Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 622192 times)

Lews Therin

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Ottawa
  • Used to be Canadian Ben
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6550 on: March 25, 2019, 10:03:18 AM »
Sol and all others who are trying to reason on this thread. Notice the amount of people rencently posting with numbers in the 100-150 range. Then notice what they all angle towards. Doubt, defence, or posturing on Trump's side. Your are not arguing against people expressing their opinions but vs a propoganda machine. Sadly this site has enough traffic to become a target. This is true for all the off-topics that relate to US politics, and no other threads. It's pretty easy to see the common link.

Cool Friend

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 272
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6551 on: March 25, 2019, 10:09:22 AM »
Sol and all others who are trying to reason on this thread. Notice the amount of people rencently posting with numbers in the 100-150 range. Then notice what they all angle towards. Doubt, defence, or posturing on Trump's side. Your are not arguing against people expressing their opinions but vs a propoganda machine. Sadly this site has enough traffic to become a target. This is true for all the off-topics that relate to US politics, and no other threads. It's pretty easy to see the common link.

+1

I keep poking my head back in here; the user names are changing, but the same script and "debate" tactics (re: bad faith and dishonesty) I've read all across the internet remains the same.

I hope they're getting paid well.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5394
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6552 on: March 25, 2019, 10:10:02 AM »
Sol and all others who are trying to reason on this thread. Notice the amount of people rencently posting with numbers in the 100-150 range. Then notice what they all angle towards. Doubt, defence, or posturing on Trump's side. Your are not arguing against people expressing their opinions but vs a propoganda machine. Sadly this site has enough traffic to become a target. This is true for all the off-topics that relate to US politics, and no other threads. It's pretty easy to see the common link.

Yup. It's pretty amazing how many new accounts have popped up over the last couple of years - with an unusual interest in discussing politics on an early retirement forum.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1559
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6553 on: March 25, 2019, 10:30:42 AM »
Sol and all others who are trying to reason on this thread. Notice the amount of people rencently posting with numbers in the 100-150 range. Then notice what they all angle towards. Doubt, defence, or posturing on Trump's side. Your are not arguing against people expressing their opinions but vs a propoganda machine. Sadly this site has enough traffic to become a target. This is true for all the off-topics that relate to US politics, and no other threads. It's pretty easy to see the common link.

+1

I keep poking my head back in here; the user names are changing, but the same script and "debate" tactics (re: bad faith and dishonesty) I've read all across the internet remains the same.

I hope they're getting paid well.

Are you guys seeing posts that I'm not? I don't see a single poster who fits this description.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Age: 36
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6554 on: March 25, 2019, 10:48:14 AM »
Can we move on to infrastructure spending now?

Where do you wish to start? Top 5 projects.


1. Nation-wide bridge/road inspection and repair
2. Aid states or create nation-wide water reservoir system
3. Increase preventative measures for flooding
4. Pipeline infrastructure for increased oil/gas production
5. Port and airport upgrades

Not sure why you need 2 and 3.  Climate change isn't real, right?


Well, it's definitely real, and if we don't do 2 and 3 and even forest management in California for wildfires, etc. We're all going to be fucked even more so than we are now.

We need better hurricane and storm preparedness too, because those are going to get worse.

I guess what I'm saying is we generally need to fortify the country against the coming shitstorm of climate change. Even 1 on my list is about that. The first three on my list are all about making the infrastructure able to handle the coming problems.

I understand 4 isn't good for the environment but we are frakking all this oil and gas and shit and it's way better to get it out via pipelines than anything else.

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6555 on: March 25, 2019, 10:50:04 AM »
Do you really believe that 46% of Americans are racist, misogynist, retards?

I definitely didn't say that, and frankly I'm starting to get pissed off that you keep putting my words in my mouth.  Would you please stop?  I can only be polite for so long, and you're pushing your limit.

There's a lot to unpack in your question.  First is your wholly inappropriate use of the word "retard".  Next time you can just write "nigger-lovers, cucks, and retards" and only be marginally more offensive than you were the first time.

But if we give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, and assume you just made an ignorant mistake and only meant to identify some specific traits of Trump supporters, we can move on to specifics.  In that case, I would say that it's not 46% but I do think there is definitely a large contingent of American voters who are very racist, and very misogynist, and not very bright.  Maybe 25%, all-inclusive with imperfect overlap?  Definitely higher in some states than others, but probably less than 46% in every state.  I'm sure you're not going to tell me that America has no racists in it.  All of the admitted out and proud racists I know voted for Donald Trump.

Then there are some more people who voted for him who are not total racists or misogynists, but maybe lean that way a little bit, privately if not in public.  Many of them don't consider themselves racists, and even say things like "I'm not racist, but..." and then follow it up with something pretty damn racist.  They secretly like the fact that Trump is a racist, but they also like that he denies being a racist while implementing racist policies and making racist statements, because it gives them cover to do the same.  They want to be racist, without the stigma of being called racist.

Then there are some people who voted for him who are no more racist than average, but genuinely think America should be led by a charismatic strongman regardless of policies.  These folks don't care about the Constitution or American values, they just like the "America, Fuck Yea!" version of patriotism and any thoughtful criticism of our nation's missteps is perceived as threatening to how rad we are at everything. 

Then there are some people who voted for him, or failed to vote at all, because they bought into the Russian propaganda machine and just hate Hillary Clinton.  While there is definitely overlap with the other groups, this appears to be one of the larger contingents of key voters who swung the 2016 election, and many of them actually aligned with Clinton's policy provisions more closely than with Trump's, but just didn't vote on the issues.  They voted on Pizzagate, and Benghazi, and her emails.  They voted (or stayed home) as a result of a targeted and deliberate election interference by a hostile foreign power, interference that was seized upon and capitalized upon by Trump and the GOP establishment in order to take power away from the majority of American voters.

I don't think any one of these groups alone was 46% of the electorate, just like I don't think any one group comprised Clinton's 48% of the electorate.  But some of Trump's 46% were definitely misinformed or deceived, regardless of their level of intelligence.  All of them definitely supported racist and misogynist behaviors and policies, even if they would not personally identify with those labels themselves.  You don't need to be a racist to vote for a racist, but all of the racists definitely voted for the racist candidate and they convinced a bunch of less-racist and non-racist people to vote along with them.

Your continued attempts to cast this situation as a democratic talking point are inane.  It's not the democrats fault that racists like David Duke went on TV and praised Trump as a symbol of a resurgent white nationalism.  It's not the democrats fault that Steve Bannon got a top job at the whitehouse.  Donald Trump literally bragged about sexual assault and still pulled millions of votes, and you think the demoratic party is to blame for those voters being labelled misogynist?  They openly embraced that label themselves.  You needn't blame anyone else for trying to spin this reality.

If you don't like those labels you identified, then you need to do a little soul searching on your end, not lash out at people who stand against the very things you don't want to be.  You need to figure out if there is some part of you, or of the rest of the GOP voter base, that does accept those negative labels.  You need to learn to see the ways in which your candidate stoked and encouraged those negative traits, and made them acceptable enough for people to come out and embrace them by voting for him.  And if you still don't want to be a racist or a misogynist, then consider voting for a candidate who actively fights against those things, instead of encouraging them.  I can give you a list of approximately 18 democrats you might consider in 2020, and every single one of them openly condemns racism and misogyny in unambiguous terms.  You cannot say the same about Trump.

@sol,
I did not put words in your mouth. All I did was ask you a question and you got pissed off. Kind of sad that questions upset you so.

Your answer proves my point. You are so blinded by his scumbag character you just assume a good percentage of people are like him and that is what they want in a president. This is going to the exact same reason why dems will lose in 2020.

Democrats will try and debase his character when he already lacks character to begin with.  In the mean time the country keeps improving in part due to policies he is instilling.  I’m looking forward to when Berkeley gets funding yanked when they stifle free speech again (his latest signature.)  BTW, free speech us for everyone, even for racist, misogynist retards.

Yup I have the freedom to use the word retard to describe someone with a lower level of intelligence just like you have the right to call me an asshole or ignorant for doing so.

