It's a bad day for human beings

User Forum Topic
Submitted by zk on November 9, 2016 - 7:53am

President Donald Trump.

Jesus.

You idiots have gone and done it.

Dear trump voter,

You've been bamboozled. Tricked.

You're a chump. A fool.

You think he's going to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it? You're a credulous buffoon.

You think he's going to "fix" Washington? "Drain the swamp?" You've been hoodwinked.

You think he's going to be able to deal effectively with foreign leaders? Especially ones that criticize him? You're a fool.

You think he's going to bring jobs back to America? You're deluded.

You think he's going to lead with any kind of common sense, even after all the things he's said and done? You're blind.

You think his threats to not pay our debts will have no effect? Think again.

You think his desire to throttle free speech when it insults him is a good thing? You'd probably "vote" for Mussolini.

You think his isolationist ideas will be good for America? Even if that did turn out to be true (highly doubtful), you're a selfish bastard.

You think his rhetoric on women and minorities and foreigners won't continue to have a corrosive effect on our society? You're deplorable.

You think he'll take any responsibility for his actions and mistakes when he hasn't done anything of the sort ever? You’re a credulous bumpkin.

You don't care that he didn't know Russia invaded Ukraine and didn't know what the nuclear triad is? You're ignorant.

He’s shown you virtually no detailed policy proposals, yet you think whatever he comes up with will be good for you? Jesus, that’s pathetic.

You think he's a good businessman? You're easily tricked. He started with millions of dollars and then cheated, lied, stole, declared bankruptcy, and still didn't make more than an index fund would've.

You don't care that he didn't release his tax returns? You are, pathetically, a pigeon in the thrall of a Barnum.

You don't care that he didn't pay hard-working people he had promised to pay? And you still think he's for the "little guy?" You're a patsy.

You're glad to have a president who thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax? Your children and your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren will pay for that.

You don’t care about all the misogynistic, xenophobic comments that he made? You’ve chosen a disastrous role model for your children and grandchildren and the results of that are your fault.

You think it's a good thing that he wants the military to follow orders from him even if they're illegal? You live in a fantasy world.

You think it’s ok to threaten to not honor our NATO obligations? You have made the world a more dangerous place.

You put in office a “man” who wants more countries to have nuclear weapons? You’ve added even more danger.

You gave the nuclear codes to a man who responds to every insult with an attack? My god, what the fuck is wrong with you?

You put in office a man who wants to kill the families of terrorists? You're a sorry excuse for a human being.

You think he cares about you or about this country or about anything but his fucked-up, orange self? You're a joke.

You're glad that idiots like you have been given a voice? You're about to find out just how much of an idiot you are and that you should have just shut the fuck up.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on January 17, 2017 - 6:24pm.

Seriously I did not vote for Trump, but there was a lot of BS being slung and Gullibility on both sides.
If the Dem’s had run a honest election and nominated Sanders they would have won.

Right now those who want the status quo to continue are in the biggest fight of their lives (same reason the Dem's would not allow Sanders).

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 17, 2017 - 6:53pm.

The-Shoveler wrote:
Seriously I did not vote for Trump, but there was a lot of BS being slung and Gullibility on both sides.
If the Dem’s had run a honest election and nominated Sanders they would have won.

Right now those who want the status quo to continue are in the biggest fight of their lives (same reason the Dem's would not allow Sanders).

If you're middle class, you want continuation and evolution. By definition, the middle class, professionals or bourgeoisie are the support class of the establisment.

I don't think there is symmetry of bullshit. On the right side, you have the conspiracy theorists and the crazies ZK pointed out. And on the other side, you perhaps have equivocation. No symmetry.

With Trump, the right wing deplorables have turned our country to oligarchs. If we become more like Russia or China, then it's their fault. No sympathy from me if the rural areas and rustbelt suffer. We will be more like China where people in first tier cities prosper and the rural/urban gap widens.

