How many votes has Trump lost the last two weeks?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

It's an example that icenine requested in another thread.

Give me two words that better describe what's going on in our country.

Thank-you for your reply. I do wish it explained more, though. You say nothing about why you think the label applies.

I cannot answer your question because I'm pretty fuzzy on what you mean by 'American fascism.' If I understood it, i might see why you applied the label here, but alas, I don't. Can you please be of more assistance?

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Is everything absolutes with you?

Either follow the law, change the law or repeal the law. When you have "selective enforcement" or whatever the hell you call what we're doing right now, you get a mess.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Here is a link to an excellent thread that reasonably discusses the big problem with Trump, without name-calling and invective. there are links to long-form analysis. This dates back to last August. The reasons to fear and loath Trump have been understood for a while.

http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=9487

I remember that thread. The article, and the posts that it spawned, where the most outrageous example of pseudo-scientific, vitriolic, painting with a broad bruish and calling it research I've seen in a while. Without name-calling you say? You must have missed this - taken from the article:

They tend to be very religious, with moderate to little education, trusting of untrustworthy authorities, prejudiced (e.g., with respect to gay marriage); they are typically mean-spirited, narrow-minded, intolerant, bullying, zealous, dogmatic, uncritical of their chosen authority, hypocritical, inconsistent, prone to panic easily, highly self-righteous, moralistic, strict disciplinarian, severely punitive; they also demand loyalty and return it, have little self-awareness, and are typically politically and economically conservative Republicans.

I just laughed when I read that. Some of the "non-authoritarian" types met are some of the most "mean-spirited, narrow-minded, intolerant, bullying, zealous, dogmatic, uncritical of their chosen authority, hypocritical, inconsistent" people I've ever met. The selected passage is also a great example the prejudice on the left.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by nailer

Fear and Loathing on PC

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318725/

Check this movie out if you have not already. Entertainingly exemplifies the quoted comment. Movie is an outrageous comedy.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I never have said 'racism racism racism.' That may be all you hear, but it's not all I say. You are FOS for saying it is.

Moving on, lawyers profile like nuts in jury selection because they can (within limits that keep getting tighter). lawyers are in a fight and they go for any advantage they are allowed. The fact that they do this does not prove they are right to include or exclude any particular juror, they just are playing the odds.

It is more than 'playing the odds' to flat out accuse a sitting federal judge of bias and unfairness. That is neither legitimate nor a question, it's an illegitimate accusation. You need evidence to make that legitimate, and the judge's name is not evidence. If there was actual evidence in the judge's casework of anything, it would have been found and broadcast about like crazy by now. There is nothing, Trump is race baiting, and you are defending it.

Very good post Don Q, you may have a bright future here on PC.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

I remember that thread. The article, and the posts that it spawned, where the most outrageous example of pseudo-scientific, vitriolic, painting with a broad bruish and calling it research I've seen in a while. Without name-calling you say? You must have missed this - taken from the article:

They tend to be very religious, with moderate to little education, trusting of untrustworthy authorities, prejudiced (e.g., with respect to gay marriage); they are typically mean-spirited, narrow-minded, intolerant, bullying, zealous, dogmatic, uncritical of their chosen authority, hypocritical, inconsistent, prone to panic easily, highly self-righteous, moralistic, strict disciplinarian, severely punitive; they also demand loyalty and return it, have little self-awareness, and are typically politically and economically conservative Republicans.


I just laughed when I read that. Some of the "non-authoritarian" types met are some of the most "mean-spirited, narrow-minded, intolerant, bullying, zealous, dogmatic, uncritical of their chosen authority, hypocritical, inconsistent" people I've ever met. The selected passage is also a great example the prejudice on the left.

It's not name-calling, it'd just a true summary. It's not like there's no evidence for all that.

Psuedo-scientific? Did you also read the book I linked-to? It was scientific, no pseudo.

Not that you will ever ever admit that I am making or have ever made one little true point.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

Maybe, but the accusations of racism are. Nor do his opponents limit their accusations to Trump. Nor is there anything new about accusing someone of racism just because you happen to disagree with them or oppose them politically.

There is also a political element at work in automatic reactions to accusations of racism (or any sort of bigotry) as erroneous. It desensitizes society at large and instills a reluctance on the part of those prone to being subjected to bigotry to cry out.

I see sinister purpose behind that as well.

In fact, the Klan has picked up on this trick in their attempts to pass themselves off as no longer being racist. They say they simply wish to support white people and display their "white pride". So, obviously the true racist is the one who opposes them...... Right?

Not buying that BS either.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Not that you will ever ever admit that I am making or have ever made one little true point.

..."little" is an overstatement.

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

In fact, the Klan has picked up on this trick in their attempts to pass themselves off as no longer being racist. They say they simply wish to support white people and display their "white pride". So, obviously the true racist is the one who opposes them...... Right?

Not buying that BS either.

Do you "buy it" when other racial groups claim the same agenda?

[catswiththum]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Well, I call it slight, because it was, on a scale that includes brutality up to and including torture and murder. But i dare say that if I was on the receiving end of being refused service at a diner, or being called 'Aunt Jemima' in front of the whole crew of restaurant workers, what I saw might not feel completely slight.

What does our non-representativness mean for the ongoing conversation? Are you offering a reason we should not talk about this stuff?

That's what the board is for - to talk about whatever you want.

My comment/opinion on this particular thread/conversation was that a bunch of white middle class males - the majority having never experienced racial discrimination - calling people on an internet forum they have never met/seen/know racists seems pretty pointless.