MOD NOTE: You do have the freedom to do it. Just not here. Using "retard" as a slur breaks our forum rules.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2019, 08:40:24 AM by arebelspy »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3543
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6556 on: March 25, 2019, 10:53:06 AM »
Can we move on to infrastructure spending now?

Where do you wish to start? Top 5 projects.


1. Nation-wide bridge/road inspection and repair
2. Aid states or create nation-wide water reservoir system
3. Increase preventative measures for flooding
4. Pipeline infrastructure for increased oil/gas production
5. Port and airport upgrades

Not sure why you need 2 and 3.  Climate change isn't real, right?


Well, it's definitely real, and if we don't do 2 and 3 and even forest management in California for wildfires, etc. We're all going to be fucked even more so than we are now.

We need better hurricane and storm preparedness too, because those are going to get worse.

I guess what I'm saying is we generally need to fortify the country against the coming shitstorm of climate change. Even 1 on my list is about that. The first three on my list are all about making the infrastructure able to handle the coming problems.

I understand 4 isn't good for the environment but we are frakking all this oil and gas and shit and it's way better to get it out via pipelines than anything else.

I agree but doing everything above is like one firefighter building a break and the other firefighter pouring more fuel on the fire.

#1 should be non-O&G energy. Batteries, in particular, to store solar and wind produced at inopportune times are a great place for R&D.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5394
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6557 on: March 25, 2019, 11:00:14 AM »
Do you really believe that 46% of Americans are racist, misogynist, retards?

I definitely didn't say that, and frankly I'm starting to get pissed off that you keep putting my words in my mouth.  Would you please stop?  I can only be polite for so long, and you're pushing your limit.

There's a lot to unpack in your question.  First is your wholly inappropriate use of the word "retard".  Next time you can just write "nigger-lovers, cucks, and retards" and only be marginally more offensive than you were the first time.

But if we give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, and assume you just made an ignorant mistake and only meant to identify some specific traits of Trump supporters, we can move on to specifics.  In that case, I would say that it's not 46% but I do think there is definitely a large contingent of American voters who are very racist, and very misogynist, and not very bright.  Maybe 25%, all-inclusive with imperfect overlap?  Definitely higher in some states than others, but probably less than 46% in every state.  I'm sure you're not going to tell me that America has no racists in it.  All of the admitted out and proud racists I know voted for Donald Trump.

Then there are some more people who voted for him who are not total racists or misogynists, but maybe lean that way a little bit, privately if not in public.  Many of them don't consider themselves racists, and even say things like "I'm not racist, but..." and then follow it up with something pretty damn racist.  They secretly like the fact that Trump is a racist, but they also like that he denies being a racist while implementing racist policies and making racist statements, because it gives them cover to do the same.  They want to be racist, without the stigma of being called racist.

Then there are some people who voted for him who are no more racist than average, but genuinely think America should be led by a charismatic strongman regardless of policies.  These folks don't care about the Constitution or American values, they just like the "America, Fuck Yea!" version of patriotism and any thoughtful criticism of our nation's missteps is perceived as threatening to how rad we are at everything. 

Then there are some people who voted for him, or failed to vote at all, because they bought into the Russian propaganda machine and just hate Hillary Clinton.  While there is definitely overlap with the other groups, this appears to be one of the larger contingents of key voters who swung the 2016 election, and many of them actually aligned with Clinton's policy provisions more closely than with Trump's, but just didn't vote on the issues.  They voted on Pizzagate, and Benghazi, and her emails.  They voted (or stayed home) as a result of a targeted and deliberate election interference by a hostile foreign power, interference that was seized upon and capitalized upon by Trump and the GOP establishment in order to take power away from the majority of American voters.

I don't think any one of these groups alone was 46% of the electorate, just like I don't think any one group comprised Clinton's 48% of the electorate.  But some of Trump's 46% were definitely misinformed or deceived, regardless of their level of intelligence.  All of them definitely supported racist and misogynist behaviors and policies, even if they would not personally identify with those labels themselves.  You don't need to be a racist to vote for a racist, but all of the racists definitely voted for the racist candidate and they convinced a bunch of less-racist and non-racist people to vote along with them.

Your continued attempts to cast this situation as a democratic talking point are inane.  It's not the democrats fault that racists like David Duke went on TV and praised Trump as a symbol of a resurgent white nationalism.  It's not the democrats fault that Steve Bannon got a top job at the whitehouse.  Donald Trump literally bragged about sexual assault and still pulled millions of votes, and you think the demoratic party is to blame for those voters being labelled misogynist?  They openly embraced that label themselves.  You needn't blame anyone else for trying to spin this reality.

If you don't like those labels you identified, then you need to do a little soul searching on your end, not lash out at people who stand against the very things you don't want to be.  You need to figure out if there is some part of you, or of the rest of the GOP voter base, that does accept those negative labels.  You need to learn to see the ways in which your candidate stoked and encouraged those negative traits, and made them acceptable enough for people to come out and embrace them by voting for him.  And if you still don't want to be a racist or a misogynist, then consider voting for a candidate who actively fights against those things, instead of encouraging them.  I can give you a list of approximately 18 democrats you might consider in 2020, and every single one of them openly condemns racism and misogyny in unambiguous terms.  You cannot say the same about Trump.

@sol
I did not put words in your mouth. All I did was ask you a question and you got pissed off. Kind of sad that questions upset you so.

Your answer proves my point. You are so blinded by his scumbag character you just assume a good percentage of people are like him and that is what they want in a president. This is going to the exact same reason why dems will lose in 2020.

Democrats will try and debase his character when he already lacks character to begin with.  In the mean time the country keeps improving in part due to policies he is instilling.  I’m looking forward to when Berkeley gets funding yanked when they stifle free speech again (his latest signature.)  BTW, free speech us for everyone, even for racist, misogynist retards.

Yup I have the freedom to use the word retard to describe someone with a lower level of intelligence just like you have the right to call me an asshole or ignorant for doing so.

Given how context works in the English language, I'm afraid you did.

If that was not your intent, perhaps consider how you present your concepts in written communication.

Cool Friend

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 272
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6558 on: March 25, 2019, 11:01:44 AM »
Do you really believe that 46% of Americans are racist, misogynist, retards?

I definitely didn't say that, and frankly I'm starting to get pissed off that you keep putting my words in my mouth.  Would you please stop?  I can only be polite for so long, and you're pushing your limit.

There's a lot to unpack in your question.  First is your wholly inappropriate use of the word "retard".  Next time you can just write "nigger-lovers, cucks, and retards" and only be marginally more offensive than you were the first time.

But if we give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, and assume you just made an ignorant mistake and only meant to identify some specific traits of Trump supporters, we can move on to specifics.  In that case, I would say that it's not 46% but I do think there is definitely a large contingent of American voters who are very racist, and very misogynist, and not very bright.  Maybe 25%, all-inclusive with imperfect overlap?  Definitely higher in some states than others, but probably less than 46% in every state.  I'm sure you're not going to tell me that America has no racists in it.  All of the admitted out and proud racists I know voted for Donald Trump.

Then there are some more people who voted for him who are not total racists or misogynists, but maybe lean that way a little bit, privately if not in public.  Many of them don't consider themselves racists, and even say things like "I'm not racist, but..." and then follow it up with something pretty damn racist.  They secretly like the fact that Trump is a racist, but they also like that he denies being a racist while implementing racist policies and making racist statements, because it gives them cover to do the same.  They want to be racist, without the stigma of being called racist.

Then there are some people who voted for him who are no more racist than average, but genuinely think America should be led by a charismatic strongman regardless of policies.  These folks don't care about the Constitution or American values, they just like the "America, Fuck Yea!" version of patriotism and any thoughtful criticism of our nation's missteps is perceived as threatening to how rad we are at everything. 

Then there are some people who voted for him, or failed to vote at all, because they bought into the Russian propaganda machine and just hate Hillary Clinton.  While there is definitely overlap with the other groups, this appears to be one of the larger contingents of key voters who swung the 2016 election, and many of them actually aligned with Clinton's policy provisions more closely than with Trump's, but just didn't vote on the issues.  They voted on Pizzagate, and Benghazi, and her emails.  They voted (or stayed home) as a result of a targeted and deliberate election interference by a hostile foreign power, interference that was seized upon and capitalized upon by Trump and the GOP establishment in order to take power away from the majority of American voters.

