Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
LordofHats wrote: This has been a rather sobering election for me, because I'm not forced to accept that I'm not living in the country I thought I was.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
There's nothing Republicans can do to restore the Rust Belt unless they plan on instituting a 5 Year Plan and we both know that isn't happening.
Will they waste this opportunity, like the Democrats did in 2008-2010? That's the question...
The Democrats didn't waste anything. They tried and failed to get around a stubborn opposition who opposed for the sake of opposing and has somehow managed to continually avoid taking a hit for doing so. Their base will still worship them and blame everything on the other side as you ably demonstrate.
By stubborn obtuseness and denial there is no hope for a center in American politics anymore. Not when one side can so ably stall anything and convincingly hold onto the illusions they've built for themselves.
So yeah. It's time to just give up.
Prestor Jon wrote: You think everyone in the south just woke up one day and decided to be racists by happenstance?
No. They walked through life and became racists because it protected their power and the hierarchy of race built to justify slavery which perpetuated even after slavery ended because no one wanted to compete with "inferior" blacks for jobs, political authority, and expectations of family life. Racism existed because it served people's best interests, and when those people were able to block blacks and Indians and poor whites who were a disgrace to the race anyway from economic and political opportunity state law would reflect their racism, elitism, and discrimination, further enhancing the power their own personal racism into more than just an opinion.
You misconstrue my argument to the most extreme caricature of it and then bemoan MY insanity?
Of course you'd think any use of a negative term must be directed at you. Which is just another show case of how insane this is, and it really is time to just give up.
Prestor Jon wrote: You mean after decades and generations of state required racial segregation people didn't suddenly stop discriminating the moment we passed a law against it?
You seriously think racism and segregation came about and continued because states required it? That without a state to make everyone be racist no one would have been racist?
Why bother anymore? It really is insane to keep trying.
You think everyone in the south just woke up one day and decided to be racists by happenstance? You misconstrue my argument to the most extreme caricature of it and then bemoan MY insanity? I didn't say that nobody would be racist but that the state was requiring people to be racist. Under segregation even if you didn't want to discriminate it was illegal for you to mix races in your place of business or school. It was literally illegal to not be racist and that is going to go a long way to stifling the evolution of society. If the State makes it illegal for society to improve itself then society isn't going to improve itself. When the State prohibits inclusion you will get very little of it and when the State demands segregation you will get a lot of it. In the absence of State mandated discrimination you will get less people discriminating because there is no exterior force requiring them to be discriminatory. Did the State create racism, no but the State actively enforced racism and actively prohibited any movement against racism and I don't fault people for failing to overcome the power of the state on their own.
As Thomas Sowell has observed with great eloquence, discriminatory laws are used by the state because discriminatory practices are inherently economically inefficient. Jim Crow laws were used to force everyone to compete on an equal (discriminatory and inefficient) level; in other words, but for the control of the power of the State by racists, the racists would have been bankrupted by competition in a free market with non-racist businesses. (In case my link doesn't work, the part in question starts at 10:45, though the whole thing is well worth watching.)
LordofHats wrote: This has been a rather sobering election for me, because I'm not forced to accept that I'm not living in the country I thought I was.
LordofHats wrote: That he was elected at all is kind of a punch to the groin that people really are dumber than I've always wanted to give them credit for.
The founding fathers had a generally low opinion of the intelligence of the public, hence the (now much neutered) electoral college was to act as a fail-safe in Just This Event. Sad, huh?
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
So, the French ambassador has put his two cents in.
The current French ambassador to the United States has tweeted that the "world is collapsing before our eyes" as Donald Trump looks set to become US President.
Perhaps France should appoint a new ambassador so this guy won't have to suffer the indignity of being in the US during the Trump administration.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/09 22:13:46
I keep harping on the point, but I think it's a simple response to Obama and the last 8 years. There are social politics that brought these emotions to a head -- mainly, that those folks weren't ready for an African-American president, gay marriage, etc. The last eight years pushed them out of their comfort zone. In this election, they decided to push back. Two steps forward, one step back. It was probably inevitable.
