The Partisan Divide on Issues

[David Horn]

(01-29-2020, 09:13 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Why are the Republicans the ones who seem to be the only ones caught? I don't know, you going to have to ask the left wing newspapers, left wing investigators and journalists who work for them and the left wing national media/news outlets that always jumps on the left wing bandwagon? I assume there's a liberal bias that has existed in the government and the press for many years and there's a major reward for those turn in or catch Republicans. I don't know, you tell me how a Democratic Senator and his family get away with making millions for themselves off American tax dollars while in office.

There is an elite bias in the upper echelons of any large entity.  If government, K-Street and the media reward its Alpha players well, it's a pittance to the amounts handed to professional athletes, top-tier professionals in the legal and medical fields, and especially to corporate C-suite occupants.  Even more to the point, the GOP has many more Alpha members than the Democrats do -- even allowing for the money the Democrat's Alphas brought with them.

Classic-Xer Wrote:I mean, how many years did it take for the Democratic run news outlets of old to admit that the Democratic lead war in Vietnam was no longer winnable? Also, I assume that the Democratic run media doesn't want to know about anything bad that could hurt the party that they favor. I assume the Democratic slant wasn't as obvious back then as it is to most today.

The media slammed that war pretty early.  The war didn't really escalate until 1966-7 (roughly when I entered service).  By 1969, none of the MSM agreed with the war, with the exception of some on the conservative press.  As far as how things are now, it's the RW press that does nothing but carry water for the GOP.  Obama got criticized for many things by the NY Times, CNN and many other MSM outlets.  How's Fox's record on Trump?  … or Sinclair Broadcasting … or Breitbart … any of them! 


Even worse, they have a dark media operation that uses social media to flood those open to propaganda,. with exactly the nonsense they are most willing to accept. Brad Parscales is on it for Trump, in a YUGE way.

[David Horn]

(01-30-2020, 03:06 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-29-2020, 12:54 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 05:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2020, 02:15 PM)David Horn Wrote: The Gun Guys are a joke, and they proved that on this last trip to Richmond.  Most of their potential physical opposition consisted of a few State Police officers -- many of them women.  They marched around acting tough, and left.  I don't think they'll be back soon.

Man, is that all they had to face, a few state troopers that were mostly women. Why did your liberal governor and liberal media wig out over them coming to town? Where was vicious Antifa? I assume that they prefer to terrorize, threaten and beat up unarmed people? Well, you should shoot send them an email and let them know that Minnesotans have the legal right to carry firearms and the right to  shoot them here too.

Actually, the counter march was scheduled and canceled, at the request of both parties here.  No one wanted another Charlottesville and gun-control groups knew that violence would only hurt their cause.  Rather mature, I thought.

So, are the mature going to make the issue caused it go away too? I wonder how many of the mature with guns were members of your law enforcement and state national guard. Like I said, you can't count on the red's/purple's army remaining loyal to the liberal cause these days.

We have truly professional whacknuts.  For example, Jerry Falwell Jr. wants the conservative counties in this state to switch states, and become part of West Virginia. I'm not sure how that's supposed to happen (supposedly, there is some artifact from the ACW period they plan to use).  It just shows: bullies are really cowards.  Since they can't bully anymore, they want to run away.

[Cynic Hero '86]

(01-30-2020, 07:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 05:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Lots of liberal people are confused these days. Your speaker and the liberals in House seem to think they were born and raised in England. Does your speaker understand that she and her party members in the House alone do not represent the legislative branch of the United States government and therefore lack the Constitutional authority to dictate and accuse the President of the United State of America and impeaching him for not bowing and caving into their demands. WTF! You went to school like me, you're even supposed to be better educated and more knowledgeable and understanding than me but you don't seem to be these days. 

I suggest the liberals get together and get there shit straight before attempting to define what liberal means. Dude, you went overboard with your use of extreme and now you going over board with you use of demonization. My advice to you, grow up and find a pair because I'm getting sicked and tired of childaults.

When you try to characterize the Koch Brothers as liberal, you do discredit to your own perspective.  You would likely loose the bulk of the posters if you hadn’t lost them already.  Who do you think your garbage has fooled?

Pelosi knows full well how the Republican Establishment senators are not likely to do their duty by the Constitution.  They Establishment Republicans value personal power much more than they value the country.  The coastal media covers it the same way, predicting acquittal.  

I am less sure.  The Republican Establishment couldn’t get the people to back any of their own in 2016, so they had to go with Trump.  With his guilt becoming clearer by the day, will they take the chance to get one of their own in power?  Will the incumbency of a new guy be enough to hold the White House?  After pardoning Nixon, Ford lost his next election.  Will Pence walk that path?  Would he rather see Trump's chant of 'lock her up' be reversed?  Is he deep enough in the drug deal to get impeached himself, or share a cell with Trump?  If Trump has been unable to bring any of his recent candidates to electoral victory, does that mean it is safe for the Establishment Republicans to thumb their nose at him, or do they really need the votes he will bring?

By conventional standards the Democrats have no chance at removing Trump, but they have every chance of discrediting the Establishment Republicans.  That will be big come November.  That is likely what Pelosi is more likely working towards.  Trump will try to rally his supposedly loyal base, only to find the flip flop has flipped.  The principles of division of power and rule of law might well be more American than you think.

I personally see the hypocrisy, with both sides honoring the Constitution only when convenient, and wrapping themselves in the flag when it is.  The Republicans are generally all in favor of the Constitution when the 2nd Amendment comes up.  Both sides take turns speaking on how rare impeachment ought to be, depending on which party holds the White House.  Does congressional oversight of the executive mean anything if the executive branch disregards Congressional subpoenas?  Does anyone appreciate rule of law?

Your ‘I’m right the world is wrong’ approach is most confused.  Liberals know liberal values more than you.  They know what they are striving for, and it is nothing like the demonization you spew out.

Sorry But alot of us have actually watched the primaries and your scenario of election 2020 being based on the electing being about liking Trump vs Not Liking Trump  or his policies (or sensibilities) becomes by the day LESS and LESS likely. The DNC is clearly hell bent on nominating an Authoritarian SJW candidate. Its blatantly obvious that the Democratic Party elites are only considering Warren, Harris, and maybe Klobochar and Buttigieg as Candidates and are actively sabotaging all the others. Under Such circumstances Trump will likely win by a MUCH greater margin than in 2016. This is because the DNC by force-feeding such a candidate, would have eliminated any possibility of November 2020 being "a referendum on President Donald Trump" because they would have force fed basically a FREAK as the democratic Nominee. Instead Such and Election would effectively be decided on the Issue of "Freaks vs Non-Freaks" if the DNC continues on its current path. Last Time I Checked, there are A LOT more non-freaks than there are freaks. Ironically legions of outraged Millennials, Late-wave Xers, Northern Blacks, Hispanics and Asians (demographics that are normally decidedly Democrat leaning) would probably be what propels Trump to victory in 2020. And it would be fitting because the DNC would have brought the landslide defeat upon themselves.