I don't think any one of these groups alone was 46% of the electorate, just like I don't think any one group comprised Clinton's 48% of the electorate.  But some of Trump's 46% were definitely misinformed or deceived, regardless of their level of intelligence.  All of them definitely supported racist and misogynist behaviors and policies, even if they would not personally identify with those labels themselves.  You don't need to be a racist to vote for a racist, but all of the racists definitely voted for the racist candidate and they convinced a bunch of less-racist and non-racist people to vote along with them.

Your continued attempts to cast this situation as a democratic talking point are inane.  It's not the democrats fault that racists like David Duke went on TV and praised Trump as a symbol of a resurgent white nationalism.  It's not the democrats fault that Steve Bannon got a top job at the whitehouse.  Donald Trump literally bragged about sexual assault and still pulled millions of votes, and you think the demoratic party is to blame for those voters being labelled misogynist?  They openly embraced that label themselves.  You needn't blame anyone else for trying to spin this reality.

If you don't like those labels you identified, then you need to do a little soul searching on your end, not lash out at people who stand against the very things you don't want to be.  You need to figure out if there is some part of you, or of the rest of the GOP voter base, that does accept those negative labels.  You need to learn to see the ways in which your candidate stoked and encouraged those negative traits, and made them acceptable enough for people to come out and embrace them by voting for him.  And if you still don't want to be a racist or a misogynist, then consider voting for a candidate who actively fights against those things, instead of encouraging them.  I can give you a list of approximately 18 democrats you might consider in 2020, and every single one of them openly condemns racism and misogyny in unambiguous terms.  You cannot say the same about Trump.

@sol,
I did not put words in your mouth. All I did was ask you a question and you got pissed off. Kind of sad that questions upset you so.

Your answer proves my point. You are so blinded by his scumbag character you just assume a good percentage of people are like him and that is what they want in a president. This is going to the exact same reason why dems will lose in 2020.

Democrats will try and debase his character when he already lacks character to begin with.  In the mean time the country keeps improving in part due to policies he is instilling.  I’m looking forward to when Berkeley gets funding yanked when they stifle free speech again (his latest signature.)  BTW, free speech us for everyone, even for racist, misogynist retards.

Yup I have the freedom to use the word retard to describe someone with a lower level of intelligence just like you have the right to call me an asshole or ignorant for doing so.

@Dabnasty

this laughable bullshit right here is what I'm talking about

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5394
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6559 on: March 25, 2019, 11:03:46 AM »
this laughable bullshit right here is what I'm talking about

I'd be curious to map political thread activity by user account join date and see how many are accounts created after Trump announced he was running. (Un)fortunately the forum has enough traffic that it may not be a valuable metric anyway, though.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6560 on: March 25, 2019, 11:05:28 AM »
sol,
I did not put words in your mouth. All I did was ask you a question and you got pissed off. Kind of sad that questions upset you so.

Your answer proves my point. You are so blinded by his scumbag character you just assume a good percentage of people are like him and that is what they want in a president. This is going to the exact same reason why dems will lose in 2020.

Democrats will try and debase his character when he already lacks character to begin with.  In the mean time the country keeps improving in part due to policies he is instilling.  I’m looking forward to when Berkeley gets funding yanked when they stifle free speech again (his latest signature.)  BTW, free speech us for everyone, even for racist, misogynist retards.

Yup I have the freedom to use the word retard to describe someone with a lower level of intelligence just like you have the right to call me an asshole or ignorant for doing so.

You don't get to disown the results of your actions just because you didn't desire those results.  If you don't like the results of your actions, change your actions.  Otherwise, it's entirely reasonable for others to assume that you do want those results since you're continuing to take an action that you know leads to them.  It's called personal responsibility, maybe you've heard of it.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 12:05:30 PM by shenlong55 »

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5394
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6561 on: March 25, 2019, 11:08:55 AM »
Quote from: EnjoyIt
you just assume a good percentage of people are like him and that is what they want in a president.

Well actually yes, I do assume a good percentage of people who support Trump support him because that is what they want in a President.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1559
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6562 on: March 25, 2019, 11:17:43 AM »
@sol,
I did not put words in your mouth. All I did was ask you a question and you got pissed off. Kind of sad that questions upset you so.

Your answer proves my point. You are so blinded by his scumbag character you just assume a good percentage of people are like him and that is what they want in a president. This is going to the exact same reason why dems will lose in 2020.

Democrats will try and debase his character when he already lacks character to begin with.  In the mean time the country keeps improving in part due to policies he is instilling.  I’m looking forward to when Berkeley gets funding yanked when they stifle free speech again (his latest signature.)  BTW, free speech us for everyone, even for racist, misogynist retards.

Yup I have the freedom to use the word retard to describe someone with a lower level of intelligence just like you have the right to call me an asshole or ignorant for doing so.

@Dabnasty

this laughable bullshit right here is what I'm talking about

Well certainly this comment is full of bullshit, but unfortunately this is a very real person. Their first post was in 2015 and I don't see anyone with a post count in the 100-150 range defending Trump.

It would be nice if what Lews Therin said was true, but it doesn't look that way.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Age: 36
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6563 on: March 25, 2019, 11:20:48 AM »
1. Nation-wide bridge/road inspection and repair
2. Aid states or create nation-wide water reservoir system
3. Increase preventative measures for flooding
4. Pipeline infrastructure for increased oil/gas production
5. Port and airport upgrades

Not sure why you need 2 and 3.  Climate change isn't real, right?


Well, it's definitely real, and if we don't do 2 and 3 and even forest management in California for wildfires, etc. We're all going to be fucked even more so than we are now.

We need better hurricane and storm preparedness too, because those are going to get worse.

I guess what I'm saying is we generally need to fortify the country against the coming shitstorm of climate change. Even 1 on my list is about that. The first three on my list are all about making the infrastructure able to handle the coming problems.

I understand 4 isn't good for the environment but we are frakking all this oil and gas and shit and it's way better to get it out via pipelines than anything else.

I agree but doing everything above is like one firefighter building a break and the other firefighter pouring more fuel on the fire.

#1 should be non-O&G energy. Batteries, in particular, to store solar and wind produced at inopportune times are a great place for R&D.

Yeah, i think battery/energy storage technology is very important. However, in my mind at least, R&D is different than infrastructure. Infrastructure spending is deploying technology we already have to make shit better.

But yes, we should put a shitload of money into energy storage tech R&D as well.

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6564 on: March 25, 2019, 11:23:32 AM »
Quote from: EnjoyIt
you just assume a good percentage of people are like him and that is what they want in a president.

Well actually yes, I do assume a good percentage of people who support Trump support him because that is what they want in a President.

That is a mistake. I don’t support Trump because he is a scumbag. I hate that. It forces me to defend my position on him and is very frustrating. I support him based on the positive things he has done so far for the country irrespective of the fact that he is a scumbag. Here is a fact. Very few politicians get into power without the backing of lots and lots of money. Most of that money comes with favors owed. Most politicians are scumbags. At least he has the decency to show it.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8367
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6565 on: March 25, 2019, 11:34:13 AM »
Very few politicians get into power without the backing of lots and lots of money. Most of that money comes with favors owed. Most politicians are scumbags. At least he has the decency to show it.

You live in a twisted world, if you can call corruption "decency".

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6566 on: March 25, 2019, 11:41:03 AM »
Very few politicians get into power without the backing of lots and lots of money. Most of that money comes with favors owed. Most politicians are scumbags. At least he has the decency to show it.

You live in a twisted world, if you can call corruption "decency".

He didn't call corruption decency, he said the difference of hiding it away or showing it has some sort fo deccency in it.

Regarding Trumps voters: Yes, many voted for Trump because he is what he is. They often say so themselves.

And EnjoyIt, I can still not see any meaningful good things he did. Most of what you wrote is either not good or was just coincidentally "done" by Mr. Execute Time.


sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8367
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6567 on: March 25, 2019, 11:51:28 AM »
He didn't call corruption decency, he said the difference of hiding it away or showing it has some sort fo deccency in it.

It's not decency to be openly corrupt.