This election was not about social issues, in spite of every media effort to highlight "muslims" and "racism". It, like the 2 elections prior, was about "change". You did not see 278 electorate votes mustered due to hating gays or black people. Latinos had exceptionally good turnout for Trump because the "Latino" bloc is not one homogenous group.
I didn't say the election was "about social issues", nor were Latinos the group I'm discussing. I'm suggesting that social change in the last 8 years -- that wasn't to the liking of rural whites -- was what focused their general, existing disgust with the establishment, and what Trump tapped into. That segment has always been shat on by both parties, and yet something was different in this race about they way they mobilized. It certainly helped a lot that Trump actually spoke TO them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/09 22:18:29
Stevefamine wrote: A lot of hate ITT for our new President of the United States
Lets see what he can do January 20th and after. I'm excited to see what the future has in store with the red seats in house, a solid senate, and what Obama's leaving office procedure is.
Buzzsaw - opinions on the new VP Pence?
Pence is a piece of gak
POS? - I thought we had a mod just mention the swear filter.
That wasn't really an opinion. I assume you were behind another Republican Candidate and went third party/no vote? Which speech of his did you watch? I thought he was extremely solid in Kaine vs Pence. I know he had a solid speech in Iowa how was the Chicago speech?
eidt: Thanks Buzzsaw. Yeah I've watched him speak a dozen or so times now, he's much better than what I originally envisioned when he was picked. I had no prior knowledge of him and had to do some digging. Compared to the Don's debates, he looked great. All of my friends are gun-owners and like him a lot. I will be an owner shortly in PA - but as of now I do not own one or follow the NRA at all
Besides the fact that he believes in and funds gay conversion therapy that results in a high suicide rate amongst the people put through it.
Unless you like kids killing themselves that is
You never mentioned that, you simply called him a POS.
Whats your opinion on our glorious Milo then?
This may be one aside too many, but I'm always interested in the primary objection people have to 'Gay Conversion' therapy.
What I mean by that is that, I think we can agree, the consensus opinion is that homosexual inclinations (especially in males) are inborn. They are no different, physiologically speaking, then red hair or brown eyes or being short or being fair skinned. They are all examples of amoral phenomenon.
Accepting, arguendo, that this is accurate, it seems gay conversion therapy and the arguments around it must fall in one of two possible camps;
-It's an outright fraud. This is what I call the laetrile option; laetrile, for those not familiar, is a fraudulent cancer treatment, a quack medicine, that gained some currency in the latter part of the 20th century.
The justification for outlawing laetrile is quite simple: selling it as a medicine constitutes a type of fraud, a deception that prevents legitimate contract formation. Similarly, we may assume that Gay Conversion therapy has no actual therapeutic value and outlaw it as simply the psychological equivalent of a quack medicine.
-Alternatively, what if an efficacious method of 'Gay Conversion' were developed? Let's remember, we've conceded that this is the physiological equivalent of curly hair or brown eyes. But the market is now full of ways to straighten hair and contact lenses to change your eye color to any color of the rainbow (and then some), to say nothing of advances in immunotherapy and psychopharmacology that are only beginning to enter the market.
If the logic of outlawing Gay Conversion Therapy is that it is a non-efficacious treatment, then that's a fine and indeed pedestrian position. It does, however, leave the problem that the legality of such a ban is technical, rather then moral.
In other words, the logic above has no purchase towards outlawing an efficacious Gay Conversion (however such might be developed).
Again, this is merely an aside. I'm interested in what people think about it.
LordofHats wrote: This has been a rather sobering election for me, because I'm not forced to accept that I'm not living in the country I thought I was. It's not like I think Trump will end the world (I'm not that much of a drama queen), but I've always had a certain optimism that when faced with hard choice Americans have slowly but certainly managed to make steady movement forward in addressing the sins of the past to produce something better. Now try reconciling that with the election of a raw populist, whose platform lacked any real policy proposals and whose campaign ran on simply poking the bear over and over again.
In all the talk of there is truth. Middle America is dying. Small town America has been rotting for decades, and the rust belt has largely been abandoned by the economic modernization since WWII. Yet there's no reason to believe Trump (or anyone really) can solve those problems. People lambast Hillary Clinton as a liar and a cheat, but when she talked about the future prospects of the mining industry she was one of the most bluntly honest politicians in the country (at least for a moment). There is no future in mining work. By machine and simple economics US manufacturing ceased to be a meaningful employer and I don't believe that a guy who won't pay his own contractors is going to do any of the very left/socialist things that would have to be done to turn that around.