As usual, You, Eric, Pbrower, Classic, Kinser and Warren Dew can all weigh in your thoughts on the above statement.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-30-2020, 11:12 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Sorry But alot of us have actually watched the primaries and your scenario of election 2020 being based on the electing being about liking Trump vs Not Liking Trump  or his policies (or sensibilities) becomes by the day LESS and LESS likely. The DNC is clearly hell bent on nominating an Authoritarian SJW candidate. Its blatantly obvious that the Democratic Party elites are only considering Warren, Harris, and maybe Klobochar and Buttigieg as Candidates and are actively sabotaging all the others. Under Such circumstances Trump will likely win by a MUCH greater margin than in 2016. This is because the DNC by force-feeding such a candidate, would have eliminated any possibility of November 2020 being "a referendum on President Donald Trump" because they would have force fed basically a FREAK as the democratic Nominee. Instead Such and Election would effectively be decided on the Issue of "Freaks vs Non-Freaks" if the DNC continues on its current path. Last Time I Checked, there are A LOT more non-freaks than there are freaks. Ironically legions of outraged Millennials, Late-wave Xers, Northern Blacks, Hispanics and Asians (demographics that are normally decidedly Democrat leaning) would probably be what propels Trump to victory in 2020. And it would be fitting because the DNC would have brought the landslide defeat upon themselves.

Well, there you go, demonizing again, Freak. SWJ. Authoritarian. I for one reject your extremist view as having nothing to do with the liberal’s real motivations. Commenting on that particular demonization is a waste of time.

I had one odd thought. If demonization is attributing false and insulting motivation to somebody, did you a while ago do a double? I mean, lumping the Koch brothers with the liberals. I’m not sure whether that should be outrageous more to the Kochs or the liberals.

[Eric the Green]

(01-30-2020, 11:12 AM)Cynic Hero wrote:
Its blatantly obvious that the Democratic Party elites are only considering Warren, Harris, and maybe Klobochar and Buttigieg as Candidates and are actively sabotaging all the others. Under Such circumstances Trump will likely win by a MUCH greater margin than in 2016. Wrote: As usual, You, Eric, Pbrower, Classic, Kinser and Warren Dew can all weigh in your thoughts on the above statement.

Care to make a bet? Your prediction vs. mine?

[pbrower2a]

(01-30-2020, 11:12 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Sorry But a lot of us have actually watched the primaries and your scenario of election 2020 being based on the electing being about liking Trump vs Not Liking Trump  or his policies (or sensibilities) becomes by the day LESS and LESS likely. The DNC is clearly hell bent on nominating an Authoritarian SJW candidate.

The real authoritarian is Donald Trump, who has developed a totalitarian-style cult of personality, attempted to turn Congress into a rubber-stamp on his behalf (he did fail spectacularly with the House!), sabotaged the separation of powers, short-circuited the checks and balances, attempted to subordinate foreign policy to get an advantage over a potential opponent in the 2020 election, shown contempt for the poor and weak, and held Castro-style rallies  

Yes, Trump has some fanatical support. Big deal -- so do all dictators of the modern era. Such dictators offer excitement instead of solutions. They find enemies in anyone who says 'no'; enemies of the Great and Infallible Leader are thus Enemies of the People.  

Quote:Its blatantly obvious that the Democratic Party elites are only considering Warren, Harris, and maybe Klobochar and Buttigieg as Candidates and are actively sabotaging all the others. Under Such circumstances Trump will likely win by a MUCH greater margin than in 2016. This is because the DNC by force-feeding such a candidate, would have eliminated any possibility of November 2020 being "a referendum on President Donald Trump" because they would have force fed basically a FREAK as the democratic Nominee.

Do you know what a real freak is? Trump has mocked disabled people, something that people are taught not to do as early as elementary school. When I was a child there were disabled veterans of WWII -- and I thought that if I ever got into a war as a soldier I could come back missing a limb as the result of my duty in war. I am on the autistic spectrum, and I have found myself in situations that have been embarrassing. I often do badly in facial recognition. You would be surprised at how that makes me feel. 

"I prefer war heroes who don't get captured by the enemy", he said of Senator John McCain. If that does not disgust you I do not know whether you have the capacity to register disgust. OK, Trump did nothing to get the flyer John McCain into the custody of the nasty clutches of North Vietnam, but there is something even worse that he said that he did.

"I grab (women) by their (kitty-cats -- deliberate euphemism on my part)". In my state (Michigan), grabbing a girl or woman in her genital area without her consent is criminal sexual conduct if there is no penetration, and rape if there is penetration. Good people do not walk into the changing rooms of the opposite gender when such people are there, except if sharing the job with a person of the opposite gender or in an emergency. 

I look at what President Trump does and recognize that good people do not do what he does. What he got away with in 2016... maybe he won't get away with it in 2020.     

Quote:Instead Such and Election would effectively be decided on the Issue of "Freaks vs Non-Freaks" if the DNC continues on its current path. Last Time I Checked, there are A LOT more non-freaks than there are freaks. Ironically legions of outraged Millennials, Late-wave Xers, Northern Blacks, Hispanics and Asians (demographics that are normally decidedly Democrat leaning) would probably be what propels Trump to victory in 2020. And it would be fitting because the DNC would have brought the landslide defeat upon themselves.

Am I a freak for being on the autistic spectrum? I would rather have a normal life. 

Note well: most polling evidence suggests that people who let Trump get away with what he said and did may not be so lenient the next time. Trump has done nothing to win over people who usually vote Democratic who did not vote for him in 2016. The only large number of Hispanics that I can see voting for him is those Cuban-Americans who still wax nostalgic about getting 'their' property back and lording it over the toilers on that property. Those Cuban-Americans have typically voted strongly Republican. Maybe their grandchildren are more concerned about the high cost of a college education...

I see a range of results from a narrow loss by the President to a landslide loss.  Statewide polls show that Trump is not winning any state that he lost in 2016; he is outside the margin of error for winning either Michigan or Pennsylvania; there are plenty of states that he stands to lose.

Trump offends people who can see through his low-brow demagoguery which mocks the formal education of which many Americans feel pride, for which they have often made great sacrifices, and because of which they have jobs that put them in or keep them in the middle class. I am in no position in which to say that Bach is superior to bluegrass; such is my taste, and nothing else. 