It's also not true that "all politicians" are corrupt.  Obama was not a perfect president, but he's not in the same ballpark for corruption as Trump.  Has it even occurred to EnjoyIt that some politicians might honestly want to make the country better, instead of just personally enriching themselves and their families?



GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13082
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6568 on: March 25, 2019, 11:51:52 AM »
Quote from: EnjoyIt
you just assume a good percentage of people are like him and that is what they want in a president.

Well actually yes, I do assume a good percentage of people who support Trump support him because that is what they want in a President.

That is a mistake. I don’t support Trump because he is a scumbag. I hate that. It forces me to defend my position on him and is very frustrating. I support him based on the positive things he has done so far for the country irrespective of the fact that he is a scumbag. Here is a fact. Very few politicians get into power without the backing of lots and lots of money. Most of that money comes with favors owed. Most politicians are scumbags. At least he has the decency to show it.

So, if I'm reading you correctly here . . . any politician who doesn't act corrupt would immediately lose your support because you assume that they are being inauthentic?

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6569 on: March 25, 2019, 12:04:06 PM »
Quote from: EnjoyIt
you just assume a good percentage of people are like him and that is what they want in a president.

Well actually yes, I do assume a good percentage of people who support Trump support him because that is what they want in a President.

That is a mistake. I don’t support Trump because he is a scumbag. I hate that. It forces me to defend my position on him and is very frustrating. I support him based on the positive things he has done so far for the country irrespective of the fact that he is a scumbag. Here is a fact. Very few politicians get into power without the backing of lots and lots of money. Most of that money comes with favors owed. Most politicians are scumbags. At least he has the decency to show it.

So, if I'm reading you correctly here . . . any politician who doesn't act corrupt would immediately lose your support because you assume that they are being inauthentic?

Does that surprise you?

Step 1: Tell voters that all politicians are corrupt.
Step 2: Act corruptly in the open to prove yourself right.
Step 3: Tell voters at least your open about your corruption, everyone else is just hiding it.
Step 4: Voters refuse to vote for non-corrupt candidates because they're "inauthentic".
Step 5: Win elections and get rich off the taxpayers money without even having to hide your corruption!

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 933
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6570 on: March 25, 2019, 02:47:14 PM »
I keep hearing this line about Trump doing great things for our country but there are usually there few specific examples. I had to look it up because I couldn't really think of anything meaningful he promised as his campaign policy platform:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/browse/
The things he has been successful with are at best not meaningful and at worst detrimental.

Ok- yeah, it's the economy, stupid- but it is really difficult for me to understand the logic gymnastics Trump supports must have to play to totally forget that this economy is the result of continued growth stemming from the Obama Administration policies and actions. Nearly anybody could have followed Obama and not tanked the economy and rode it to where it is today. But I argue that Trump Administration is screwing it up, and you wont see the results for another 12-24 months- after he could possibly be reelected. And then the shit pile is left for the next Democrat to clean up again- and the cycle continues.

Ok, so maybe your taxes went down. Mine did not. And for people who purportedly have always given the most shit about the debt and deficit increasing- absolute silence.

Shootings are still happening too often

What overly burdensome regulations have been removed to make everything better? And when I say better, I don't necessarily mean "made somebody more money." Example in my area: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/12/20/feds-move-to-formally-renew-leases-for-twin-metals-mine

Where's that most wonderful healthcare system that was promised?

I wonder what soybean farmers think about how great everything is now?

And as mentioned- infrastructure spending. What happened to that? What happened to this Space Force?

TLDR: If you think everything he is doing is wonderful now, just wait. It's not going to be a great day when the bill comes due.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6571 on: March 25, 2019, 04:02:44 PM »
If the democrats keep throwing out racism and misogyny as their #1 tactic I do not think they will succeed.

Did you typo that sentence?  Racism and misogyny are the republican platform, not the democrat's.  That's been the GOP's #1 tactic for years now, and Trump just finally manged to make it a winner by turning it up to 11.  Who would have thought that the only reason republicans couldn't win the presidency for so long was because they weren't racist and misogynist enough?

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/white-liberals-present-themselves-as-less-competent-in-interactions-with-african-americans?amp

"Warmth, related to intentions towards others, and competence, related to the ability to carry out those intentions, are two fundamental dimensions of how we see others and portray ourselves in social interactions. Stereotypical portrayals of black Americans generally show them as being less competent than their white counterparts, but not necessarily less friendly or warm, Dupree explains.

The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences. The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates, though “it was harder to find speeches from Republicans delivered to minority audiences,” Dupree notes. There was no difference in Democrats’ or Republicans’ usage of words related to warmth. “It was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior.”


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center/amp

One day later, the Los Angeles Times and the Alabama Political Reporter reported that Dees’s ouster had come amid a staff revolt over the mistreatment of nonwhite and female staffers, which was sparked by the resignation of the senior attorney Meredith Horton, the highest-ranking African-American woman at the center. A number of staffers subsequently signed onto two letters of protest to the center’s leadership, alleging that multiple reports of sexual harassment by Dees through the years had been ignored or covered up, and sometimes resulted in retaliation against the women making the claims. (Dees denied the allegations, telling a reporter, “I don’t know who you’re talking to or talking about, but that is not right.”)

Seems everyone is a little bit racist these days.
Nicely dome Whataboutism there. Does this mean that racist behavior in Republican politicians can’t be pointed out until Democrats are perfect? Or can we simply place emphasis on the line that acknowledges the difficulty in even finding any Republican speeches to minority groups at all to analyze?

Racism seems to be creeping into the Democrat platform.

ear Harris on Feb. 11 when confronted on New York’s hip-hop radio show, “The Breakfast Club”: “Look, I love my husband, and he happened to be the one that I chose to marry because I love him — that was that moment in time, and that’s it. And he loves me.”

No more needs saying.

But on the same show, a question was raised about the legitimacy of Harris’s “blackness.” Is she black enough?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kamala-harriss-record-and-character-matter--not-the-race-of-her-father-and-husband/2019/02/22/011f62a0-36c0-11e9-854a-7a14d7fec96a_story.html


Chicago Pride Parade expels Star of David flags.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40407057

  here that, as the women were opening up about their backgrounds and personal investments in creating a resistance movement to Trump, Perez and Mallory allegedly first asserted that Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people—and even, according to a close secondhand source, claimed that Jews were proven to have been leaders of the American slave trade. These are canards popularized by The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, a book published by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam—“the bible of the new anti-Semitism,” according to Henry Louis Gates Jr., who noted in 1992: “Among significant sectors of the black community, this brief has become a credo of a new philosophy of black self-affirmation.” 

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/276694/is-the-womens-march-melting-down

. headline read: “Blah Blah, The Jews Control The World With Their Money, Blah Blah,” showing Americans that Omar’s antisemitism is classic and her statements a repetition of age-old canards. We actually dug up those canards from classic antisemitic tracts, and the resemblance was striking and frightening.

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/No-Holds-Barred-The-growing-sewer-of-hate-of-Ilhan-Omar-584643

. Nancy is a typical white feminist upholding the patriarchy doing the dirty work of powerful white men," she wrote in a Facebook post. "God forbid the men are upset - no worries, Nancy to the rescue to stroke their egos."

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Ilhan-Omar-Linda-Sarsour-anti-semitism-Pelosi-13665817.php

If you aren't any better than Republicans, why vote Democrat?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8367
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6572 on: March 25, 2019, 04:11:59 PM »
But on the same show, a question was raised about the legitimacy of Harris’s “blackness.” Is she black enough?

Black people talking about blackness is not racism. 

Quote
If you aren't any better than Republicans, why vote Democrat?

I can without any hesitation proclaim that on the issue of racism, the democratic party is better than the republican party.  Not perfect by any means, but clearly better.  Do not try to confuse this clear distinction with individual counterexamples that do not apply to the party as a whole.  If I were to make a list of every time a republican did something racist, we'd be here all day. 

FIPurpose

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6573 on: March 25, 2019, 04:16:54 PM »
If the democrats keep throwing out racism and misogyny as their #1 tactic I do not think they will succeed.

Did you typo that sentence?  Racism and misogyny are the republican platform, not the democrat's.  That's been the GOP's #1 tactic for years now, and Trump just finally manged to make it a winner by turning it up to 11.  Who would have thought that the only reason republicans couldn't win the presidency for so long was because they weren't racist and misogynist enough?

