Why the whistle? The fact that this clown is in the race, let alone LEADING, is an embarrassment to this country.
Because everyone here is attacking his ideology as unelectable while ignoring the fact his supporters don't really care about that. These are people who are intentionally straying away from their ideology because they think that attitude is more important right now.
I don't think it is an embarrassment. I am glad that the electorate is somewhat unpredictable and that before rebelling with riots and looting they resort to voicing their displeasure with a vote they know is distasteful to the establishment.
The arrogance of the establishment is being challenged and is getting its ass handed to it.
I dislike Trump but I admire the effect he is having on the status quo.
So Trump definitely knows who Ramos is - this is an older story now but Trump has a history of disrespecting Ramos. For Pete's sake Ramos gave him a note asking for an interview with his phone number and Trump put it on Instagram. I has a feeling there was some context to this whole event.
Rip wrote:I don't think it is an embarrassment. I am glad that the electorate is somewhat unpredictable and that before rebelling with riots and looting they resort to voicing their displeasure with a vote they know is distasteful to the establishment.
This is a very, very generous read.
I dislike Trump but I admire the effect he is having on the status quo.
Wait...he has had no practical effect on the status quo. He is nothing but a distraction TO MAINTAIN the status quo.
Why the whistle? The fact that this clown is in the race, let alone LEADING, is an embarrassment to this country.
I don't think it is an embarrassment. I am glad that the electorate is somewhat unpredictable and that before rebelling with riots and looting they resort to voicing their displeasure with a vote they know is distasteful to the establishment.
You got that right. Imagine the riots and looting that will happen when Trump becomes President and they discover that he can't deliver on any of his promises.
raydude wrote:You got that right. Imagine the riots and looting that will happen when Trump becomes President and they discover that he can't deliver on any of his promises.
Nobody ever delivers on their promises. Trump is better equipped than most to make his supporters forget about it or at least not care. Some of his promises are literally impossible without massive social and economic upheaval, which ain't happening.
Carpet_pissr wrote:So it's a spite vote. Keep it classy....America!
I'd be ok with that if pollsters were finding people saying that. They aren't. Ask hepcat how the woman in his office responded to the idea that Trump wasn't a serious candidate.
Rip wrote:These are people who are intentionally straying away from their ideology because they think that attitude is more important right now.
I'll admit that I think the whole idea of voting based solely on ideology is flawed. But voting based solely on attitude is even worse.
It's like selecting your which album to buy based on an ad poster because you think selecting based on album art is shallow. Or opting not to judge a book by its cover and instead judging by the reviewer's one-liner on the back.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
Trump is out-demagoguing the Republican Party, and reaping the consequences of years of pandering and fear.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
Rip wrote:These are people who are intentionally straying away from their ideology because they think that attitude is more important right now.
I'll admit that I think the whole idea of voting based solely on ideology is flawed. But voting based solely on attitude is even worse.
It's like selecting your which album to buy based on an ad poster because you think selecting based on album art is shallow. Or opting not to judge a book by its cover and instead judging by the reviewer's one-liner on the back.
Oh it is bad but not in a vacuum. It is bad because it represents how many people are disenfranchised and feel they aren't being represented with their vote. It is the political equivalent of a riot.
Rip wrote:These are people who are intentionally straying away from their ideology because they think that attitude is more important right now.
I'll admit that I think the whole idea of voting based solely on ideology is flawed. But voting based solely on attitude is even worse.
It's like selecting your which album to buy based on an ad poster because you think selecting based on album art is shallow. Or opting not to judge a book by its cover and instead judging by the reviewer's one-liner on the back.
Oh it is bad but not in a vacuum. It is bad because it represents how many people are disenfranchised and feel they aren't being represented with their vote. It is the political equivalent of a riot.
No it's not. It's the political equivalent of packing up your riot essentials and going home to watch vapid television shows.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
Rip wrote:These are people who are intentionally straying away from their ideology because they think that attitude is more important right now.