There is a thread on a political cycle that suggests that Donald Trump is the last hurrah of the Individualist era; after about forty years the President who initiates a big change in the political norms is caught with a tired agenda or policies that simply no longer work. This is even without stupidity or corruption. Some time about forty years after a President shakes things up in popular ways, that agenda is stale and loses its original constituencies. The pattern fails, as with Buchanan in 1860, Hoover in 1932, Carter in 1980, or apparently Trump in 2020 -- and Trump in 2020 even without scandal and stupidity. Carter was smart and moral, so it has nothing to do with corruption or incompetence.

   http://generational-theory.com/forum/thread-5980.html


As usual, You, Eric, Pbrower, Classic, Kinser and Warren Dew can all weigh in your thoughts on the above statement.[/quote]

It is basically the Skowronek cycle.

 

[Classic-Xer]

(01-30-2020, 07:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 05:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Lots of liberal people are confused these days. Your speaker and the liberals in House seem to think they were born and raised in England. Does your speaker understand that she and her party members in the House alone do not represent the legislative branch of the United States government and therefore lack the Constitutional authority to dictate and accuse the President of the United State of America and impeaching him for not bowing and caving into their demands. WTF! You went to school like me, you're even supposed to be better educated and more knowledgeable and understanding than me but you don't seem to be these days. 

I suggest the liberals get together and get there shit straight before attempting to define what liberal means. Dude, you went overboard with your use of extreme and now you going over board with you use of demonization. My advice to you, grow up and find a pair because I'm getting sicked and tired of childaults.

When you try to characterize the Koch Brothers as liberal, you do discredit to your own perspective.  You would likely loose the bulk of the posters if you hadn’t lost them already.  Who do you think your garbage has fooled?

Pelosi knows full well how the Republican Establishment senators are not likely to do their duty by the Constitution.  They Establishment Republicans value personal power much more than they value the country.  The coastal media covers it the same way, predicting acquittal.  

I am less sure.  The Republican Establishment couldn’t get the people to back any of their own in 2016, so they had to go with Trump.  With his guilt becoming clearer by the day, will they take the chance to get one of their own in power?  Will the incumbency of a new guy be enough to hold the White House?  After pardoning Nixon, Ford lost his next election.  Will Pence walk that path?  Would he rather see Trump's chant of 'lock her up' be reversed?  Is he deep enough in the drug deal to get impeached himself, or share a cell with Trump?  If Trump has been unable to bring any of his recent candidates to electoral victory, does that mean it is safe for the Establishment Republicans to thumb their nose at him, or do they really need the votes he will bring?

By conventional standards the Democrats have no chance at removing Trump, but they have every chance of discrediting the Establishment Republicans.  That will be big come November.  That is likely what Pelosi is more likely working towards.  Trump will try to rally his supposedly loyal base, only to find the flip flop has flipped.  The principles of division of power and rule of law might well be more American than you think.

I personally see the hypocrisy, with both sides honoring the Constitution only when convenient, and wrapping themselves in the flag when it is.  The Republicans are generally all in favor of the Constitution when the 2nd Amendment comes up.  Both sides take turns speaking on how rare impeachment ought to be, depending on which party holds the White House.  Does congressional oversight of the executive mean anything if the executive branch disregards Congressional subpoenas?  Does anyone appreciate rule of law?

Your ‘I’m right the world is wrong’ approach is most confused.  Liberals know liberal values more than you.  They know what they are striving for, and it is nothing like the demonization you spew out.

The Koch Brothers were actively funding Democratic campaigns for Senate and the House in 2018. Hint...that didn't matter to me or influence/sway my vote either. As far as your post, the post shows/tells me that you're still very partisan these days. So, with that said, you may as well stick with Eric and the rest of the partisans that are here today. Hint...A partisan liberal could be a closet racist or a real racist with no qualms about it or even a promoter of racism or race merchant these days. I asked you about liberals values many times and I've never received a straight answer. Hint...If your going to spend years flapping your gums and promoting them as the greatest in the world and demonizing those who don't for whatever, you better have a straight answer that make sense to most Americans when someone like me challenges you do so these days.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-30-2020, 11:12 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 07:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 05:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Lots of liberal people are confused these days. Your speaker and the liberals in House seem to think they were born and raised in England. Does your speaker understand that she and her party members in the House alone do not represent the legislative branch of the United States government and therefore lack the Constitutional authority to dictate and accuse the President of the United State of America and impeaching him for not bowing and caving into their demands. WTF! You went to school like me, you're even supposed to be better educated and more knowledgeable and understanding than me but you don't seem to be these days. 

I suggest the liberals get together and get there shit straight before attempting to define what liberal means. Dude, you went overboard with your use of extreme and now you going over board with you use of demonization. My advice to you, grow up and find a pair because I'm getting sicked and tired of childaults.

When you try to characterize the Koch Brothers as liberal, you do discredit to your own perspective.  You would likely loose the bulk of the posters if you hadn’t lost them already.  Who do you think your garbage has fooled?

Pelosi knows full well how the Republican Establishment senators are not likely to do their duty by the Constitution.  They Establishment Republicans value personal power much more than they value the country.  The coastal media covers it the same way, predicting acquittal.  

I am less sure.  The Republican Establishment couldn’t get the people to back any of their own in 2016, so they had to go with Trump.  With his guilt becoming clearer by the day, will they take the chance to get one of their own in power?  Will the incumbency of a new guy be enough to hold the White House?  After pardoning Nixon, Ford lost his next election.  Will Pence walk that path?  Would he rather see Trump's chant of 'lock her up' be reversed?  Is he deep enough in the drug deal to get impeached himself, or share a cell with Trump?  If Trump has been unable to bring any of his recent candidates to electoral victory, does that mean it is safe for the Establishment Republicans to thumb their nose at him, or do they really need the votes he will bring?

By conventional standards the Democrats have no chance at removing Trump, but they have every chance of discrediting the Establishment Republicans.  That will be big come November.  That is likely what Pelosi is more likely working towards.  Trump will try to rally his supposedly loyal base, only to find the flip flop has flipped.  The principles of division of power and rule of law might well be more American than you think.

I personally see the hypocrisy, with both sides honoring the Constitution only when convenient, and wrapping themselves in the flag when it is.  The Republicans are generally all in favor of the Constitution when the 2nd Amendment comes up.  Both sides take turns speaking on how rare impeachment ought to be, depending on which party holds the White House.  Does congressional oversight of the executive mean anything if the executive branch disregards Congressional subpoenas?  Does anyone appreciate rule of law?