To be fair, the Bush wing of the Republican Party put up a good fight, but they hold responsibility for enabling Trump. Republicans bear at least 3/4 of responsibility for Trump.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 17, 2017 - 7:08pm.

ZK, if you feel the way you do, then how do you countenance Trump supporters?

Personally, I have written off Trumpistas as irredeemable. They don't want politeness and correctness, education and knowledge. So it's about time they are told to their faces what they are really all about. They want it straight up and let's give it to them.

I may have lost a few friends but if they feel like advocating for Trump, I'm entitled to do the opposite. Why should I remain quiet and polite and bear their bullshit? They think there is symmetry, let's give them symmetry.

One thing about Trumpistas, they think they are tough, and want toughness (not liberal empathy) in solving problems. But they are very thin skinned, get upset and take outrage very easily.

Submitted by njtosd on January 18, 2017 - 12:10am.

zk wrote:
This article was written 5 years ago. It's only gotten worse since then.

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2012/03/20/...

In it, the author says,

"The ideal citizen of a politically corrupt state...is a gullible dolt unable to tell truth from bullshit."

And

"The hucksters, who manipulate them for the powerful financial interests, know that they can be made to believe anything, because, to the ignorant and the bigoted, lies always sound better than truth:

Christians are persecuted in this country.
The government is coming to get your guns.
Obama is a Muslim.
Global Warming is a hoax.
The president is forcing open homosexuality on the military.
Schools push a left-wing agenda.
Social Security is an entitlement, no different from welfare.
Obama hates white people.
The life on earth is 10,000 years old and so is the universe.
The safety net contributes to poverty.
The government is taking money from you and giving it to sex-crazed college women to pay for their birth control.

One could easily list many more such commonplace delusions believed by Americans. They are kept in circulation by hundreds of right-wing political and religious media outlets whose function is to fabricate an alternate reality for their viewers and their listeners."

I'm not going to say all trump voters are racist or bad people. But I do think that virtually all of them are "gullible dolt[s] unable to tell truth from bullshit."

You seem to be congratulating yourself on having the clear sightedness to see that people who disagree with you are stupid. It reminds me of the title of my favorite book: "A Confederacy of Dunces". The title is taken from the following quote by Jonathan Swift: "When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him." The humor is that the main character believes himself to be intellectually superior, which he is in many ways, but he has significant shortcomings.

When are people going to get tired of feeling so self righteous? I think the ideal citizen of a politically corrupt state is someone who wants very much for others to think that s/he is good, but does not care whether it is true. Not to beat a dead horse, but the Germans are pretty bright, and you know what happened there. And I won't start on the Cultural Revolution.

And here's the other thing, and I'm not a Trump lover, but if intellectual good hearted people were guaranteed to make good presidents, Carter's administration would not have been such a debacle - and if the opposite were true, the Reagan years would have been much worse.

I do not believe that I can predict the future - those of you who believe that you can are either lucky or misguided.

Submitted by zk on January 18, 2017 - 10:45am.

njtosd wrote:

You seem to be congratulating yourself on having the clear sightedness to see that people who disagree with you are stupid.


I do use the word “idiot,” and by that I mean gullible and credulous and easily manipulated. So, if by “stupid,” you mean, “gullible and credulous,” then, yes, I do feel that I’m more clear-sighted (on this issue) than them. Not sure where you get “congratulating yourself” from, though.

And it’s not that they “disagree”with me that makes me think I’m more clear-sighted than them:

Say you’re walking down a street in New York with a friend. Your friend has never been out of Iowa before, and you’ve seen him be duped before. Your friend watches another guy win at three card monte, and your friend insists he can win money at three-card monte, and he gets out his money to bet. You are virtually certain that the guy who just won is a shill. You know that that’s how that works. You try to explain it to your friend. Your friend doesn’t believe you and insists that he can win. Is your friend gullible and credulous, or do you just disagree with him? Would you feel clear-sighted for seeing what was happening, and think that your friend was being less than clear-sighted?

