TrueMetis Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 35 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: Because there's a pretty scary logic going around that it's ok to punch a nazi. In this context nazi means Trump supporter, so not voting for HRC is morally equivalent to voting Trump, obviously more people that need to be punched. No in this case it means an actual 100% salute-throwing ethnic-cleansing-advocating Nazi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 hour ago, mormont said: Even the idea that Clinton lost because she was trying to run up the popular vote, which you refer to, is explicitly based on the idea that she assumed she already had the EC win in the bag. In this scenario the EC win was her first priority - her flaw was in assuming that it had been achieved, not that she wasn't aiming to win it at all. Great. So we agree. Candidates run their campaigns with the intent of winning the election, which is determined by the EC. Glad we straightened that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 10 minutes ago, TrueMetis said: No in this case it means an actual 100% salute-throwing ethnic-cleansing-advocating Nazi. I appreciate your acknowledgement that neither Trump nor his supporters are nazis, I wish everyone realized this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: Who is Hilary? That said, yes she should have been, but I place more blame on her campaign's decisions down the stretch than her actual candidacy. They should've known it was going to be an uphill battle. There were plenty of signs of it over the past decade or more. Quote ???? This campaign literally showed us that disliking the other guy is enough to drag someone to victory. A large proportion of Trump voters hated the man, but they hated Clinton more. And this phenomenon isn't unique to this election cycle, it happens all the time. For example, a meta-analysis of the 1980 election found that over 40% of the people who voted for Reagan did so because they opposed a second Carter term, compared to 1984, when the same polling outfit found that only 20% of people who voted for Reagan did so because they opposed Mondale. And on that note... like i said, it's possible, but i wouldn't bet the homestead on it if I were the DNC, for reasons that should be obvious. it it possible? Sure. but if the dems want to stop getting their asses handed to them at virtually every level of government, they might want to reconsider that as a strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 38 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: I'll do that as soon as Trump suggests burning a few million Jewish people alive. And you picked up the idiot argument. It's the same moronic talking point that Canadian troll made. Fascism and Nazism is not the exact same thing. So those words are not synonyms, despite often being used as such. You can somewhat make a point that Nazism is a specific form of a fascism (though the term fascism was originally applied to Mussolini in Italy). Canaries are a form of pets. But nobody in their right mind would come to the conclusion, that cats are no pets because they can't fly. But that's the logic behind your argument. I am a huge fan of words have meaning. A damn it, I think I might actually be running out of those youtube links at this rate. Namibia first in Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Commodore said: who says they are? It can't be a binary proposition with someone like Trump (i.e. impeach or blindly defend) Where are all these conservatives against Trump? Where are the rallies and protests the base is holding demanding their candidate clean up his act? Where are the Republican Senators and Legislators condemning Trump's behavior and checking his grossly unconstitutional acts? The answer is that these people mostly don't exist because conservatives don't care about anything at all. You stand for nothing, not even for your own children. You will continue to vote for the worst scum among us because that's all you care about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 5 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: I appreciate your acknowledgement that neither Trump nor his supporters are nazis, I wish everyone realized this. I acknowledge most Trump supporters aren't Nazis. Some of them are. As for Trump, while I doubt he would have been a card carrying member I have no doubt he would have had very little issue working with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvinus85 Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 OK, as an immigrant on an H1-B visa I seldom express my political views at work, where I am surrounded by conservatives and ultra-conservatives. I get along fine with my co-workers, but I often tire of hearing their contempt and sometimes outright hatred of stuff that doesn't match their views. But today I couldn't take it anymore and had to say something. They were happily discussing DeVos's confirmation, and laughing about how the only argument the Dems had was that she is doesn't have the qualifications. They were declaring that it's okay for her not to be qualified, because maybe she will approach things differently, because we need a different perspective. To which I asked them if they would have been fine with a pick for Secretary of Defense that has no military experience. There was a moment of silence, though one co-worker did defend that by saying that as long as such a person would surround him/herself with capable generals and colonels, then things would be okay. I didn't press the issue further but could only shake my head at this kind of attitude. First, my co-workers have repeatedly made this argument about Trump during the campaign. It doesn't matter that he is not qualified for the presidency, as long as he surrounds himself with the right advisers. Well we've seen with what kind of advisers Trump surrounded himself. Second, my own department has been run for the past two years by a manager who doesn't really know and understand what we're doing, and those same co-workers have been bitching incessantly about him. They just don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 11 minutes ago, TrueMetis said: I acknowledge most Trump supporters aren't Nazis. Some of them are. As for Trump, while I doubt he would have been a card carrying member I have no doubt he would have had very little issue working with them. I know of some Hillary supporters that are definitely racist. Idk what exactly you mean by "nazi". In a literal way or some other hyperbolic way? Hell I even know racist Obama voters, cuz ya know he's not like those other ones and he's kinda white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Mexal said: Have you seen anyone come out and talk about it? I saw the Clinton Cash guy make a comment but that's about it. Barbara Bush, Mccain, Powell, Bloomberg... Just off the top of my head....