Your ‘I’m right the world is wrong’ approach is most confused.  Liberals know liberal values more than you.  They know what they are striving for, and it is nothing like the demonization you spew out.

Sorry But alot of us have actually watched the primaries and your scenario of election 2020 being based on the electing being about liking Trump vs Not Liking Trump  or his policies (or sensibilities) becomes by the day LESS and LESS likely. The DNC is clearly hell bent on nominating an Authoritarian SJW candidate. Its blatantly obvious that the Democratic Party elites are only considering Warren, Harris, and maybe Klobochar and Buttigieg as Candidates and are actively sabotaging all the others. Under Such circumstances Trump will likely win by a MUCH greater margin than in 2016. This is because the DNC by force-feeding such a candidate, would have eliminated any possibility of November 2020 being "a referendum on President Donald Trump" because they would have force fed basically a FREAK as the democratic Nominee. Instead Such and Election would effectively be decided on the Issue of "Freaks vs Non-Freaks" if the DNC continues on its current path. Last Time I Checked, there are A LOT more non-freaks than there are freaks. Ironically legions of outraged Millennials, Late-wave Xers, Northern Blacks, Hispanics and Asians (demographics that are normally decidedly Democrat leaning) would probably be what propels Trump to victory in 2020. And it would be fitting because the DNC would have brought the landslide defeat upon themselves.

As usual, You, Eric, Pbrower, Classic, Kinser and Warren Dew can all weigh in your thoughts on the above statement.

My only disagreement, I think the Southern blacks are more likely to jump ship and eventually join forces with the party of Lincoln these days. I do agree, the liberal Democrats who are bringing defeat upon themselves. The freaks vs non freaks sounds harsh but I get what you mean and basically agree with that too. I saw Buttigieg basically tell a Democratic woman that she and millions of others will have look/go else where if they're looking for promises and assurances from the Democratic party these days. I'm telling you, if those people ( I know those people) switch parties, the liberals can say goodbye to the American heartland.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-30-2020, 04:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 11:12 AM)Cynic Hero wrote: Its blatantly obvious that the Democratic Party elites are only considering Warren, Harris, and maybe Klobochar and Buttigieg as Candidates and are actively sabotaging all the others. Under Such circumstances Trump will likely win by a MUCH greater margin than in 2016. Wrote: As usual, You, Eric, Pbrower, Classic, Kinser and Warren Dew can all weigh in your thoughts on the above statement.

Care to make a bet? Your prediction vs. mine?

I'll make a bet with you. What do you want to bet?

[Classic-Xer]

(01-30-2020, 06:05 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The real authoritarian is Donald Trump, who has developed a totalitarian-style cult of personality, attempted to turn Congress into a rubber-stamp on his behalf (he did fail spectacularly with the House!), sabotaged the separation of powers, short-circuited the checks and balances, attempted to subordinate foreign policy to get an advantage over a potential opponent in the 2020 election, shown contempt for the poor and weak, and held Castro-style rallies  

Yes, Trump has some fanatical support. Big deal -- so do all dictators of the modern era. Such dictators offer excitement instead of solutions. They find enemies in anyone who says 'no'; enemies of the Great and Infallible Leader are thus Enemies of the People.  

Yes, there's a group of politicians in congress that is guilty of doing that but the group isn't associated Donald Trump. It's the group associated with you that's out for Trump's head. Back in the old days, they'd be free to convict and hang him and I'd be free to uphold the law and shoot them for trying to do it. Funny that you mention cult, I've always viewed the liberals as a cult in regards to their beliefs and behavior. Well, Americans as a general rule aren't into cults. Hint...I don't see Trump going into his second term with the power that Obama had coming in to his first term.

[Eric the Green]

(01-30-2020, 11:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 06:05 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The real authoritarian is Donald Trump, who has developed a totalitarian-style cult of personality, attempted to turn Congress into a rubber-stamp on his behalf (he did fail spectacularly with the House!), sabotaged the separation of powers, short-circuited the checks and balances, attempted to subordinate foreign policy to get an advantage over a potential opponent in the 2020 election, shown contempt for the poor and weak, and held Castro-style rallies  

Yes, Trump has some fanatical support. Big deal -- so do all dictators of the modern era. Such dictators offer excitement instead of solutions. They find enemies in anyone who says 'no'; enemies of the Great and Infallible Leader are thus Enemies of the People.  

Yes, there's a group of politicians in congress that is guilty of doing that but the group isn't associated Donald Trump. It's the group associated with you that's out for Trump's head. Back in the old days, they'd be free to convict and hang him and I'd be free to uphold the law and shoot them for trying to do it.  Funny that you mention cult, I've always viewed the liberals as a cult in regards to their beliefs and behavior. Well, Americans as a general rule aren't into cults. Hint...I don't see Trump going into his second term with the power that Obama had coming in to his first term.

Pbrower you summarized the USA Dictator's modus operandi well. Classic simply chooses to disregard the facts and to live in his conservative fantasy world into which all of Trump's followers are swept up.

Quote:I'll make a bet with you. What do you want to bet?

No, that was for Cynic Hero.

[pbrower2a]

(01-30-2020, 11:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-30-2020, 06:05 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The real authoritarian is Donald Trump, who has developed a totalitarian-style cult of personality, attempted to turn Congress into a rubber-stamp on his behalf (he did fail spectacularly with the House!), sabotaged the separation of powers, short-circuited the checks and balances, attempted to subordinate foreign policy to get an advantage over a potential opponent in the 2020 election, shown contempt for the poor and weak, and held Castro-style rallies  

Yes, Trump has some fanatical support. Big deal -- so do all dictators of the modern era. Such dictators offer excitement instead of solutions. They find enemies in anyone who says 'no'; enemies of the Great and Infallible Leader are thus Enemies of the People.  

Yes, there's a group of politicians in congress that is guilty of doing that but the group isn't associated Donald Trump. It's the group associated with you that's out for Trump's head. Back in the old days, they'd be free to convict and hang him and I'd be free to uphold the law and shoot them for trying to do it.  Funny that you mention cult, I've always viewed the liberals as a cult in regards to their beliefs and behavior. Well, Americans as a general rule aren't into cults. Hint...I don't see Trump going into his second term with the power that Obama had coming in to his first term.

Huh? Lynching is no liberal phenomenon. Law enforcement is for people trustworthy for using their power in according to... the law. 

...If liberalism is a cult, then every religious body, every fraternal organization, every Scout group, exercise club, college or university, bird-watching club, or chess club is a cult. Maybe even a symphony orchestra or jazz ensemble. 