While this situation isn’t quite as simple as that one, it’s really not much different. Trump has a very long history of behavior that indicates his lack of concern for anybody or anything but himself, he has a very long history that indicates his willingness to lie, cheat, and steal, he has a very long history that indicates that he has a thin-skinned, angry, unstable temperament… and the list goes on. To bet the future of this country on a “man” like that is foolish. Is that just my opinion? Yes. Same as your opinion that your friend shouldn’t play three card monte. Do I think I’m more clear-sighted (on this subject) than someone who can’t see what a loser trump is? Absolutely. Just like you (would/should) feel more clear-sighted than your friend when it comes to three card monte.

njtosd wrote:

It reminds me of the title of my favorite book: "A Confederacy of Dunces". The title is taken from the following quote by Jonathan Swift: "When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him." The humor is that the main character believes himself to be intellectually superior, which he is in many ways, but he has significant shortcomings.

If I were the only person who felt this way, that might be a valid comparison. (But probably not, because there are many other differences between that character and someone who thinks almost everybody who voted for trump is a gullible dolt.) If I were the only person who felt this way, I’d take a harder look at it (than I already have, which is pretty hard). I’m far from the only person who feels this way. So that comparison doesn’t hold any water.

njtosd wrote:

When are people going to get tired of feeling so self righteous? I think the ideal citizen of a politically corrupt state is someone who wants very much for others to think that s/he is good, but does not care whether it is true. Not to beat a dead horse, but the Germans are pretty bright, and you know what happened there. And I won't start on the Cultural Revolution.


I honestly don’t understand any of that paragraph or how you're relating it to this discussion. I would like to respond, though, so if you could expound a bit, that would be great.

njtosd wrote:

And here's the other thing, and I'm not a Trump lover, but if intellectual good hearted people were guaranteed to make good presidents, Carter's administration would not have been such a debacle - and if the opposite were true, the Reagan years would have been much worse.


That’s like saying, “sometimes people who wear seatbelts are injured worse than they would’ve been if they weren’t wearing seatbelts. Therefore, wearing seatbelts isn’t a guarantee that you’ll have less injury than if you don’t wear a seatbelt. Therefore, I’m not going to wear a seatbelt.”

“There have been intellectual, good-hearted people who were bad presidents. So electing an intellectual, good-hearted person isn’t a guarantee that you’ll get a good president. So it’s ok to vote for a hateful, exceptionally selfish, simple-minded person.”

Is that what you're saying?

Reagan, by the way, might not have been “intellectual.” But he generally thought before he spoke, and stuck to what he knew most of the time. Neither of those can be said for trump. Trump’s lack of intellectualness isn’t the biggest problem. In fact, that problem, isolated, is buried deep under other concerns I have about trump. But combined with his lack of impulse control and so many other problems, his lack of intellect is, to me, a big problem.

njtosd wrote:

I do not believe that I can predict the future - those of you who believe that you can are either lucky or misguided.

If someone said, “I can predict everything that’s going to happen in the future with 100% accuracy,” then clearly they’d be delusional.

If someone says, “I predict trump will be a horrible president,” that’s not saying, “I can predict the future, and what I predict will come true.” It’s just a prediction, and obviously there’s no certainty that it will happen. As I’ve said before, I desperately hope that my predictions about trump are wrong.

You make predictions about the future – and take action based on those predictions - a hundred times a day: “That guy has his left turn signal on. I predict he’s going to turn left, and I’m going to adjust my driving accordingly.” “It's 5:30 and the garage door just opened. I predict my spouse will walk in in about 20 seconds, and I’m going to get up and go to the door for a hug.” “Two jehovah’s witnesses are walking up my driveway. I predict they’ll ring my bell and want to talk to me. I’m going to pretend I’m not home.” “My derelict sister asked me to lend her money. I’m not going to, because I predict she won’t pay me back, and I predict it won’t help her in the long run anyway.” “I’m going to buy stock in company x because I predict that will be more profitable than a CD.” “I’m going to vote for Smith for congress, because I predict she’ll be better for my district/the country than Jones.” Etcetera.