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/white-liberals-present-themselves-as-less-competent-in-interactions-with-african-americans?amp

"Warmth, related to intentions towards others, and competence, related to the ability to carry out those intentions, are two fundamental dimensions of how we see others and portray ourselves in social interactions. Stereotypical portrayals of black Americans generally show them as being less competent than their white counterparts, but not necessarily less friendly or warm, Dupree explains.

The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences. The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates, though “it was harder to find speeches from Republicans delivered to minority audiences,” Dupree notes. There was no difference in Democrats’ or Republicans’ usage of words related to warmth. “It was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior.”


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center/amp

One day later, the Los Angeles Times and the Alabama Political Reporter reported that Dees’s ouster had come amid a staff revolt over the mistreatment of nonwhite and female staffers, which was sparked by the resignation of the senior attorney Meredith Horton, the highest-ranking African-American woman at the center. A number of staffers subsequently signed onto two letters of protest to the center’s leadership, alleging that multiple reports of sexual harassment by Dees through the years had been ignored or covered up, and sometimes resulted in retaliation against the women making the claims. (Dees denied the allegations, telling a reporter, “I don’t know who you’re talking to or talking about, but that is not right.”)

Seems everyone is a little bit racist these days.
Nicely dome Whataboutism there. Does this mean that racist behavior in Republican politicians can’t be pointed out until Democrats are perfect? Or can we simply place emphasis on the line that acknowledges the difficulty in even finding any Republican speeches to minority groups at all to analyze?

Racism seems to be creeping into the Democrat platform.

ear Harris on Feb. 11 when confronted on New York’s hip-hop radio show, “The Breakfast Club”: “Look, I love my husband, and he happened to be the one that I chose to marry because I love him — that was that moment in time, and that’s it. And he loves me.”

No more needs saying.

But on the same show, a question was raised about the legitimacy of Harris’s “blackness.” Is she black enough?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kamala-harriss-record-and-character-matter--not-the-race-of-her-father-and-husband/2019/02/22/011f62a0-36c0-11e9-854a-7a14d7fec96a_story.html


Chicago Pride Parade expels Star of David flags.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40407057

  here that, as the women were opening up about their backgrounds and personal investments in creating a resistance movement to Trump, Perez and Mallory allegedly first asserted that Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people—and even, according to a close secondhand source, claimed that Jews were proven to have been leaders of the American slave trade. These are canards popularized by The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, a book published by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam—“the bible of the new anti-Semitism,” according to Henry Louis Gates Jr., who noted in 1992: “Among significant sectors of the black community, this brief has become a credo of a new philosophy of black self-affirmation.” 

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/276694/is-the-womens-march-melting-down

. headline read: “Blah Blah, The Jews Control The World With Their Money, Blah Blah,” showing Americans that Omar’s antisemitism is classic and her statements a repetition of age-old canards. We actually dug up those canards from classic antisemitic tracts, and the resemblance was striking and frightening.

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/No-Holds-Barred-The-growing-sewer-of-hate-of-Ilhan-Omar-584643

. Nancy is a typical white feminist upholding the patriarchy doing the dirty work of powerful white men," she wrote in a Facebook post. "God forbid the men are upset - no worries, Nancy to the rescue to stroke their egos."

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Ilhan-Omar-Linda-Sarsour-anti-semitism-Pelosi-13665817.php

If you aren't any better than Republicans, why vote Democrat?

These conversations are happening in the Dem. party because the Dem. party has a diverse coalition. The GOP wouldn't bother because it doesn't have any such diversity to warrant a discussion on race.

HBFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 789
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6574 on: March 25, 2019, 05:00:59 PM »


I can without any hesitation proclaim that on the issue of racism, the democratic party is better than the republican party. 

This may or may not be true.  The democrats have implemented racist policy under the label of "affirmative action".  At least the republicans haven't done that.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6575 on: March 25, 2019, 05:07:58 PM »
But on the same show, a question was raised about the legitimacy of Harris’s “blackness.” Is she black enough?

Black people talking about blackness is not racism. 

Quote
If you aren't any better than Republicans, why vote Democrat?

I can without any hesitation proclaim that on the issue of racism, the democratic party is better than the republican party.  Not perfect by any means, but clearly better.  Do not try to confuse this clear distinction with individual counterexamples that do not apply to the party as a whole.  If I were to make a list of every time a republican did something racist, we'd be here all day.

That is because you have redefined what racism means and tied it to some rubbish power dynamic. CRT (critical race theory) is a garbage dump, stay away from it.

Racism simply means subjecting people to different rules. I would say the R and D are equally guilty.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5394
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6576 on: March 25, 2019, 05:13:26 PM »
But on the same show, a question was raised about the legitimacy of Harris’s “blackness.” Is she black enough?

Black people talking about blackness is not racism. 

Quote
If you aren't any better than Republicans, why vote Democrat?

I can without any hesitation proclaim that on the issue of racism, the democratic party is better than the republican party.  Not perfect by any means, but clearly better.  Do not try to confuse this clear distinction with individual counterexamples that do not apply to the party as a whole.  If I were to make a list of every time a republican did something racist, we'd be here all day.

That is because you have redefined what racism means and tied it to some rubbish power dynamic. CRT (critical race theory) is a garbage dump, stay away from it.

Racism simply means subjecting people to different rules. I would say the R and D are equally guilty.

Democrats elected a black President.

Republicans elected a raging racist.

"But it's even!"

Fucking no. It's not.

ysette9

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4409
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
    • Insert Snappy Title Here (Journal)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6577 on: March 25, 2019, 05:17:08 PM »
I have had a good long time to think about affirmative action over the years and have found myself on both sides of the divide. Here is where I have come out in the end. Illl use an example to illustrate.

Let’s take public toilets to look at fairness between women and men. Public restrooms are almost inevitably equally sized for men and woman. This is clearly meant to be fair. However for many reasons women always end up waiting in line to pee while men almost never do. This is a situation where the intent was to be fair but by treating people equally, the result is systemic unfairness.

If we actually wanted to be fair, we would recognize that women are more likely to be accompanied by kids who need more time, need to sit to pee which takes more time, need to change sanitary products which takes more time, are more likely to be old and infirm (because we live longer) and need more time. So if we really wanted to be fair we would design restrooms such that the END RESULT was fair, meaning the average wait time in a queue was equal between men and woman, which would result in the women’s restroom being larger than the men’s.

Affirmative action is not perfect but it is trying to address that there is a difference between what looks fair on the surface and what is actually fair as measured by results.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6578 on: March 25, 2019, 05:19:42 PM »
But on the same show, a question was raised about the legitimacy of Harris’s “blackness.” Is she black enough?

Black people talking about blackness is not racism. 

Quote
If you aren't any better than Republicans, why vote Democrat?

I can without any hesitation proclaim that on the issue of racism, the democratic party is better than the republican party.  Not perfect by any means, but clearly better.  Do not try to confuse this clear distinction with individual counterexamples that do not apply to the party as a whole.  If I were to make a list of every time a republican did something racist, we'd be here all day.

That is because you have redefined what racism means and tied it to some rubbish power dynamic. CRT (critical race theory) is a garbage dump, stay away from it.

Racism simply means subjecting people to different rules. I would say the R and D are equally guilty.

Democrats elected a black President.

Republicans elected a raging racist.

"But it's even!"

Fucking no. It's not.

are you for real JLee?

Ds talk down to minorities and blacks
Rs talk normally

stop trying to cast half of the country as racist, you only make yourself look racist.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10051
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6579 on: March 25, 2019, 05:26:27 PM »

Ds talk down to minorities and blacks
Rs talk normally


In what way(s) would you say that Democrats talk down to minorities?  How is the Republican approach more "normal"?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8367
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6580 on: March 25, 2019, 05:26:57 PM »
Ds talk down to minorities and blacks
Rs talk normally

stop trying to cast half of the country as racist, you only make yourself look racist.

Did Obama talk down to half the country?  Because Trump definitely does.  Your version of reality looks different from mine.