As you point out, manufacturing and some small towns have been dead or dying for decades. White poor folks have been white poor folks for a long time. So why this spike in rural populism? Why do the Trump zealots believe so strongly *right now* that the country is headed for ruin?
I keep harping on the point, but I think it's a simple response to Obama and the last 8 years. There are social politics that brought these emotions to a head -- mainly, that those folks weren't ready for an African-American president, gay marriage, etc. The last eight years pushed them out of their comfort zone. In this election, they decided to push back. Two steps forward, one step back. It was probably inevitable.
Of course, what wasn't inevitable was Trump facing a candidate whose unlikeability rivaled his own, and was as 'establishment' as you can get. That's how a perfect storm is created. Last night was the luckiest night in Trump's life after being born wealthy. But then elections -- like fights -- are all about matchups.
No. Its been building before that. Obama himself was elected on a platform to change up the system. He just didn't.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/09 22:24:11
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Stevefamine wrote: A lot of hate ITT for our new President of the United States
Lets see what he can do January 20th and after. I'm excited to see what the future has in store with the red seats in house, a solid senate, and what Obama's leaving office procedure is.
Buzzsaw - opinions on the new VP Pence?
Pence is a piece of gak
POS? - I thought we had a mod just mention the swear filter.
That wasn't really an opinion. I assume you were behind another Republican Candidate and went third party/no vote? Which speech of his did you watch? I thought he was extremely solid in Kaine vs Pence. I know he had a solid speech in Iowa how was the Chicago speech?
eidt: Thanks Buzzsaw. Yeah I've watched him speak a dozen or so times now, he's much better than what I originally envisioned when he was picked. I had no prior knowledge of him and had to do some digging. Compared to the Don's debates, he looked great. All of my friends are gun-owners and like him a lot. I will be an owner shortly in PA - but as of now I do not own one or follow the NRA at all
Besides the fact that he believes in and funds gay conversion therapy that results in a high suicide rate amongst the people put through it.
Unless you like kids killing themselves that is
You never mentioned that, you simply called him a POS.
Whats your opinion on our glorious Milo then?
This may be one aside too many, but I'm always interested in the primary objection people have to 'Gay Conversion' therapy.
What I mean by that is that, I think we can agree, the consensus opinion is that homosexual inclinations (especially in males) are inborn. They are no different, physiologically speaking, then red hair or brown eyes or being short or being fair skinned. They are all examples of amoral phenomenon.
Accepting, arguendo, that this is accurate, it seems gay conversion therapy and the arguments around it must fall in one of two possible camps;
-It's an outright fraud. This is what I call the laetrile option; laetrile, for those not familiar, is a fraudulent cancer treatment, a quack medicine, that gained some currency in the latter part of the 20th century.
The justification for outlawing laetrile is quite simple: selling it as a medicine constitutes a type of fraud, a deception that prevents legitimate contract formation. Similarly, we may assume that Gay Conversion therapy has no actual therapeutic value and outlaw it as simply the psychological equivalent of a quack medicine.
-Alternatively, what if an efficacious method of 'Gay Conversion' were developed? Let's remember, we've conceded that this is the physiological equivalent of curly hair or brown eyes. But the market is now full of ways to straighten hair and contact lenses to change your eye color to any color of the rainbow (and then some), to say nothing of advances in immunotherapy and psychopharmacology that are only beginning to enter the market.
If the logic of outlawing Gay Conversion Therapy is that it is a non-efficacious treatment, then that's a fine and indeed pedestrian position. It does, however, leave the problem that the legality of such a ban is technical, rather then moral.
In other words, the logic above has no purchase towards outlawing an efficacious Gay Conversion (however such might be developed).
Again, this is merely an aside. I'm interested in what people think about it.