I'll admit that I think the whole idea of voting based solely on ideology is flawed. But voting based solely on attitude is even worse.
It's like selecting your which album to buy based on an ad poster because you think selecting based on album art is shallow. Or opting not to judge a book by its cover and instead judging by the reviewer's one-liner on the back.
Oh it is bad but not in a vacuum. It is bad because it represents how many people are disenfranchised and feel they aren't being represented with their vote. It is the political equivalent of a riot.
No it's not. It's the political equivalent of packing up your riot essentials and going home to watch vapid television shows.
We will have to see if you feel the same after he wins. At this point there is pretty much no one in his way.
I'd also like to note that there has been much discussion about Trump agreeing to support whomever the winner of the Republican primary is. I am equally interested in whether if he wins ALL the other candidates will do likewise and support him? My gut feeling is they will try to avoid doing so, even if he wins. They would IMHO prefer a far left Democrat to Trump.
Rip wrote:
We will have to see if you feel the same after he wins. At this point there is pretty much no one in his way.
He's in his way. That'll stop him.
Rip wrote:
I'd also like to note that there has been much discussion about Trump agreeing to support whomever the winner of the Republican primary is. I am equally interested in whether if he wins ALL the other candidates will do likewise and support him? My gut feeling is they will try to avoid doing so, even if he wins. They would IMHO prefer a far left Democrat to Trump.
Hypocrisy, it isn't just for breakfast.
They'd prefer a far left Democrat to msduncan or me or you. They'd prefer Trump to any of us, too. So Trump is a little bit outside their tight circle. He's still one of them.
The idea that Trump is some kind of system buster and revolutionary is laughable. The only thing he's changing is campaigning and polling. He's Ron Paul or Ross Perot.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
Rip wrote:
We will have to see if you feel the same after he wins. At this point there is pretty much no one in his way.
He's in his way. That'll stop him.
Rip wrote:
I'd also like to note that there has been much discussion about Trump agreeing to support whomever the winner of the Republican primary is. I am equally interested in whether if he wins ALL the other candidates will do likewise and support him? My gut feeling is they will try to avoid doing so, even if he wins. They would IMHO prefer a far left Democrat to Trump.
Hypocrisy, it isn't just for breakfast.
They'd prefer a far left Democrat to msduncan or me or you. They'd prefer Trump to any of us, too. So Trump is a little bit outside their tight circle. He's still one of them.
The idea that Trump is some kind of system buster and revolutionary is laughable. The only thing he's changing is campaigning and polling. He's Ron Paul or Ross Perot.
Both of which didn't miss the mark by much. Underestimate him at your own peril.
Rip wrote:
Both of which didn't miss the mark by much. Underestimate him at your own peril.
Think he's the answer at your own peril. Why is it going to be any different this time? Trump is the easy way to get the disenfranchised to feel like they're doing something. Then *yoink* he's gone and they have to settle for the same old.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
Trump didn't just appear in the american conscious. Even if I didn't find his ideas inane at best, racist and/or harmful at worst, his record is wide open and easily reviewed. Dude has more splotches than Monica's dress.
It's like his supporters are trying to vote for a (slightly more respectable) mafia boss. Not because he's trying to run a criminal organization, but because he behaves like one.
He's not new or fresh, everyone has at least one uncle exactly like him. Normally people would be making excuses for being seen with this misogynistic, racist cad. Instead they think he's the bee's knees?
5 seconds on the internet and you realize he would make a terrible president of a condo board, let alone president of the US. If Obama learned that diplomacy is required to work with 2 parties, what is Trump going to do? He can't nod at a security guard and get the speaker of the house removed. He's going to need all those people he has been busy shitting on to accomplish *anything*.
That alone should show that this is not a serious attempt at becoming president of the US.
Rip wrote:Because everyone here is attacking his ideology as unelectable while ignoring the fact his supporters don't really care about that.