Republicans have engaged in a system anti-voter campaign in minority districts.  Democrats have not.  Republicans have only ever elected white mean, democrats have not.  Democrats just elected the most diverse and representative crop of congresspersons in history, and republicans did not.  I could go on.  I can't believe anyone could look at the state of the world today and claim that the democrats are the more racist party.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 05:45:06 PM by sol »

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6581 on: March 25, 2019, 05:34:08 PM »
errr, seriously, you guys are not aware of the dumbing down phenomenon?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liberals-dumb-themselves-down-when-they-speak-black-people-new-study-contends/?utm_term=.77c2a4ee000e

ya ok sol. We need to agree on definition for diverse, representative, etc

I used an example in another post, a panel consist of 100% black women would be considered 100% diverse. But a panel with 50% black women and 50% white women would be not as diverse.

so to get our definition right, why panel is my diverse in your mind?
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 05:53:00 PM by anisotropy »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8367
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6582 on: March 25, 2019, 05:52:42 PM »
errr, seriously, you guys are not aware of the dumbing down phenomenon?

I'm aware, and it doesn't make democrats more racist. 

Attempting to address racial inequality does not make you racist, just like being openly corrupt is not a sign of decency.  What I'm seeing here is white people attempting to redefine what "racism" means so that they can accuse democrats who are fighting racism of being racist.  Maybe ask the minority community what they think of this redefinition you're so fond of?  Oh wait, we already do that in every election, and guess which party consistently gets the minority vote...

Seriously, any attempt by a white person to claim that democrats are more racist than republicans, as a party, is outright offensive to anyone who believes in equality, offensive to minority communities, to white people, and to the very idea of rational thought.

I'm not claiming democrats are immune to racism.  Far from it.  But the party as a whole unambiguously condemns racism right in the party platform, and with the actions of their coordinated caucus.  Trump advocates for racism.  The republican party advocates racism.  The white house staff advocates for racism.  You'll have a hard time finding anything even remotely that racist in the democratic party, and the American electorate agrees with me on this one.

FIPurpose

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6583 on: March 25, 2019, 06:00:27 PM »
errr, seriously, you guys are not aware of the dumbing down phenomenon?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liberals-dumb-themselves-down-when-they-speak-black-people-new-study-contends/?utm_term=.77c2a4ee000e

ya ok sol. We need to agree on definition for diverse, representative, etc

I used an example in another post, a panel consist of 100% black women would be considered 100% diverse. But a panel with 50% black women and 50% white women would be not as diverse.

so to get our definition right, why panel is my diverse in your mind?

And coffee causes cancer. Or err. maybe it doesn't.

This is clickbait unreproduced study article. Even the authors of the study don't put much confidence in it without additional followups.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6584 on: March 25, 2019, 06:02:28 PM »
ya ok sol. We need to agree on definition for diverse, representative, etc

I used an example in another post, a panel consist of 100% black women would be considered 100% diverse. But a panel with 50% black women and 50% white women would be not as diverse.

so to get our definition right, why panel is my diverse in your mind?

Quote
which party consistently gets the minority vote

you have to be careful here, there is a sizeable black movement that are walking away from the Ds. We can't and shouldn't take them for granted that they would vote for D all the time. Which adds to my worry that trump would win again in 2020.

For the nth time, I am not White. I am a minority immigrant born and raised a commie until I moved to NA.

Our view differ mostly because we understand the definition of racism differently. You can see some of my recent post to find more if you are interested.

To me, racism means subjecting different groups of people to different rules. Going by that definition, I am afraid both parties are both racist.

Rs are prob more racist towards blacks and "browns" (pardon my language)
Ds are prob more racist towards whites and "yellows" (lol to keep it a color theme)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13082
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6585 on: March 25, 2019, 06:14:12 PM »
errr, seriously, you guys are not aware of the dumbing down phenomenon?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liberals-dumb-themselves-down-when-they-speak-black-people-new-study-contends/?utm_term=.77c2a4ee000e

ya ok sol. We need to agree on definition for diverse, representative, etc

I used an example in another post, a panel consist of 100% black women would be considered 100% diverse. But a panel with 50% black women and 50% white women would be not as diverse.

so to get our definition right, why panel is my diverse in your mind?

I notice that you didn't post a link to the actual study:

https://psyarxiv.com/pv2ab/

But instead to a rather flawed interpretation of the material.

FIPurpose

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6586 on: March 25, 2019, 06:40:51 PM »
ya ok sol. We need to agree on definition for diverse, representative, etc

I used an example in another post, a panel consist of 100% black women would be considered 100% diverse. But a panel with 50% black women and 50% white women would be not as diverse.

so to get our definition right, why panel is my diverse in your mind?

Quote
which party consistently gets the minority vote

you have to be careful here, there is a sizeable black movement that are walking away from the Ds. We can't and shouldn't take them for granted that they would vote for D all the time. Which adds to my worry that trump would win again in 2020.

For the nth time, I am not White. I am a minority immigrant born and raised a commie until I moved to NA.

Our view differ mostly because we understand the definition of racism differently. You can see some of my recent post to find more if you are interested.

To me, racism means subjecting different groups of people to different rules. Going by that definition, I am afraid both parties are both racist.

Rs are prob more racist towards blacks and "browns" (pardon my language)
Ds are prob more racist towards whites and "yellows" (lol to keep it a color theme)


I'll bite

1. This depends on the context. If this panel of black people is replacing what would usually only be a panel of white people, then it would be more diverse. You wouldn't want every panel to be one or the other, but a minority panel would be considered diverse because 100% minority panels are a rarity.

2. No there isn't. Are you getting your news from Candace Owens? 2018 Blacks voted 90% D. 2016 Blacks voted 91% Hardly an exit.

3. This would make sense why you have these views then. Understand that racism, namely, how racism plays out in this country is deeply tied to our history. And honestly to understand racism well, you have to have deep knowledge of slavery in the US, the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow era laws, GI Bill post WWII, the Civil Rights era, the war on Drugs, etc.

I believe the reason you're butting heads with others here is that you don't have the same educational background as the rest of us here. Blacks have a specific history of being repressed, murdered, rejected, enslaved, indentured, denied equal voting rights, and gerrymandered for 200 years. To this day they are still systematically jailed more, denied home and business loans more frequently, continue to be paid less (especially black women), etc. So even with all the laws that you believe give black Americans larger advantages, the data continues to show otherwise that blacks have not gained any serious economic advantages from them.

4. I think you're trying to make it "fair" by giving each party something to be racist against. But balancing it doesn't make it true.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6587 on: March 25, 2019, 06:52:12 PM »
oh dear, we have a sjw here. Nice to meet you, I am a CRT master, accomplished author via hoaxing a journal. Read the chain #915 to see the details.

If you also agree with and find nothing wrong with these statements:

"This project works to deepen our understanding of the harm that White teachers do in classrooms"

"The task in this chapter is to examine, deconstruct, and critique the existence of whiteness"

"A positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy. "

"Just as White supremacy, whiteness itself lives in white bodies, communities, and structures"


Understand you are the racist here also to most people outside of your cult like power based racism dynamics.

As promised, please let me look you in the eyes, and say "go f*ck youself, racist." :)


repost from chain #915 for your convenience, courtesy of Dr. Lindsay.


They've redefined "racism" and tied it to some bs power dynamic (aka by their definition it's not possible to be racist towards Whites oh and "white" Jews, among other ethnic groups), along with a whole slew of other "feel good" words. This ideology, which has been called many things, including Grievance Studies, intersectionalism, and Social Justice, or just critical theories in general, cloaks itself in beautiful words (e.g. “inclusion,” “diversity”) but is in fact in service of the opposite. It is racist, sexist, and limiting.

The most important thing for decent, rational, liberal people to understand about Social Justice is that it's always making its asks from within applied postmodern theory. It's therefore almost always asking for something very distinct and more demanding than it sounds like it is.

In this ideology, a panel that is 100% black women is 100% diverse because it isn't speaking from the "dominant" perspective that's assumed to pervade and underwrite all of society in applied postmodern theory. Yes, this is counter-intuitive, and it's what "diversity" really means as per stand point theory and intersectionality.