It's an outright fraud that is incredibly damaging to the people who are basically forced to undergo it due to societal pressure that they are somehow "wrong" for being who they are.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I think there's something to be said that a weakened enthusiasm has come in Obama's wake but I think that hit the left more than the right. After the Bundy trial in Oregon I started seriously questions some assumptions that had been made about how people feel about Federal politics. It's not just about poor rural whites and that's the mistake I and other observers were making in the lead up to the election.
The big thing that happened on the right in this election is that Trump managed to steal the Rust Belt which has traditionally voted Democrat and is the basis for why Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana are such significant swing states every election. Getting the disenfranchised industrial base of 20th century America to vote Blue was core to Democratic strategy and we saw them swing right this election in a way they haven't in a very long time. But the reasons these sections voted Blue was labor unions, and those unions no longer exist by and large or are significantly smaller. What reason to former steel towns like Pittsburgh or dying Detroit have to keep voting blue? People laughed at Trump's calls for people to vote for him because who they'd been voting for wasn't working. It worked because he was right. He managed to take the swing states and make them solid red simply by pointing out that the people who traditionally voted blue in those places really have no reason to keep doing so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/09 22:29:41
LordofHats wrote: Segregation was not the sole product of state laws, especially when even after passing the Civil Right's Act it persisted in some places well into the late 70s.
It is simultaneously foolish to regard Jim Crow as the product of public or private actions. Jim Crow needed both to exist. The private to produce the sentiment and the public to legitimize it.
You mean after decades and generations of state required racial segregation people didn't suddenly stop discriminating the moment we passed a law against it? That's not surprising at all, you raise generations of state mandated racists and that kind of conditioning is going to take a while to scrub away. In the absence of state enforced segregation society is going to move away from bigotry you don't need to enshrine protected classes of citizens in perpetuity to get away from socially acceptable bigotry.
So you support repealing the laws banning segregation and allowing businesses to have "whites only" policies?
Universities/student govs are already creating 'blacks only' areas for 'safe spaces' so are you a proponent of 'good' identity politics?
Get rid of all that gak.
I am a liberal college professor (yeah, I fit the stereotype) and I can tell you that those programs are student initiated and opposed at nearly every level of the faculty except for the extremely higher up admistration (who ironically, tend to be much more conservative than the teachers and Dept. heads). I oppose them adamantly. The presidents and deans are often looking at the bottom economic line, not what best serves for a vibrant debate and education so they do what their "customers" want.
@prestor Jon asked:' "What right do you have to force another person to perform a service for you against their will?"
Your rights end when they infringe upon another's rights in the public sphere. I have the right to carry a gun. I do not have the right to deny someone else the right to life.
How does my right to control my own labor and determine with whom I contract that labor to provide services/goods infringe upon your rights in the public sphere?
Do you do business with the public? Should I be afforded the right, in your opinion to, as a private business owner, say "no Jews allowed", "no christian allowed" or "no blacks allowed".
Yes,
On the off chance that you might want to know why: because I reserve to myself the right to discriminate in favor of certain people, which necessarily means reserving the right to discriminate against certain people. It is immoral for me to claim for myself a right which I would not endure others to have, so it must be a universal right.
Let's give two examples: housing and food services.
-Housing: Many people will notice that Jews tend to live in concentrated areas. There are many reasons for this, some of which are direct consequences of Jewish law. The most significant one is the limitations that Sabbath observance places on transportation and the use of certain conveniences.
Because observant Jews cannot drive (or ride beasts of burden) on the Sabbath, as a Jewish community grows it begins to resemble a field of daisies: at the center is a shul (synagogue), surrounded by the houses of the community. Because they cannot drive, the maximum distance someone can easily walk determines the limits of the community's size.
Now, is it therefore moral for me to say that, in renting a domicile for example, that I will prioritize observant Jews? Clearly it is moral, I have an obligation to other Jews not to unduly burden them, and there is no moral reason why a non-Jew must live in specific proximity to a Jewish house of worship.
-Food Production: many will similarly be familiar with the concept of Jewish ritual slaughter and dietary purity laws (Kashrut) and the analogous Islamic doctrines (Halal). This extends not only to Kosher slaughter, but also to the production of many prepared goods.