Scientology is a cult. The Unification Church is a cult. Klan groups are often cults. Neo-Nazi groups are cults. ISIS and al-Qaeda are cults. MS-13 is a cult.  Mafia families are cults. The Ba'ath Party of Syria (and formerly Iraq) is a cult. NAMbLA was a cult. The Jewish Defense League was a cult. The Communist Party of the United States of America was a cult (and might still be). The New Black Panther Party is a cult.  The John Birch Society is a cult. Jim Jones' People's Temple was a cult. Aum Shunrikyo is a cult. 

So consider the NAACP, generally understood to be a liberal organization. Is it a cult? You would call it one because it is liberal. Cults recruit with deceit, using front groups to entice people. No, the NAACP identifies itself clearly for what it is. Cults control the culture of those who join. The NAACP does not tell anyone what music to listen to or what books to read. Cults typically have a god-like leader beyond judgment. No. What one sees is what one gets. People who leave a cult are vilified and shunned. One is not vilified for a lapse in membership. If one has a better use for the money than to pay dues, well, so what. There can be someone else.  The NAACP has bylaws to prevent abuse of power. Join a cult, and your economic life will be regimented. NAACP membership will not detract from a professional life. The NAACP is no more a cult than is a masonic lodge. 

If you want to know what a cult is, then consider the Communist Party of the United States. The Commies knew that they could not get people to do their dirty work knowing that it was for commies, but it could get people to serve a Commie cause by dressing it up to sound like something good in its own right -- like 'peace' or ethnic equity. Communists tried to take over liberal organizations, including labor unions.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-31-2020, 01:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Huh? Lynching is no liberal phenomenon. Law enforcement is for people trustworthy for using their power in according to... the law. 

...If liberalism is a cult, then every religious body, every fraternal organization, every Scout group, exercise club, college or university, bird-watching club, or chess club is a cult. Maybe even a symphony orchestra or jazz ensemble. 

Scientology is a cult. The Unification Church is a cult. Klan groups are often cults. Neo-Nazi groups are cults. ISIS and al-Qaeda are cults. MS-13 is a cult.  Mafia families are cults. The Ba'ath Party of Syria (and formerly Iraq) is a cult. NAMbLA was a cult. The Jewish Defense League was a cult. The Communist Party of the United States of America was a cult (and might still be). The New Black Panther Party is a cult.  The John Birch Society is a cult. Jim Jones' People's Temple was a cult. Aum Shunrikyo is a cult. 

So consider the NAACP, generally understood to be a liberal organization. Is it a cult? You would call it one because it is liberal. Cults recruit with deceit, using front groups to entice people. No, the NAACP identifies itself clearly for what it is. Cults control the culture of those who join. The NAACP does not tell anyone what music to listen to or what books to read. Cults typically have a god-like leader beyond judgment. No. What one sees is what one gets. People who leave a cult are vilified and shunned. One is not vilified for a lapse in membership. If one has a better use for the money than to pay dues, well, so what. There can be someone else.  The NAACP has bylaws to prevent abuse of power. Join a cult, and your economic life will be regimented. NAACP membership will not detract from a professional life. The NAACP is no more a cult than is a masonic lodge. 

If you want to know what a cult is, then consider the Communist Party of the United States. The Commies knew that they could not get people to do their dirty work knowing that it was for commies, but it could get people to serve a Commie cause by dressing it up to sound like something good in its own right -- like 'peace' or ethnic equity. Communists tried to take over liberal organizations, including labor unions.

I would judge Classic’s use of the word ‘cult’ as a demonization.  The word has a negative connotation.  Thus, he throws it around at those not like him regardless of whether the group he is labeling is in fact a cult.

You gave a decent definition of the word.  I would add that the leader often has a certain charisma, magnetism.  One can say a many bad things about Hitler, but you have to admit he could hold an audience.  But then again, so could Churchill.  I would hesitate to use the word cult to describe the 20th century German Nazi.

I have been trying to identify demonizing words and writing.  If you wish to be taken seriously, you don’t use words that might be thrown around an elementary school playground.  You try to have most of the gravitas that you find in presidential debates.  You try to use words in one of the more common meanings, not making your own usage up out of the blue.

Anything to add?

[Classic-Xer]

(01-31-2020, 03:04 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-31-2020, 01:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Huh? Lynching is no liberal phenomenon. Law enforcement is for people trustworthy for using their power in according to... the law. 

...If liberalism is a cult, then every religious body, every fraternal organization, every Scout group, exercise club, college or university, bird-watching club, or chess club is a cult. Maybe even a symphony orchestra or jazz ensemble. 

Scientology is a cult. The Unification Church is a cult. Klan groups are often cults. Neo-Nazi groups are cults. ISIS and al-Qaeda are cults. MS-13 is a cult.  Mafia families are cults. The Ba'ath Party of Syria (and formerly Iraq) is a cult. NAMbLA was a cult. The Jewish Defense League was a cult. The Communist Party of the United States of America was a cult (and might still be). The New Black Panther Party is a cult.  The John Birch Society is a cult. Jim Jones' People's Temple was a cult. Aum Shunrikyo is a cult. 

So consider the NAACP, generally understood to be a liberal organization. Is it a cult? You would call it one because it is liberal. Cults recruit with deceit, using front groups to entice people. No, the NAACP identifies itself clearly for what it is. Cults control the culture of those who join. The NAACP does not tell anyone what music to listen to or what books to read. Cults typically have a god-like leader beyond judgment. No. What one sees is what one gets. People who leave a cult are vilified and shunned. One is not vilified for a lapse in membership. If one has a better use for the money than to pay dues, well, so what. There can be someone else.  The NAACP has bylaws to prevent abuse of power. Join a cult, and your economic life will be regimented. NAACP membership will not detract from a professional life. The NAACP is no more a cult than is a masonic lodge. 

If you want to know what a cult is, then consider the Communist Party of the United States. The Commies knew that they could not get people to do their dirty work knowing that it was for commies, but it could get people to serve a Commie cause by dressing it up to sound like something good in its own right -- like 'peace' or ethnic equity. Communists tried to take over liberal organizations, including labor unions.

I would judge Classic’s use of the word ‘cult’ as a demonization.  The word has a negative connotation.  Thus, he throws it around at those not like him regardless of whether the group he is labeling is in fact a cult.

You gave a decent definition of the word.  I would add that the leader often has a certain charisma, magnetism.  One can say a many bad things about Hitler, but you have to admit he could hold an audience.  But then again, so could Churchill.  I would hesitate to use the word cult to describe the 20th century German Nazi.