Submitted by harvey on January 20, 2017 - 7:56am.

njtosd wrote:
And here's the other thing, and I'm not a Trump lover, but if intellectual good hearted people were guaranteed to make good presidents, Carter's administration would not have been such a debacle - and if the opposite were true, the Reagan years would have been much worse.

Nobody here has made the claim that intellectual good hearted people are guaranteed to make good presidents.

And you don't even back up your strawman very well. The "Carter bad, Reagan good" summary of that period of history is a ridiculously flawed oversimplification.

Submitted by moneymaker on January 20, 2017 - 8:47am.

It's a spectacle for sure. Even without a lot of Hollywood stars there it feels like a reality show. The 2 interviews with the public I've seen so far reinforce what's been said about the average Trump supporter being less educated. Jimmy Carter is there! Wow! Carter there at age 92, same age as Bush Sr.

Submitted by njtosd on January 20, 2017 - 5:25pm.

harvey wrote:
njtosd wrote:
And here's the other thing, and I'm not a Trump lover, but if intellectual good hearted people were guaranteed to make good presidents, Carter's administration would not have been such a debacle - and if the opposite were true, the Reagan years would have been much worse.

Nobody here has made the claim that intellectual good hearted people are guaranteed to make good presidents.

And you don't even back up your strawman very well. The "Carter bad, Reagan good" summary of that period of history is a ridiculously flawed oversimplification.

First of all, I never said Carter bad, Reagan good. I said better and worse and I stand by my point - it is very hard to figure out who is going to be a good and/or bad leader. I used to have a friend who worked for a leadership study initiative that was part of the U.S. Dept. of Ed. They were incapable of coming up with anything beyond a rudimentary set of characteristics that were relatively common among good leaders. I voted for Bill Clinton, but I think I was not alone in being surprised at what a good president he was. I was also surprised that the charisma of the Obama presidency dissipated so quickly.

More importantly, I find zk to have a significant streak of hypocrisy. I especially take issue with the hypothetical from the perspective of some unidentified (probably zk - like) smart guy trying to prevent the rube from Iowa being duped in NY. This post DRIPs with prejudice and bias, which I thought was what everyone was accusing the Trumpers of. Interestingly, Iowa is actually one of the smartest states in the country, and the midwest ranks uniformly high: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...

The people on this board seem to think that simply being in favor of the Democratic candidate makes them smart guys - and that those who disagree with them or question them are dumb. I would think those who despised prejudice would know better.

Submitted by harvey on January 20, 2017 - 5:35pm.

njtosd wrote:
it is very hard to figure out who is going to be a good and/or bad leader

We're talking about Trump.

It's not hard to figure out.

Submitted by flu on January 20, 2017 - 7:53pm.

I just find it funny that so many of the cabinet position appointees don't appear to have any experience in what they were appointed into.

I am laughing like at the Dept of education appointee with her comments.

I am laughing at the EPA appointee. And the Dept of energy appointee.

I mean, I understand trying to shake things up with outsiders...But here's the travesty of it.. to give you an example, a recruiter called me and asked me if I was interested in a management position at a small company. Jokingly I said I wanted to be the VP of product strategy. The recruiter politely said I had no experience with that role...To which I said, well that's a good thing and that's why I am a perfect candidate.... because I am an outsider that can think outside the box and bring new ideas to your otherwise stale product line your company has had for the past few years...

I guess if we normalize this as being OK, well I am really not that unqualified.

Submitted by zk on January 20, 2017 - 8:37pm.

njtosd wrote:

More importantly, I find zk to have a significant streak of hypocrisy.