HE is unelectable, not his ideology. His ideology is stupid and superficial - but the problem is the fact that he is a crass individual who is a horse's ass of astronomical proportions. That anyone in this county thinks that this bullshit is "more important right now" is what makes this a national embarrassment.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
LordMortis wrote:Didn't you give this same spiel for Rand Paul a few months ago?
Yep and then Trump started putting on the show he should have. I'd still MUCH prefer Rand but if he don't hunt I will take the guy who will that isn't Bush or Christie.
Trump is out-demagoguing the Republican Party, and reaping the consequences of years of pandering and fear.
ACK!!!!!! Zarathud and I agree on something politically. I think I'm going to be ill.
Citizen, i see you have consumed your happiness pills. Thank you for your compliance.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
Rip wrote:
Yep and then Trump started putting on the show he should have. I'd still MUCH prefer Rand but if he don't hunt I will take the guy who will that isn't Bush or Christie.
So you'll be voting for Bernie, then?
I spent 90% of the money I made on women, booze, and drugs. The other 10% I just pissed away.
Rip wrote:
Yep and then Trump started putting on the show he should have. I'd still MUCH prefer Rand but if he don't hunt I will take the guy who will that isn't Bush or Christie.
So you'll be voting for Bernie, then?
I'm talking about the Republican primary. Is he going to run in that?
Rip wrote:
We will have to see if you feel the same after he wins. At this point there is pretty much no one in his way.
He's in his way. That'll stop him.
Have the Koch Bros. made their choice yet, or are they spreading their love around?
The Kochs are starting to get smart about their money and have realized buying local politics is quite an efficient operation. Here locally they are spending away on what amounts to a flippin' smallish school district board race after successfully inserting partisan politics for the first time in the district's history on the last election when they helped get these crazies elected. And now they are trying to defend their bought majority. But, hey they give money to Nova, so we're cool right?
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
Whomever the Kochs choose is the most likely nominee (it's a two-way street; they won't want to back a losing horse and the horse they finally do back gets wings). Trump will run as a spoiler just to stick it to the Republican establishment that's rallying against him now. The main question is how and when Trump gets banished and goes maverick. I'll bet it happens before any votes are cast.
It occurs to me to wonder if Trump might irreparably split the party.
GreenGoo wrote:
For a guy that wants to make America great again (did it stop being great when I wasn't looking?) his very presence is having the opposite effect, imo.
Depends how you define "great." If you mean whiter and straighter, he's on the right path.
I'm not sure if the white and straight people are aware, but America is just about as white and straight as it gets.
Not as much as it's been in the past. That's where the "again" part comes in.
And I take it you haven't been to Scandinavia. Or Ireland.
The population of all the nordic countries combined is less than Canada, which is only 10% of the US. So are we talking countries or country clubs? There are more white people in New York than in those countries.
So yes, America is about as white and straight as it gets. If you want to talk percentages, then yeah, it's not pure white, but it might as well be. White outnumbers the next race by 4 to 1. As an ethnicity White outnumbers the next by even more. It's about 2/3rds white, or so. That's a lot of white people in one country.
Good luck making it more white. or less non-white, whichever.
So what you're saying is that it's far more diverse than any of the areas I mentioned, and that American latinos and blacks outnumber Canadians by over 2:1. And another 15 million Asians.
Got it.
Totally white.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
Dude, my house is more white than the US. That doesn't make the US not predominantly white. Is it that you think the US is not primarily white, or is it that you think calling it primarily white is an insult? If the former, well, the white population outnumbers everyone else (like, everyone else together) by about 2 to 1. So that's hard to argue against. If you think calling America predominantly white is an insult, I have no idea why you would think that. As you pointed out, Canada is predominantly white. I don't feel bad just by saying so.
I agree with your comments about the homosexual population, although it wouldn't surprise me to find out that certain races (ethnicities, whatever) have different percentages, especially if it turns out to be genetic rather than some sort of development within the womb.
Why are we arguing about how white the US is? It's white. Hell, some percentage of Hispanics are Caucasian, which just bumps the whiteness that much more.
Last edited by GreenGoo on Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kraken wrote:It occurs to me to wonder if Trump might irreparably split the party.