I have been trying to identify demonizing words and writing.  If you wish to be taken seriously, you don’t use words that might be thrown around an elementary school playground.  You try to have most of the gravitas that you find in presidential debates.  You try to use words in one of the more common meanings, not making your own usage up out of the blue.

Anything to add?

Lots of words have negative connotations. I'm not sure it would be in your interest to go down that road with me. You say and do a lot of stuff that have negative connotations. The way you're using the word Classic is a demoninzation. What you're doing is what I view as a typical liberal tactic. Hint...Ain't enough liberals around for it to work these days. It doesn't appear to be many willing participants who want to tangle with me. Do you want to know what would be cool, bring in the liberal lawmakers from the House? I'd like to see how well they would up to REAL scrutiny.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-31-2020, 05:52 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Lots of words have negative connotations. I'm not sure it would be in your interest to go down that road with me. You say and do a lot of stuff that have negative connotations. The way you're using the word Classic is a demoninzation. What you're doing is what I view as a typical liberal tactic. Hint...Ain't enough liberals around for it to work these days. It doesn't appear to be many willing participants who want to tangle with me. Do you want to know what would be cool, bring in the liberal lawmakers from the House? I'd like to see how well they would up to REAL scrutiny.

Would you rather be called Xer?  Classic just gives my spell checker less of a problem, but I could ‘learn’ the abbreviation.  How does it have a negative connotation?  Why did you choose it as a screenname if it did?  Just curious.  I do use lots of negative connotations, but view them as true.  Classic?  (Hmm.  I guess it does imply something that has been around a long time, is is acknowledged a something good.  My view is that you are not.  If I went to the middle of the country, I would not expect to find a lot of folks like you.)

I do note the threats of violence.  Over the internet?  Other that it being a schoolyard bully trick, why?  Am currently handicapped.  Do you think it would increase your status or the truth of what you say to try to beat me up, to break the law?  Threatening violence in response to things said implies you are against free speech?  Do you consider Free Speech un American by your definition?  It seems more likely that you are just showing your immaturity.

In politics, I do expect negative implications and opinions.  I do not expect constant schoolyard level taunts, word redefinition, lies or threats.  Is this expectation unusual in your view?  Un-American, whatever that means to you?

[pbrower2a]

(01-31-2020, 05:52 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-31-2020, 03:04 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-31-2020, 01:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Huh? Lynching is no liberal phenomenon. Law enforcement is for people trustworthy for using their power in according to... the law. 

...If liberalism is a cult, then every religious body, every fraternal organization, every Scout group, exercise club, college or university, bird-watching club, or chess club is a cult. Maybe even a symphony orchestra or jazz ensemble. 

Scientology is a cult. The Unification Church is a cult. Klan groups are often cults. Neo-Nazi groups are cults. ISIS and al-Qaeda are cults. MS-13 is a cult.  Mafia families are cults. The Ba'ath Party of Syria (and formerly Iraq) is a cult. NAMbLA was a cult. The Jewish Defense League was a cult. The Communist Party of the United States of America was a cult (and might still be). The New Black Panther Party is a cult.  The John Birch Society is a cult. Jim Jones' People's Temple was a cult. Aum Shunrikyo is a cult. 

So consider the NAACP, generally understood to be a liberal organization. Is it a cult? You would call it one because it is liberal. Cults recruit with deceit, using front groups to entice people. No, the NAACP identifies itself clearly for what it is. Cults control the culture of those who join. The NAACP does not tell anyone what music to listen to or what books to read. Cults typically have a god-like leader beyond judgment. No. What one sees is what one gets. People who leave a cult are vilified and shunned. One is not vilified for a lapse in membership. If one has a better use for the money than to pay dues, well, so what. There can be someone else.  The NAACP has bylaws to prevent abuse of power. Join a cult, and your economic life will be regimented. NAACP membership will not detract from a professional life. The NAACP is no more a cult than is a masonic lodge. 

If you want to know what a cult is, then consider the Communist Party of the United States. The Commies knew that they could not get people to do their dirty work knowing that it was for commies, but it could get people to serve a Commie cause by dressing it up to sound like something good in its own right -- like 'peace' or ethnic equity. Communists tried to take over liberal organizations, including labor unions.

I would judge Classic’s use of the word ‘cult’ as a demonization.  The word has a negative connotation.  Thus, he throws it around at those not like him regardless of whether the group he is labeling is in fact a cult.

You gave a decent definition of the word.  I would add that the leader often has a certain charisma, magnetism.  One can say a many bad things about Hitler, but you have to admit he could hold an audience.  But then again, so could Churchill.  I would hesitate to use the word cult to describe the 20th century German Nazi.

I have been trying to identify demonizing words and writing.  If you wish to be taken seriously, you don’t use words that might be thrown around an elementary school playground.  You try to have most of the gravitas that you find in presidential debates.  You try to use words in one of the more common meanings, not making your own usage up out of the blue.

Anything to add?

Lots of words have negative connotations. I'm not sure it would be in your interest to go down that road with me. You say and do a lot of stuff that have negative connotations. The way you're using the word Classic is a demonization. What you're doing is what I view as a typical liberal tactic. Hint...Ain't enough liberals around for it to work these days. It doesn't appear to be many willing participants who want to tangle with me. Do you want to know what would be cool, bring in the liberal lawmakers from the House? I'd like to see how well they would up to REAL scrutiny.

I recognize that certain words (most obviously words connoting outright crime such as murder, rape, and theft) usually have such strongly-negative connotations that they cannot be used in a positive way except under unusual circumstances. OK, I made a Freudian slip once about a great baseball player (Eddie Murray) on a team  rival to mine as "Eddie Murder" for the many times he "murdered" the baseball team of which I was a fan.  He might, so far as I know, be a perfectly good person. Likewise you are probably familiar with the great late baseball slugger Harmon Killebrew, often nicknamed "Killer" for his devastating home runs that often decided a game for the Minnesota Twins in his time. One could not make such a name out of Al Kaline, Norm Cash, or Willie Horton of some good-to-great Detroit Tiger teams... but at the time opposing pitchers had nightmares about that succession of Tiger hitters.  

Cults are dangerous for taking personal autonomy away from people and thus getting them to do horrible things because the cult teaches that the good of the cult and its leadership are somehow 'higher' than any criminal code or self-interest. The American Armed Services demand much, including the willingness to live under miserable conditions, do unpleasant tasks, and risk getting killed or maimed in combat or as targets of attack. The distinction between the Armed Services and a cult such as the Nazi SS is that an American soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine gets to keep his religion, his family ties, property, economic obligations (such as child support and personal debt) and normal standards of integrity. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes clear that war crimes and crimes against humanity are not to be committed. Persons who commit such crimes "shall suffer death, although lesser penalties may be imposed if appropriate". 