Bullshit. I shall explain why that’s bullshit below. And I defy you find a single instance of my being hypocritical in the decade plus that I’ve been on this forum.

njtosd wrote:

I especially take issue with the hypothetical from the perspective of some unidentified (probably zk - like) smart guy trying to prevent the rube from Iowa being duped in NY. This post DRIPs with prejudice and bias, which I thought was what everyone was accusing the Trumpers of.

You say I’m hypocritical and your only justification is I suggested a guy from Iowa might be a rube? It was a device. I thought that was pretty obvious. I guess I have to spell everything out for you. I was trying to paint a picture of a not-streetwise person, so I made up somebody from Iowa who’d never been to the big city. And you think that means I’m biased and prejudiced against people from Iowa? It’s like in the movies, where they give the dorky guy red hair. They’re not saying “all red-haired guys are dorky.” But they know it’s a stereotype that will inform the audience as to how the director wants them to see that character. I’ll spell it out further, in case you still don’t get it. I don’t think people from Iowa are any smarter or less smart than anybody else. It was just a device. You've ignored the substance of my post and tried to attack me based on a silly, insignificant little device I used. Sounds pretty desperate to me. It doesn't matter where they're from. What matters is the question that that scenario raises: Do you just disagree with them, or do you think they're gullible? And that question that was not rhetorical.

That post “DRIPs with prejudice and bias?” Bullshit. Show me. You are constantly reading things into my posts that aren’t there. And then when I point out your erroneous inferences, you ignore that. And then you proceed to make more erroneous inferences. Do you feel that your arguments against mine are too weak to stand up without making nonsensical inferences about my posts? Or do you really have that much trouble understanding what I’m saying?

njtosd wrote:

The people on this board seem to think that simply being in favor of the Democratic candidate makes them smart guys


Another nonsensical inference. It’s not being in favor of the democratic candidate. It’s seeing through Donald Trump’s con artistry. Seeing his bullshit. His lying, cheating, stealing, misogyny, racism, islamophobia, ignorance, thin-skinnedness, anger, unstable temperament. Et cetera. And seeing through the bullshit that is the right-wing noise machine’s attacks on Hillary Clinton over the past 30 years. A friend of mine is convinced that Clinton was disbarred and that she was kicked out of her party at one point. These are just a couple of the dozens of not-true things that people who feast on fake news believe.
njtosd wrote:

- and that those who disagree with them or question them are dumb. I would think those who despised prejudice would know better.

There you go, ignoring it when I point out the nonsensical inferences that you’ve made. It’s not a matter of disagree, as I said before. It’s their refusal to believe what the evidence shows them. Namely, that trump is an ignorant, lying, cheating, stealing, misogynist, racist, islamophobic, thin-skinned, unstable con artist. And Clinton, while not perfect, was never disbarred, was not kicked out of her party, her associates do not run a child-sex ring, she does not wear a defibrillator, there is not a picture of her grabbing a man’s crotch, she did not unilaterally approve a uranium deal with the Russians based on donations to the Clinton Foundation. That list goes on for miles. And there are millions of trump voters who can’t see any of it.

If they acknowledged all of the above - all of which there is undeniable evidence for – and still wanted to vote for him, then I would agree to disagree. But, at this point, it’s not a matter of agree or disagree. It’s a matter of them dealing from falsehoods. It’s a matter of them living in an alternate reality for which there is no evidence. It’s a matter of them having been duped.

So, as I said, the question I asked wasn’t rhetorical, and I’m curious what your answer is. If it was you in New York, not some hypothetical person, and your friend (wherever he was from) wanted to play three-card monte, despite you having explained to him how it works (which is that a shill will “win” money from the dealer for a number of games, making it look easy when, in fact, it’s virtually impossible), would you think he was gullible, or would you think he just disagreed with you about not playing?