Your experience trying to talk about racism with these folks is critical race theory in a nutshell. It contains a few kernels of truth. Beyond those kernels, which are nearly irrelevant, it's utter bullshit. Not only is it totally BS, it's a specific kind of BS designed to make YOU feel guilty enough to believe and repeat it.

"Diversity" pushed by Social Justice is a justified form of naked discrimination. "Inclusion" means a demand for restricted speech. "Equity" is affirmative action that goes further and cuts down. To them, it is ALL "justified."

They know it's completely indefensible if the public ever finds out what it actually is, which is why they often just call people names (Nazi, neonazi, white supremacist, kkk, etc) while refuse to engage in rational discussions. Oh actually, apparently logic and rl


You should read some of my other posts, just skip the ones that weren't so great and the ones I was wrong. ;) /s

I probably know more about the nature of critical theories than most here, having been inspired by the Sokal Squared Three. In fact, I might have surpassed them in one particular regard:

I have managed to get one paper of the "anti-racism" flavor (so far, still cranking out more in my dark boiler room) into the publishing process. It is incredibly easy to hoax journals in these "studies".

It is so easy because the manuscript are essentially introductions to ideas, ideas that are unverifiable, unfalsifiable, but also irresistible. Yes, outlandish ideas that are irresistible to these race hustlers and grifters. These ideas are not research, not by a long shot. But they are presented as "facts" that are then used to drive diversity policies within and outside academia.

If you are an outsider and manage to publish pure made up gibberish that are indistinguishable with "real scholarships", then it is not the review process, it's the field. I started reading/learning about critical theories less than 6 months ago, from Crenshaw to Coates, from DiAngelo to McIntyre, from Davies to Kendi, I read them all. Now, my "work" fits perfectly with these "scholars".

Some People in the critical theory field DEFENDED (still do) the idea that the penis is a social construct AFTER the idea was revealed to be a hoax. If people in the field can't distinguish between made up stuff (that also included very questionable methods, like deleting data) and real research, then again, it is not the peer-review process, it is the field itself.

My one take away for you is this: Critical race theory doesn't exist to improve race relations or issues related to race. It exists to find racism in everything and to make all such accusations stick. It is itself racist in nature and a parasitic disease.

Wanna know what my hoax paper is about? I wrote about how some measures, which are essentially segregation, but with blacks living in better conditions than whites, is positive for an anti-racist environment. Basically, enforced segregation with the whites living in crappy conditions is a good thing for the cause of anti-racism. lol right?

This BS is hardly out of line when compared with what previous "scholars" in this field have established as infallible rules of engagement:

"This project works to deepen our understanding of the harm that White teachers do in classrooms"

"The task in this chapter is to examine, deconstruct, and critique the existence of whiteness"

"A positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy. "

"Just as White supremacy, whiteness itself lives in white bodies, communities, and structures"


Intersectionality will eventually lead to calls for segregation because the claim is that different groups are inherently against each other and can’t work together without oppression.

The true face of this ideology can be seen in Mike Nayna's part 2 of the evergreen documentary. It becomes self-evident in the part where the students demanded the guy to keep lowering his hands.

It's about Power. Power to oppress others.  Nothing more.

« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 06:59:55 PM by anisotropy »

FIPurpose

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6588 on: March 25, 2019, 07:01:44 PM »
oh dear, we have a sjw here. Nice to meet you, I am a CRT master, accomplished author via hoaxing a journal. Read the chain #915 to see the details.

If you also agree with and find nothing wrong with these statements:

"This project works to deepen our understanding of the harm that White teachers do in classrooms"

"The task in this chapter is to examine, deconstruct, and critique the existence of whiteness"

"A positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy. "

"Just as White supremacy, whiteness itself lives in white bodies, communities, and structures"


Understand you are the racist here also to most people outside of your cult like power based racism dynamics.

As promised, please let me look you in the eyes, and say "go f*ck youself, racist." :)


repost from chain #915 for your convenience, courtesy of Dr. Lindsay.


They've redefined "racism" and tied it to some bs power dynamic (aka by their definition it's not possible to be racist towards Whites oh and "white" Jews, among other ethnic groups), along with a whole slew of other "feel good" words. This ideology, which has been called many things, including Grievance Studies, intersectionalism, and Social Justice, or just critical theories in general, cloaks itself in beautiful words (e.g. “inclusion,” “diversity”) but is in fact in service of the opposite. It is racist, sexist, and limiting.

The most important thing for decent, rational, liberal people to understand about Social Justice is that it's always making its asks from within applied postmodern theory. It's therefore almost always asking for something very distinct and more demanding than it sounds like it is.

In this ideology, a panel that is 100% black women is 100% diverse because it isn't speaking from the "dominant" perspective that's assumed to pervade and underwrite all of society in applied postmodern theory. Yes, this is counter-intuitive, and it's what "diversity" really means as per stand point theory and intersectionality.

Your experience trying to talk about racism with these folks is critical race theory in a nutshell. It contains a few kernels of truth. Beyond those kernels, which are nearly irrelevant, it's utter bullshit. Not only is it totally BS, it's a specific kind of BS designed to make YOU feel guilty enough to believe and repeat it.

"Diversity" pushed by Social Justice is a justified form of naked discrimination. "Inclusion" means a demand for restricted speech. "Equity" is affirmative action that goes further and cuts down. To them, it is ALL "justified."

They know it's completely indefensible if the public ever finds out what it actually is, which is why they often just call people names (Nazi, neonazi, white supremacist, kkk, etc) while refuse to engage in rational discussions. Oh actually, apparently logic and rl


You should read some of my other posts, just skip the ones that weren't so great and the ones I was wrong. ;) /s

I probably know more about the nature of critical theories than most here, having been inspired by the Sokal Squared Three. In fact, I might have surpassed them in one particular regard:

I have managed to get one paper of the "anti-racism" flavor (so far, still cranking out more in my dark boiler room) into the publishing process. It is incredibly easy to hoax journals in these "studies".

It is so easy because the manuscript are essentially introductions to ideas, ideas that are unverifiable, unfalsifiable, but also irresistible. Yes, outlandish ideas that are irresistible to these race hustlers and grifters. These ideas are not research, not by a long shot. But they are presented as "facts" that are then used to drive diversity policies within and outside academia.

If you are an outsider and manage to publish pure made up gibberish that are indistinguishable with "real scholarships", then it is not the review process, it's the field. I started reading/learning about critical theories less than 6 months ago, from Crenshaw to Coates, from DiAngelo to McIntyre, from Davies to Kendi, I read them all. Now, my "work" fits perfectly with these "scholars".

Some People in the critical theory field DEFENDED (still do) the idea that the penis is a social construct AFTER the idea was revealed to be a hoax. If people in the field can't distinguish between made up stuff (that also included very questionable methods, like deleting data) and real research, then again, it is not the peer-review process, it is the field itself.

My one take away for you is this: Critical race theory doesn't exist to improve race relations or issues related to race. It exists to find racism in everything and to make all such accusations stick. It is itself racist in nature and a parasitic disease.

Wanna know what my hoax paper is about? I wrote about how some measures, which are essentially segregation, but with blacks living in better conditions than whites, is positive for an anti-racist environment. Basically, enforced segregation with the whites living in crappy conditions is a good thing for the cause of anti-racism. lol right?

This BS is hardly out of line when compared with what previous "scholars" in this field have established as infallible rules of engagement:

"This project works to deepen our understanding of the harm that White teachers do in classrooms"

"The task in this chapter is to examine, deconstruct, and critique the existence of whiteness"

"A positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy. "

"Just as White supremacy, whiteness itself lives in white bodies, communities, and structures"


Intersectionality will eventually lead to calls for segregation because the claim is that different groups are inherently against each other and can’t work together without oppression.

The true face of this ideology can be seen in Mike Nayna's part 2 of the evergreen documentary. It becomes self-evident in the part where the students demanded the guy to keep lowering his hands.

It's about Power. Power to oppress others.  Nothing more.

Welp. Just a troll.

Nice talking to you Anistropy.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6589 on: March 25, 2019, 07:18:18 PM »
I know how the oppression Olympics game is played, I just refuse to play it because its utterly racist.

You know the bs that forms the tenets of your "anti-racist" "social justice" movement is completely indefensible if the public ever find out.