Cults excuse horrible behavior by their own, trivialize the value of life of a member, glorify death, and treat life outside of the cult as unthinkable. We liberals turned on Harvey Weinstein when we found that despite his loyal support of liberal causes he was abusing women horribly. It is like the Roman Catholic Church casting out priests who abused boys. (If you are thinking of the Roman Catholic Church as a cult, it accepts as membership people at different levels of fervency, and people can go up and down the scales without severe consequences. Priests, monks, and nuns can abandon vows and the responsibilities and slight privileges that go with them without being demonized). I tied to use examples of cults across lines of ethnicity, religion, political position, and objective.  

It is as hard to herd liberals as it is to herd cats. Liberalism must rely upon shared common interest, and this time many of us see a horrible person as President of the United States and politicians who hold a grossly-amoral attitude that nothing matters except the power, indulgence, and gain of small elites at the expense of everyone else. We get to keep our moral compass. If it is on gay rights -- I find the now-defunct NAMbLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) abominable for excusing sexual relationships between adult men and boys -- which is statutory rape. On the other hand, I consider gay-bashing an abomination and as soon as I recognized how dangerous gay-bashing was I took the side of mainstream LGBT people who want same-sex relationships to get treated as normal. So how are mainstream LGBT groups not cults? Because LGBT groups do not direct one's life.  There is more to an individual's life than homosexuality.

Every politician is open to scrutiny. Certain deeds of disloyalty, corruption, and basic criminality attract journalists' attention. Do crime or even fall short of normal decencies while in elective or appointive office, and you become grist for journalistic scrutiny. Most people have the concept of disgrace, and we rightfully expect our political leaders to fit our ethical standards. Remember Senator Larry Craig? He was a homophobic Republican Senator from Idaho, and he solicited gay sex in a restroom at the regional airport from what proved to be a Minneapolis cop. He showed his Senate identification and the cop showed his police badge... and the cop arrested him. Hypocrisy is a bad habit. OK, former Senator Craig was a right-winger. Rod Blagojevich trying to sell an appointment to the US Senate? Unthinkable! Harrison Williams falling for a bribe set up? Unthinkable! Representative William Jefferson found with literal 'cold cash' in a freezer, cash as proceeds of bribes? Unthinkable! We all expect better. 

Plenty of people even in the most unrewarding roles* -- let us say ill-paid migrant workers -- can act with a strong moral compass. That may be the most important attribute that they see in themselves, and they demonstrate their moral compass even when such is difficult due to the harshness of our economic order. So what is the excuse for Bill Cosby doing date rape, Harvey Weinstein using the casting couch for the satisfaction of his lust, the late Jeffrey Weinstein ferrying underage girls on his "Lolita Express" for sex, or Donald Trump wandering into changing rooms during a beauty pageant? OK, so migrant farm workers do not get the chance to pad expense accounts or pretend that a hook-up with a prostitute is "laundry". But neither would I. Then again, I have my ideas of what is acceptable sexual behavior, and exploiting an employer-employee relationship, putting a knock-out drug in someone's margarita so that I could rape her, or messing with underage boys or girls (equally offensive) unthinkable and inexcusable. 

As for the word "Classic" -- I have seen it used so cheaply as in "Classic Coke" for the re-introduction of a flavor, or "Classic Hits" for stale oldies on the radio. "Classical music" in contrast is music with formal structure to be enjoyed for such, as with a Bach fugue or a Shostakovich string quartet. "The Classics" used to refer to ancient language and cultures attached to those, especially with Greco-Roman culture... and the Chinese classics were philosophical and literary tracts well known to the literati but not to the masses who spent hours in the rice paddies.  Even classical music can be an elite phenomenon, as one needs a certain level of learning to recognize that a work with so generic a title as "Sonata #32 in C minor by Ludwig van Beethoven" is pure delight. I do not knock Take the A-Train, String of Pearls, or Eleanor Rigby, as those (and much folk music) have their clear and undeniable merits. Such dreck as In the Year 2525, En-o-ree the Eighth, My Achy-Breaky Heart... a different story.     

*Arguably the worst role that our society accepts in commercial life is that of the retail sales clerk surrounded by merchandise that he will never be able to afford if he holds onto the job that he has. Retail sales clerks are among the lowest-paid of workers and work under close scrutiny under the assumption that they can easily steal from an employer or facilitate stealing by friends. Anyone who lasts in that business for a year is just amazing.

[pbrower2a]

(01-31-2020, 07:23 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-31-2020, 05:52 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Lots of words have negative connotations. I'm not sure it would be in your interest to go down that road with me. You say and do a lot of stuff that have negative connotations. The way you're using the word Classic is a demoninzation. What you're doing is what I view as a typical liberal tactic. Hint...Ain't enough liberals around for it to work these days. It doesn't appear to be many willing participants who want to tangle with me. Do you want to know what would be cool, bring in the liberal lawmakers from the House? I'd like to see how well they would up to REAL scrutiny.

Would you rather be called Xer?  Classic just gives my spell checker less of a problem, but I could ‘learn’ the abbreviation.  How does it have a negative connotation?  Why did you choose it as a screenname if it did?  Just curious.  I do use lots of negative connotations, but view them as true.  Classic?  (Hmm.  I guess it does imply something that has been around a long time, is is acknowledged a something good.  My view is that you are not.  If I went to the middle of the country, I would not expect to find a lot of folks like you.)

I do note the threats of violence.  Over the internet?  Other that it being a schoolyard bully trick, why?  Am currently handicapped.  Do you think it would increase your status or the truth of what you say to try to beat me up, to break the law?  Threatening violence in response to things said implies you are against free speech?  Do you consider Free Speech un American by your definition?  It seems more likely that you are just showing your immaturity.

In politics, I do expect negative implications and opinions.  I do not expect constant schoolyard level taunts, word redefinition, lies or threats.  Is this expectation unusual in your view?  Un-American, whatever that means to you?

Yes, words that have strong emotive content have clear meanings, or language is worthless. If you think a handicap unpleasant, then think of how emotionally-crippling it would be to live in a nightmare such as the Oceania of Nineteen Eighty-Four  in which something so basic as expressive language loses all subtlety and something so much a cornerstone of life as romantic love becomes impossible. The sex drive remains but it has no humanity to keep it from becoming an animal lust. Maybe I overuse synonyms to avoid boring people with my prose (and I recognize that I can be a numbing bore at times). A totalitarian or even harshly-authoritarian regime invariably debases life. It is telling that a study of where people were happiest showed that the happiest people were the people in societies with entrenched democracy (let us say France) and the least-happy people were living under repressive regimes (Saudi Arabia). This also distinguishes India from China. 