Let me take my analogy a step further, since you had trouble with it the first time. Let’s say you – not some hypothetical person - you – have a friend, and your friend is married. You catch her husband cheating on her. You tell her about it. You give her all the details. And there’s more evidence. It was a woman he’d had his eye on, he came home late that night smelling like somebody else’s perfume, she found a receipt for some condoms, etc. There was also more graphic evidence that we won’t go into here. The evidence is overwhelming. She confronts her husband, and he denies it. Now, if she believes that he was cheating on her, and wants to stay with him even though you think it’s a bad idea, that is disagreeing. But if she believes her husband, despite overwhelming evidence, and you know that he’s lying because you saw him cheating with your own eyes, that’s a whole other matter entirely. So, if she didn’t believe you, would you call that “disagreeing,” or would you think she was being gullible (and believing what she wanted to believe) for believing her husband?

Submitted by njtosd on January 20, 2017 - 10:03pm.

zk wrote:
njtosd wrote:

More importantly, I find zk to have a significant streak of hypocrisy.

Bullshit. I shall explain why that’s bullshit below. And I defy you find a single instance of my being hypocritical in the decade plus that I’ve been on this forum.

njtosd wrote:

I especially take issue with the hypothetical from the perspective of some unidentified (probably zk - like) smart guy trying to prevent the rube from Iowa being duped in NY. This post DRIPs with prejudice and bias, which I thought was what everyone was accusing the Trumpers of.

You say I’m hypocritical and your only justification is I suggested a guy from Iowa might be a rube? It was a device. I thought that was pretty obvious. I guess I have to spell everything out for you. . . . .

Etc.

Love the hypothetical - shill's, NY, perfume, condoms, etc. Here you go - I will admit that some people are gullible and some people use denial to deal with their problems. And I can think of a very famous example that loosely follows your hypothetical: Hillary Clinton - if you make the condom receipt the blue dress. I think by your analysis you would decide she was gullible, but I'm not sure because, frankly, it was sort of rambling and weird.

Do I believe that gullibility and/or denial are used more often by members of one political party versus another? No. Do I think you are hypocritical? Yes - but you don't want to believe it (I think that makes you like the wife that doesn't believe her husband is cheating - but again, rambling and weird). Do I have the time or inclination to address each of your (many) points? No. So I guess we will just have to agree to "disagree".

Submitted by zk on January 21, 2017 - 10:07pm.

njtosd wrote:

Love the hypothetical

Lame sarcasm? You have no reasonable response to my hypotheticals, so you respond with lame sarcasm? Weak. Very weak.

njtosd wrote:

Here you go - I will admit that some people are gullible and some people use denial to deal with their problems. And I can think of a very famous example that loosely follows your hypothetical: Hillary Clinton - if you make the condom receipt the blue dress.


That would only be denial if Hillary didn’t believe Bill was messing around with Monica. Do you have evidence that she didn’t believe it? Your “logic” fails again. Again, one might disagree with Hillary’s decision to stay with Bill after he fooled around with Monica (or any of the other women he had). And one could say she was gullible if she didn’t believe it. But I’ve seen no indication that she didn’t believe it.

njtosd wrote:

I think by your analysis you would decide she was gullible, but I'm not sure because, frankly, it was sort of rambling and weird.

As I’ve shown you, your logic is faulty, and I wouldn’t decide she was gullible based on that.
njtosd wrote:

but I'm not sure because, frankly, it was sort of rambling and weird.


Rambling and weird? Or above your reading level? The hypotheticals were an attempt to get you to see the difference between "I disagree with you" and "you're gullible." In the married-friend scenario, the friend is a trump voter (if she believes her husband). You are somebody observing a trump voter and clearly seeing that they're gullible. Do you "disagree" with them? Or do you think they're gullible and not dealing from truth? It's an important question, one that goes to the heart of your assertion that I think people are idiots because they "disagree" with me, when in fact I think they're idiots because it's obvious that they're gullible, and not dealing from truth. Maybe that's why you keep ignoring that question.

njtosd wrote:

Do I believe that gullibility and/or denial are used more often by members of one political party versus another? No.