One can hope and I've been hoping for close to 12 years now. It seems like that split is getting closer and closer. The only problem is that I don't like Tea Party Republicans or Establishment Republicans. So I need a total implosion not just a irreparable fracture. I want to lean right again but I want to do it with anti establishment republicans who aren't nut cases who believe in Christian uber alles, with no accountability toward local, state, or federal infrastructure. (And I also believe federally subsidized single payer insurance is something that's time has come, even if that's not exactly republican friendly in any form)
GreenGoo wrote:Dude, my house is more white than the US. That doesn't make the US not predominantly white.
The US is at a majority/minority tipping point. Although not outnumbered by any particular ethnicity, us honkies are on the verge of constituting <50% of the population. We're the biggest and richest minority...but still.
Kraken wrote:It occurs to me to wonder if Trump might irreparably split the party.
One can hope and I've been hoping for close to 12 years now. It seems like that split is getting closer and closer. The only problem is that I don't like Tea Party Republicans or Establishment Republicans. So I need a total implosion not just a irreparable fracture. I want to lean right again but I want to do it with anti establishment republicans who aren't nut cases who believe in Christian uber alles, with no accountability toward local, state, or federal infrastructure. (And I also believe federally subsidized single payer insurance is something that's time has come, even if that's not exactly republican friendly in any form)
If the GOP falls apart, it won't be for the purpose of forming a responsible, reasonable, wiser successor.
GreenGoo wrote:Dude, my house is more white than the US. That doesn't make the US not predominantly white. Is it that you think the US is not primarily white, or is it that you think calling it primarily white is an insult? If the former, well, the white population outnumbers everyone else (like, everyone else together) by about 2 to 1. So that's hard to argue against. If you think calling America predominantly white is an insult, I have no idea why you would think that. As you pointed out, Canada is predominantly white. I don't feel bad just by saying so.
I agree with your comments about the homosexual population, although it wouldn't surprise me to find out that certain races (ethnicities, whatever) have different percentages, especially if it turns out to be genetic rather than some sort of development within the womb.
Why are we arguing about how white the US is? It's white. Hell, some percentage of Hispanics are Caucasian, which just bumps the whiteness that much more.
GreenGoo wrote:
For a guy that wants to make America great again (did it stop being great when I wasn't looking?) his very presence is having the opposite effect, imo.
Depends how you define "great." If you mean whiter and straighter, he's on the right path.
I'm not sure if the white and straight people are aware, but America is just about as white and straight as it gets.
Not as much as it's been in the past. That's where the "again" part comes in.
And I take it you haven't been to Scandinavia. Or Ireland.
The population of all the nordic countries combined is less than Canada, which is only 10% of the US. So are we talking countries or country clubs? There are more white people in New York than in those countries.
So yes, America is about as white and straight as it gets. If you want to talk percentages, then yeah, it's not pure white, but it might as well be. White outnumbers the next race by 4 to 1. As an ethnicity White outnumbers the next by even more. It's about 2/3rds white, or so. That's a lot of white people in one country.
Good luck making it more white. or less non-white, whichever.
Ok...
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
GreenGoo wrote:Dude, my house is more white than the US. That doesn't make the US not predominantly white.
The US is at a majority/minority tipping point. Although not outnumbered by any particular ethnicity, us honkies are on the verge of constituting <50% of the population. We're the biggest and richest minority...but still.
GreenGoo wrote:Dude, my house is more white than the US. That doesn't make the US not predominantly white.
The US is at a majority/minority tipping point. Although not outnumbered by any particular ethnicity, us honkies are on the verge of constituting <50% of the population. We're the biggest and richest minority...but still.
a) You're a majority. Not just between races/ethnicities, but for the population as a whole. i.e. you outnumber all other races/ethnicities put together.
b) Call me in two or three generations.
One should note that those figures include many who the classification defies the assumed identity. A Palestinian or Egyptian American would be classified as white for instance. You can be white in the census and still be a minority.