For example, there are certain purity laws that cover wine, specifically that wine not be rendered 'impure'. What this means depends a great deal on whose interpretation one follows, but the most stringent rule is that kosher wine may not even be looked upon by a gentile. Note that this is an extreme position even by my lights, but nevertheless, it is well within a wine maker's purview. If he is intending to produce kosher wine that will be beyond reproach there is ample reason why he might refuse to employ any gentiles in any capacity in his vineyards.
Let me be clear: You Do Not Need To Think These Things Are True. Merely that they are important to the person involved. Each of these examples an area where there is a clear moral reason for an action that discriminates in favor of one group.
The corollary becomes inescapable: one engages in discrimination in favor of one group, at the expense of other groups. Moreover, what is the moral logic that would prohibit this? Why, after all, ought I be restricted in the free exercise of my choice to enter into a contract with anyone of my choosing be restricted?
I suggest that there is no moral logic that would prevail. If that is the case, then it would be rank bigotry to say that Jews (or Moslems or Hindus or whatever) may so engage in such discrimination, but others may not. An atheist may have reasons he holds as dear as my reasons, should he not have the same freedom I enjoy? I contend he should.
It is precisely that all people should have freedom to pursue their conscience that must be respected. That your freedom of conscience may lead to bad outcomes is no more an argument against that freedom then, for example, your freedom to write erotic stories involving children or public figures is an indictment of the Freedom of Speech.
i appreciate your response and honesty in regard to this debate. I will leave it up to the forum members to agree or disagree, but I will say this as a reminder: your rights end at the point where and when they infringe upon others' in the public sphere. We are all equal under the law. As to your right to discriminate, no, you do not have that under the law. Check your constitution, not you holy book.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/09 22:34:00
Breotan wrote: So, the French ambassador has put his two cents in.
The current French ambassador to the United States has tweeted that the "world is collapsing before our eyes" as Donald Trump looks set to become US President.
Perhaps France should appoint a new ambassador so this guy won't have to suffer the indignity of being in the US during the Trump administration.
His job is to represent France's interests in the US and to be a resource for French citizens living in the US. His job does not require having to like who the President is.
Buzzsaw wrote: Why, after all, ought I be restricted in the free exercise of my choice to enter into a contract with anyone of my choosing be restricted?
Because the law has to be based on what is best for society if everyone does something, it can't allow for "this is bad, but it's ok because only a few people want to do it". Your examples of housing and employment only "work" because extremist Jews are a tiny minority. If you're denied housing or a job because of their policies you can almost certainly find an alternative. But what if people with those beliefs become the majority? What if 95% of the population converts to this extremist form of Judaism, in a region where wine is the primary industry? Now the minority of non-Jews will struggle to find work, and face a choice of converting to the majority religion or being exiled from the region. Not that they will likely have much choice, since they'll struggle to find a place to live and even if they do it will be in the least-desirable parts of town.
So, rather than try to figure out which discrimination is ok, we have a nice simple law for everyone: you can't discriminate in housing or employment based on religion.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Freedom's just another word for nothin else to lose...
Stock market was way up today. Thanks Trump!*
*I trademark this mutha! ME ME ME!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Buzzsaw wrote: This may be one aside too many, but I'm always interested in the primary objection people have to 'Gay Conversion' therapy.
The primary objection is in fact that it's a scam. And not only is it a scam, it's a scam that produces appalling consequences like a high suicide rate for its victims. The fact that Pence endorses "therapy" that is nothing more than bullying gay people into repressing their sexuality or killing themselves to escape the hell their life becomes is a serious problem.
As for the idea of a hypothetical functioning "treatment" for being gay, the issue is that there is very often a strong coercive element involved in these things. If a consenting adult wishes to seek a "cure" for being gay that's one thing, but there are a lot of ugly cases of parents forcing their children into conversion "therapy" against their will. And if you take away the coercive element you'll probably find that there is very little demand for this product.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I would recommend the GOP take this cue from US Grant "The Confederates were now our countrymen, and we did not want to exult over their downfall," and treat the Democrats with the same grace and humility. There is a lot of rancor between right and left, and magnanimity in what is a complete victory could help heal these wounds.