I would make a distinction. I agree that one party's members are not more gullible than another's. In fact, I’ve said as much earlier in this thread. But I would say that there is vastly more misinformation out there aimed at emotionally manipulating people to believe right-wing propaganda than left.
njtosd wrote:

Do I think you are hypocritical? Yes


But you can’t back it up. So it means nothing. You make empty, unbacked (and unbackable) assertions, and expect them to fly. Well, they don’t fly. The fall flat on their face and make you look like a desperate fool.
njtosd wrote:

- but you don't want to believe it


Why would I if there’s no evidence of it? Do you have evidence of it? I suggest you show evidence, or shut the hell up.
njtosd wrote:

(I think that makes you like the wife that doesn't believe her husband is cheating - but again, rambling and weird).

It only makes me seem that way to you because you have this idea in your head that I’m hypocritical (and in denial about that). But, again, you present exactly zero evidence of any hypocrisy on my part.

njtosd wrote:

Do I have the time or inclination to address each of your (many) points? No. So I guess we will just have to agree to "disagree".


Ah. The old, “I have lost every argument in this debate, so I shall just call you names and quit” trick. Showing your true colors, nj.

Submitted by svelte on January 20, 2017 - 10:44pm.

Jesus Christ!

Get a life people!

So much more important things to do in life than trade ASCII jabs in cyberspace!

Whose mind do you think you're changing anyway!

Wasted keystrokes...

Submitted by zk on January 21, 2017 - 8:26am.

svelte wrote:
Jesus Christ!

Get a life people!

So much more important things to do in life than trade ASCII jabs in cyberspace!

Whose mind do you think you're changing anyway!

Wasted keystrokes...

Meh. Mostly on my breaks at work (yes, it's a 24/7 operation). Sometimes not much else to do on break. It's brain exercise. You know how they say doing crossword puzzles and whatnot can help keep you sharp as you get older? A more recent study says that mental exertion will keep you sharp, but not relaxing, enjoyable things such as crosswords. You have to really put some effort into something, push yourself.

But, yeah, not changing anybody's mind.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 21, 2017 - 12:47am.

It's pretty obvious Trump voters are gullible. His promises are not just aspirational, but very specific. Neither he, his cabinet or the Republican will even attempt to deliver.

China? Ha! His cabinet appointees have connections to China and want more trade, not less. That's fine by me, but it's was gullible for voters to believe Trump.

Submitted by zk on May 5, 2017 - 7:22am.

Con man don and the cowards in congress are pushing the health care bill not because they like it, but because they need to "win."

Read the article below, and think about the above statement.

These losers are trying (it still has to get past the senate) to take away health care from millions just so they can have a victory. Con man don doesn't even know exactly what's in the bill. Neither do a lot of republicans. The few who have read it have said they don't like it. And you have to figure the rest have at least seen the headlines that it'll take away health care from millions. And yet they vote for it. So they can have a "win."

Possibly the most selfish political act in modern American history. If you voted for con man don, you should be feeling like quite the chump right now. But, according to the polls, you're not. That's because you're an ignorant fool.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/poli...

Submitted by spdrun on May 5, 2017 - 9:06am.

I'm not sure if Con Man Don knows what he's saying ... he praised the Australian system (public insurance for all with additional private coverage available) as being better than the US.

Submitted by sdgrrl on May 5, 2017 - 9:58am.

There is only one good reason I feel for Trump being elected. I don't ever want one Republican to admonish another party's candidate over their religion or sexual/relationship activity.

For years the Republicans used God and religion as their platform for policy.

They have lost that battle tactic and I don't know if they even see their own impact they caused for their own party's potential candidates in the future.

Religious right- thank you for elected a secular, wife cheating President. You will never have the religion card to ever use again.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 5, 2017 - 10:26am.

I don't know sdgrrl, people can do easy 180s. When it comes to the republican populist base, it's not about ideas or moral rectitude; t's about about clansmanship and con man Don is the consigliere.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 5, 2017 - 10:30am.

zk, Don cut off healthcare from his brother's widow and kids during inheritance negotiations. What do you expect?