I loathe Donald Trump because he does much that I associate with someone who debases democratic life, in part by degrading the language so that words become lies in themselves, trivializes the intellectual processes that make life interesting, and short-circuiting established traditions for his own gratification. Maybe the next Presidency will repudiate Trump more convincingly than Trump pretends to repudiate Obama, and maybe the next effective conservative President will have a personal life and the integrity of Obama and prove an even more complete repudiation of Trump.  Then again, I have compared Obama to Eisenhower by temperament and conduct, so that may be no stretch of the imagination. 

There are basic rules of decency, and Trump violates those. I find it appalling that someone in a position of commercial, cultural, or political responsibility mocks the handicapped. (OK, drunks and addicts are fair game... but I quit hearing Helen Keller jokes from my peers before I was a teenager). I do not mock personal tragedy unless the mockery is a lesson. OK, I did nominate someone for a Darwin Award:

Quote:A 58-year-old man was driving a car with an open sunroof on a winter night on a freeway in Detroit. He was using a hand-held device while driving even when he turned onto a cloverleaf ramp off the freeway and lost control of the car. He was killed as he was thrown out of the car as he lost control of it. The hand-held device was playing a pornographic video, and his pants were down. It was not stated whether his car had a stick shift or not, but I can imagine something similar to a stick shift... on him.

      
Darwin Awards are made in 'honor' of people who removed themselves from the gene pool through deeds that either kill them or destroy their reproductive ability without suicidal purpose or any redeeming virtues such as heroism*. In that fool's case, both the end of his life and his reproductive ability happened permanently.  The story would not have so much pathos had the unfortunate fellow been watching a nature video or a Billy Graham crusade... but distracted driving is dangerous and stupid. So keep both hands on the wheel and avoid using any hand-held devices of any kind while driving, whether cell phones, electric razors, or milkshakes. Pornography is the most distracting of all material. People should know better, but fail to show ordinary discretion. 

The only fitting threats of violence are either warnings from history (images of Mussolini and Ceausescu not necessary), divine retribution (if one is religious -- as in threatening a neo-Nazi that God might be Jewish), or personal consequences of reckless or self-destructive behavior. I consider deaths from vehicle collisions 'violent death', and the fool who got my nomination for a Darwin Award indeed died a violent death.  I can easily imagine what four Rottweilers could do to a burglar -- the color pattern should suggest an infamous predator. (Dogs are strong, swift, agile, powerful, voracious, and cunning -- much like typical man-eating species. You do not want a dog as an enemy). 

All in all, it is best to remember the adage, "Honesty is the best policy". If one is tempted to lie about doing something to deny bad consequences, then it is wise to avoid doing what can cause one to be in a position in which one might 'need' to lie about the act -- let us say cheating on a spouse or filching office supplies from an employer.

*Throwing oneself onto a live grenade to save the lives of one's fellow soldiers is heroism.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-31-2020, 07:23 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Would you rather be called Xer?  Classic just gives my spell checker less of a problem, but I could ‘learn’ the abbreviation.  How does it have a negative connotation?  Why did you choose it as a screenname if it did?  Just curious.  I do use lots of negative connotations, but view them as true.  Classic?  (Hmm.  I guess it does imply something that has been around a long time, is is acknowledged a something good.  My view is that you are not.  If I went to the middle of the country, I would not expect to find a lot of folks like you.)

Strike 1.....You're demonizing me and using me as a bad example.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-31-2020, 10:42 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Yes, words that have strong emotive content have clear meanings, or language is worthless. If you think a handicap unpleasant, then think of how emotionally-crippling it would be to live in a nightmare such as the Oceania of Nineteen Eighty-Four  in which something so basic as expressive language loses all subtlety and something so much a cornerstone of life as romantic love becomes impossible. The sex drive remains but it has no humanity to keep it from becoming an animal lust. Maybe I overuse synonyms to avoid boring people with my prose (and I recognize that I can be a numbing bore at times). A totalitarian or even harshly-authoritarian regime invariably debases life. It is telling that a study of where people were happiest showed that the happiest people were the people in societies with entrenched democracy (let us say France) and the least-happy people were living under repressive regimes (Saudi Arabia). This also distinguishes India from China. 

I loathe Donald Trump because he does much that I associate with someone who debases democratic life, in part by degrading the language so that words become lies in themselves, trivializes the intellectual processes that make life interesting, and short-circuiting established traditions for his own gratification. Maybe the next Presidency will repudiate Trump more convincingly than Trump pretends to repudiate Obama, and maybe the next effective conservative President will have a personal life and the integrity of Obama and prove an even more complete repudiation of Trump.  Then again, I have compared Obama to Eisenhower by temperament and conduct, so that may be no stretch of the imagination. 

There are basic rules of decency, and Trump violates those. I find it appalling that someone in a position of commercial, cultural, or political responsibility mocks the handicapped. (OK, drunks and addicts are fair game... but I quit hearing Helen Keller jokes from my peers before I was a teenager). I do not mock personal tragedy unless the mockery is a lesson. OK, I did nominate someone for a Darwin Award:



      

I don't mock personal tragedy or use it to my advantage or support those who take advantage of it and use it a political weapon either. As far as Trump, I'm sorry he mocked one you to send a strong message to those who are exploiting people and using people consumed by personal tragedy or represent personal tragedy the wrong way for the wrong reasons these days. What would be cool, find one them and bring them so you can see what's going to eventually happen to them here.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-31-2020, 07:23 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: In politics, I do expect negative implications and opinions.  I do not expect constant schoolyard level taunts, word redefinition, lies or threats.  Is this expectation unusual in your view?  Un-American, whatever that means to you?

I'm cool with it. The question is, are you capable of living up to it and owning up to your mistakes or not. You can't expect having it both ways. The conservatives who pass through here from time to time and visit aren't running rough shot, attacking new posters at will/as they please and parading around, parroting each other and acting like a vicious cult like the liberals did/ were able to get away for a while in the old forum. You should know what American means, you should know the American pledge of allegiance by heart, you should understand the human losses and the sacrifices and the hardships and the goodness associated with the American flag and be able to recognize yourself and your freedoms as being with American flag and the American Constitution and the country for which it stands. At what point has the terms Liberal Democrat ever been placed above the terms America or American or viewed as above them and no longer accountable to them and so forth? Do you get my
drift or do you require more education?