You target people's immutable traits, like skin colors, just like the Klan. The only difference is which color.

nice talking to you too.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 07:26:28 PM by anisotropy »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8367
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6590 on: March 25, 2019, 07:38:21 PM »
You target people's immutable traits, like skin colors, just like the Klan. The only difference is which color.

Um, except I don't.  Neither does anyone else here, that we have seen so far, your accusations notwithstanding.

Nobody here has made any of the claims you cited.  Nobody but you knows anything about "CRT", whatever that is.  We're not even denying that minorities can also be racist.  Anyone can be racist.

Despite your best effort to change the narrative, the point under discussion here is which of two two major US parties is more racist.  I think that question has a clear answer, in terms of their official policies, their success fielding representative candidates, and their ongoing willingness to embrace communities of every race.  No one is bashing white people here.  I'm bashing republicans in particular for suppressing minority votes and advocating racist government policies.

Then you show up and claim that it's democrats who are racist?  C'mon man, that stretches credulity in ways that are almost comical.  Just look at the 2018 reps from each party, and tell me which one of them appears to be excluding people of a specific skin color.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 07:40:40 PM by sol »

Zamboni

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6591 on: March 25, 2019, 07:53:41 PM »
Institutionalized white supremacy exists in the United States. You do not know more about this than I do, and I won't debate this topic with trolls and rubes. End of story.

Back to the Trump Presidency:
How long will Barr and McConnell be able to hide the actual report, do you think? This whole affair sure has the stench of a cover up. Is our system of checks and balances really so inept and anemic now that this cover up won't be exposed?

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6592 on: March 25, 2019, 07:55:46 PM »
Sol, both parties are racists, just different targets. The incredibly racist CRT is the foundation of "diversity, inclusion, and equity" push from D. You can disagree and go back to your original discussion. I am just going to say this one last time.

It is not an issue about how minorities can be racist, the issue is you have a whole field of studies that are openly racist towards certain ethnicity (predominately white for now), and has no way to either verify or falsify its "ideas" which are presented as facts. Just like how philosophy/biology was racist towards blacks in the 1600-1800s to enable all the racist policies.

Combine that with some sort of rationalization that all these racist ideas are justified ant not racist at all because of "power", which is arbitrarily assigned, you will end up with some variations of the "final solution". 

You understand under this ideology, you can have rich/successful/in power minorities saying they are oppressed by some poor lower class whites living 1000 mile away and its practitioners would agree with the accuser right? You want to talk about systemic racism? This. Is. It.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 07:57:39 PM by anisotropy »

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Age: 36
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6593 on: March 25, 2019, 08:08:15 PM »
Institutionalized white supremacy exists in the United States. You do not know more about this than I do, and I won't debate this topic with trolls and rubes. End of story.

I am not trying to troll you as I subscribed to this theory too (and consider myself quite liberal, at least socially). But how do you explain that Asian Americans earn more than Whites on average? (source is US census: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2018/demo/p60-263/figure1.pdf

Is it because Asians are so superior that they have overcome this institutionalized white supremacy?

I couldn't reconcile those positions, so, while I still believe and acknowledge there is a lot of racism in the US, I don't think it rises to such an institutional level that it oppresses minorities to any great degree, at least economically, as evidenced above.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1559
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6594 on: March 25, 2019, 08:11:02 PM »
This is just a friendly reminder that it took several pages of discussion and many explanations from different angles of the same mathematical concept to convince anisotropy that he was wrong about a relatively simple question of statistics. He was adamant that all the simple minded people arguing with him just couldn't grasp the concept so he wrote up essay length posts explaining it to us, with the occasional pretentious put down like "Did you not take any statistics in college?" or "I can see many still do not grasp..."

In the end he realized his error and apologized, which was pretty cool. I respect that.

But that was a math question. Something you can nail down with actual numbers and literally prove one way or the other. I suspect there's little chance that any logic could penetrate the air of superiority surrounding anisotropy on this one.

In case anyone here didn't have the pleasure of being a part of that thread:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/statistics-update/
Or this one where the debate began:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2155922/#msg2155922

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6595 on: March 25, 2019, 08:15:15 PM »
Institutionalized white supremacy exists in the United States. You do not know more about this than I do, and I won't debate this topic with trolls and rubes. End of story.

I am not trying to troll you as I subscribed to this theory too (and consider myself quite liberal, at least socially). But how do you explain that Asian Americans earn more than Whites on average? (source is US census: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2018/demo/p60-263/figure1.pdf

Is it because Asians are so superior that they have overcome this institutionalized white supremacy?

I couldn't reconcile those positions, so, while I still believe and acknowledge there is a lot of racism in the US, I don't think it rises to such an institutional level that it oppresses minorities to any great degree, at least economically, as evidenced above.

I think I am liberal too. They have no answer to the Asian Question, while most people consider them the model immigrant. within CRT Asians are incredibly problematic, the explanation is that the Asians have internalized whiteness to such a high level that they are the ENABLERS of structural white supremacy. Nuts right?

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6596 on: March 25, 2019, 08:16:37 PM »
This is just a friendly reminder that it took several pages of discussion and many explanations from different angles of the same mathematical concept to convince anisotropy that he was wrong about a relatively simple question of statistics. He was adamant that all the simple minded people arguing with him just couldn't grasp the concept so he wrote up essay length posts explaining it to us, with the occasional pretentious put down like "Did you not take any statistics in college?" or "I can see many still do not grasp..."

In the end he realized his error and apologized, which was pretty cool. I respect that.

But that was a math question. Something you can nail down with actual numbers and literally prove one way or the other. I suspect there's little chance that any logic could penetrate the air of superiority surrounding anisotropy on this one.

In case anyone here didn't have the pleasure of being a part of that thread:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/statistics-update/
Or this one where the debate began:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2155922/#msg2155922

I did say ignore the posts when I was wrong, didn't I?

Quote
You should read some of my other posts, just skip the ones that weren't so great and the ones I was wrong. ;) /s

At least I admit when I am wrong here, how many people can say that? In any case, this essentially is a moral problem. Is racism against whites justified?

But ya, you are talking to some person that hoaxed a journal to publish garbage, with more papers coming hopefully in the summer. Of course the ego is massive right now. ;)

You can go back to your discussion, just something to think about regarding the diversity/inclusion/equity push.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 08:23:26 PM by anisotropy »

Zamboni

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6597 on: March 25, 2019, 08:27:40 PM »
Institutionalized white supremacy exists in the United States. You do not know more about this than I do, and I won't debate this topic with trolls and rubes. End of story.

I am not trying to troll you as I subscribed to this theory too (and consider myself quite liberal, at least socially). But how do you explain that Asian Americans earn more than Whites on average? (source is US census: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2018/demo/p60-263/figure1.pdf

Is it because Asians are so superior that they have overcome this institutionalized white supremacy?

I couldn't reconcile those positions, so, while I still believe and acknowledge there is a lot of racism in the US, I don't think it rises to such an institutional level that it oppresses minorities to any great degree, at least economically, as evidenced above.

If the average American is shown a photo of an inclusive group of middle aged people seated around a round meeting table, what percentage of people will guess that the person who appears to be of Asian descent is the boss? What do you know about the history of redlining neighborhoods? Please continue to read more and think more about this. There are also many very illuminating youtube videos. I don't think this is the right thread to expand this discussion.

Meanwhile, what do you think about what is happening with McConnell, Barr, and the Mueller report?
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 08:35:15 PM by Zamboni »

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 27542
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6598 on: March 25, 2019, 08:32:49 PM »
At what point do we allow people who refuse to listen to logic keep trolling under the idea of allowing diverse viewpoints, and how much do we let them ruin forum threads?

Asking for a friend.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out our Now page to see what we're up to currently.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6599 on: March 25, 2019, 08:37:05 PM »
At what point do we allow people who refuse to listen to logic keep trolling under the idea of allowing diverse viewpoints, and how much do we let them ruin forum threads?

Asking for a friend.

Until the logic is clearly laid out how something as racist as CRT is legit and accepted by the public without the pretty words it hides behind. And an explanation is given how it is ok to pick on a group of people based on their skin color.

But that's just what I think, you are the boss.