chord progressions by seconds, thirds, fourths-fifths. Like major, minor, perfect, augmented, and diminished intervals.

Another take on things like Twitter -- it's far more dangerous to use than it seems, and President Trump might, if he's smart enough, be finally realizing this. President Obama was known for a lot of pauses in his speech patterns, which was him engaging brain before talking. President Trump is directly the opposite, maybe by design, but I don't think so. He's always had the habit of speaking before thinking. Then, which is typical of these types, he tries to justify his missteps.

Now there's a real old school character trait the goes back to the first vocalizations of life -- suffering from diarrhea of the mouth. Oops, seems predators were listening as well as the territory rivals and possible mates. Dang, and nest infiltrators!

While bickering on GUI-enabled BBS piped through the inherently low-security TCP/IP protocols, the participants are being watched, and it isn't government that's the primary risk. Nope, it's the predators lurking in the digital brush. Upgrade your OS/apps and get premium security software, eh? Or maybe not talk/holler so much on systems designed more to sell stuff than protect your ID?

Hey Donald the Lip, you capisci?

Curmudgeon
Can you reason with a Fascist, or a Trump supporter?

I have a couple of friends who listen routinely to the FauX News Network and admit that they voted for Donnie & friends, but when we get together it is usually to play cards, and the only mention of trump is to name a suit as trump.

We have a friend who wants to work for a Democratic candidate next year. I am trying to persuade her to become a U.S. citizen so that she can register and vote as well. She is trying to sell us on the British Health Care System. Insulin is expensive!!!

We are currently taking a course in Non Violent Communication. No Trump supporters there...

I watch Stephen Colbert routinely and I believe the laughter when he mocks Trump is real and not canned...

When I go out to eat, the waitresses usually only mention Trump when they ask our opinion about when Trump will be impeached...

I don't really know if I can reason with a Trump supporter, so we are staying off America's Debate and communicating with our Senators. The downside is that every time I write to Washington, I get told that they need campaign donations so they can continue the good fight. (I have 298 contribution requests in my trash bin so far this morning.)

I recall forty to fifty years ago that I would argue with Michigan Militia members who felt there was a "Red hiding behind every tree." I would warn them not to wear red in the woods when they went hunting, and enough of them wrote the state legislators that "Blaze Orange" became the state's only legal color to wear when hunting.

Perhaps I'll just have to start naming a "master suit" when we play cards with our friends and so won't need to mention the word trump at all!
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.