Well it looks like nobody I voted for won. Whatever bs about "it's not about RvD it's establishment v anti-establishment" doesn't even apply here, as we didn't elect an anti-establishment D to the house, but a fething oil and gas lobbyist R. The joys of living in a gerrymandered district i guess.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Well it looks like nobody I voted for won. Whatever bs about "it's not about RvD it's establishment v anti-establishment" doesn't even apply here, as we didn't elect an anti-establishment D to the house, but a fething oil and gas lobbyist R. The joys of living in a gerrymandered district i guess.
You are right, and the legislature is a problem on both sides. The Primaries hurdle that Trump was able to bulldoze through is largely the same problem at the Congressional elections.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Well it looks like nobody I voted for won. Whatever bs about "it's not about RvD it's establishment v anti-establishment" doesn't even apply here, as we didn't elect an anti-establishment D to the house, but a fething oil and gas lobbyist R. The joys of living in a gerrymandered district i guess.
out of all the offices I voted for, I think only one of my votes, a Republican no less, ended up winning.
That said, I didnt expect the Libertarians I voted for to go anywhere in the state office elections
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
thekingofkings wrote: I would recommend the GOP take this cue from US Grant "The Confederates were now our countrymen, and we did not want to exult over their downfall," and treat the Democrats with the same grace and humility. There is a lot of rancor between right and left, and magnanimity in what is a complete victory could help heal these wounds.
Sure, that will happen, because Trump is the embodiment of grace and humility.
It's a nice thought, but those standards are way to high for the GOP to reach.
thekingofkings wrote: I would recommend the GOP take this cue from US Grant "The Confederates were now our countrymen, and we did not want to exult over their downfall," and treat the Democrats with the same grace and humility. There is a lot of rancor between right and left, and magnanimity in what is a complete victory could help heal these wounds.
Hot damn, the irony is palatable! Exault, even if nobody gets why. The sentiment is sensible and laudable.
thekingofkings wrote: I would recommend the GOP take this cue from US Grant "The Confederates were now our countrymen, and we did not want to exult over their downfall," and treat the Democrats with the same grace and humility. There is a lot of rancor between right and left, and magnanimity in what is a complete victory could help heal these wounds.
Sure, that will happen, because Trump is the embodiment of grace and humility.
It's a nice thought, but those standards are way to high for the GOP to reach.
when the dems had the opportunity it was too high for them too, but we have to hope eventually one side will do it.
My Food for Thought: Both Trump (who won the electoral college) and Hillary (who won the popular vote) got fewer votes than Romney in 2012 or McCain in 2008, and they barely got more than Kerry did in 2004. I don't think that Trump was able to bring a previous undiscovered stash of the electorate to the table, it's just that the biggest group of people since 2000 didn't feel that either candidate earned their vote
Buzzsaw wrote: Beyond that, you really have... a quite poor idea of what is in the Bible, and an even poorer notion of the differences between Jewish and Christian doctrines (which, to be fair, is likely more a symptom of the former then a specific failing).
Might be poor but clearly better than yours.
Bible claims humans are work of god. Therefore GOD decides who is gay and who is not.
If god is against gay marriages that would mean god thinks this person is never supposed to find a happy marriage.
Yet bible claims god is good and loving...That does not apply.
You really, really, REALLY should bother to read the bible. It's boring as hell(no surprise being very old fiction) but would make at least your arquments bit more sensible.
You've really got to bring your Bible beliefs into this thread? Not to mention Insulting anyone who believes in it, by calling it "very old fiction". Not to mention your...yes your opinion on how to interpret what God believes regarding homosexuality. please leave that kind of stuff out of this thread, or it will spin out of control. Hopefully a mod will send you a warning for trying to derail this.
GG
wierd double post...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/09 23:16:09
d-usa wrote: My Food for Thought: Both Trump (who won the electoral college) and Hillary (who won the popular vote) got fewer votes than Romney in 2012 or McCain in 2008, and they barely got more than Kerry did in 2004. I don't think that Trump was able to bring a previous undiscovered stash of the electorate to the table, it's just that the biggest group of people since 2000 didn't feel that either candidate earned their vote
I suspect that analysis will eventually find that Trump did bring in a new electorate (as in people who normally didn't vote did), while a combination of well crafted remarks on his part and Hillary's own failure to inspire resulted in many people who have traditionally voted in certain states not voting at all.