Submitted by zk on May 5, 2017 - 10:53am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
I don't know sdgrrl, people can do easy 180s. When it comes to the republican populist base, it's not about ideas or moral rectitude; t's about about clansmanship and con man Don is the consigliere.

Or the don.

Submitted by harvey on May 5, 2017 - 11:10am.

sdgrrl wrote:
Religious right- thank you for elected a secular, wife cheating President. You will never have the religion card to ever use again.

That is entirely logical and entirely incorrect.

Welcome to the new age of American politics.

Submitted by zk on May 5, 2017 - 3:07pm.

harvey wrote:
sdgrrl wrote:
Religious right- thank you for elected a secular, wife cheating President. You will never have the religion card to ever use again.

That is entirely logical and entirely incorrect.

Welcome to the new age of American politics.

Exactly. Con man don's followers are not bothered in the least by rampant hypocrisy and lying, let alone invalid logic.

Submitted by sdgrrl on May 6, 2017 - 2:21pm.

The only way they can go back to their old ways is if they have their own little civil war. The Republican party is in chaos mode. Trump was elected and politicians whom would have ignored him except for donations are trying to gain his favor so they have favor with their own voters.

We will see if the old/classic Republicans can take back their party. As it seems right now- it may be no for a while. If you can be non-partisan and look at it from an intellectual, curios way, it is one of the most historic times for a political party.

Will the religious right get their party back? Who are the Republicans now? What do they stand for as a party? What is their identity? Chaos.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 6, 2017 - 4:52pm.

sdgrrl, i find republicans inconsistent on so many levels.

First, on capitalism and enterpreneurship, they are not any better. At the top level people want to protect their assets and income with low taxes, but it does mean they believe in real competition. Just believe when they're winning, when they start losing they want protectionism.

On morality, they are the same or worse. Maybe worst because they preach but do stuff hidden from view.

To me, an upstanding conservative should be well educated person, with a perfect family. And if the family is not perfect, then they make sacrifices to make it so. No divorce, extra marital affairs, disfunbtional kids, etc...

Submitted by harvey on May 6, 2017 - 9:00pm.

sdgrrl wrote:
We will see if the old/classic Republicans can take back their party.

I don't know who specifically the "old/classic Republicans" are, but it it doesn't matter. The rules have changed in the information age.

Republican voters think they still have the old/classic Republicans. They can't distinguish Trump from Bush from Gingrich from Reagan from Eisenhower.

Hell, they probably can't distinguish Trump from Lincoln.

Because they get all of their history, their logic .... their reality from the same source.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 8, 2017 - 4:26pm.

Well, this is the demagoguery coming from Republicans these days as they scapegoat immigrants. The base mostly doesn't live where they are many immigrants anyway, but they listen to the fear mongering.

In San Diego and Vegas my interaction with Latinos in particular has been overwhelmingly positive.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/eri...

Submitted by sdgrrl on May 10, 2017 - 9:32pm.

I had family in town and they wanted something low key. I took them to a seafood Mexican restaurant in Chula Vista I like.

I was sitting there waiting for them, and looking around. The table across from me was a straight up cholo guy and chola girl. She had the black lip liner and everything. The guy looked like what many of us would call a 'thug'.

They just sat there, joked with one another and laughed. The guy had the funniest/goofiest laugh ever- made me happy.

The table behind me was a very traditional Mexican couple. The man had on a cowboy hat and nice shirt. Reminds me of times I spent outside of Tijuana type cities, and got to experience what real Mexican culture can be like. The country. The Vaquero/cowboy. Made me feel nostalgic for Texas.

I don't know, for some reason it made me proud of our city.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 11, 2017 - 7:40pm.

sdgrrl, I'm pretty happy about San Diego. We sure changed for the better since the 80s.

I don't understand people in the Midwest who want to deport dreamers and immigrants. They are here and their success is our success. It's not a zero sum... we all rise together; and we should be happy when people find opportunities.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.