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 5 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Barbara Bush, Mccain, Powell, Bloomberg... Just off the top of my head....... Didn't see McCain say anything about Nordstrom/Conway. Glad he's saying something though he has done nothing but support everything Trump has done in Congress. Powell/Bloomberg were against Trump from the beginning so not much of a surprise there. Didn't know Barbara Bush said anything. I'm more interested in Republicans in Congress who can actually do something about it or Republicans who end up on Fox News talking about stuff. These are the people who either have influence over the public or influence over resolving the issue. I mean, she violated federal law. It should be investigated by the Ethics Oversight committee and Justice Department though it likely won't. Either way, thanks for listing some conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Good times... http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/08/sen-tim-scott-reads-his-hate-mail-on-the-senate-floor-i-left-out-all-the-ones-that-used-the-n-word-video/ Quote “If you sign up to be a black conservative, the chances are very high you will be attacked,” the South Carolina Republican stated. “It comes with the territory, and I’ve had it for 20 years, two decades, but my friends and my staff, they’re not used to the level of animus that comes in from the liberal left that suggests that I somehow are not helpful to the cause of liberal America and therefore I am not helpful to black America.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 hour ago, DunderMifflin said: Totally, watching the DNC's behavior during the election was like taking a class in how to be ethical. See, this is both misunderstanding and actually confirming my point. When I say 'ethics are for Democrats', what I mean is that ethical considerations are only used as a weapon against Democrats. Case in point. 56 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: I'll do that as soon as Trump suggests burning a few million Jewish people alive. So you think that anyone who does anything short of directing an actual genocide cannot fairly be called a Nazi? 25 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Great. So we agree. Candidates run their campaigns with the intent of winning the election, which is determined by the EC. Glad we straightened that out. If we agree that Clinton and Trump had the same aims in the campaign, then yes, we agree. Your original point seemed to question that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Good times... http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/08/sen-tim-scott-reads-his-hate-mail-on-the-senate-floor-i-left-out-all-the-ones-that-used-the-n-word-video/ This is shitty. Happening on both sides. I hate the vitriol people are spouting. Be upset with policies and actions but threatening or calling people racists names is unacceptable. The country is devolving badly and there is no attempts by either side at this point to bridge the gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DunderMifflin Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 1 minute ago, mormont said: So you think that anyone who does anything short of directing an actual genocide cannot fairly be called a Nazi? Yes, the Nazi party of Germany isn't the go to evil reference for any other reason than actual genocide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 11 minutes ago, Corvinus said: OK, as an immigrant on an H1-B visa I seldom express my political views at work, where I am surrounded by conservatives and ultra-conservatives. I get along fine with my co-workers, but I often tire of hearing their contempt and sometimes outright hatred of stuff that doesn't match their views. But today I couldn't take it anymore and had to say something. They were happily discussing DeVos's confirmation, and laughing about how the only argument the Dems had was that she is doesn't have the qualifications. They were declaring that it's okay for her not to be qualified, because maybe she will approach things differently, because we need a different perspective. To which I asked them if they would have been fine with a pick for Secretary of Defense that has no military experience. There was a moment of silence, though one co-worker did defend that by saying that as long as such a person would surround him/herself with capable generals and colonels, then things would be okay. I didn't press the issue further but could only shake my head at this kind of attitude. First, my co-workers have repeatedly made this argument about Trump during the campaign. It doesn't matter that he is not qualified for the presidency, as long as he surrounds himself with the right advisers. Well we've seen with what kind of advisers Trump surrounded himself. Second, my own department has been run for the past two years by a manager who doesn't really know and understand what we're doing, and those same co-workers have been bitching incessantly about him. They just don't see it. This is exactly like my relatives. They are forever miserable and made more miserable by the guys in charge who are not qualified to be in charge. They are forever being ordered to do more with less, skip safety factors and so on and so forth. Yet they blithely blither that gummit needs to be run like a business. A couple of years ago after the latest e-mail from my bro outlining all the idiocies his corporation was attempting to foist upon him, his department, and the customers, as well as the cheating and corruption and nepotism I asked him why he thought government would be better if run like his corporation. He's never said those words to me again, though he probably repeats them to others. They really don't see any connection at all between the bs they say and what's going on. As if anyone wants to be operated on by someone who hasn't gone to medical school but will be looking at a video screen of 'experts' to tell him what do, particularly when he thinks he knows better than all 'experts' and that is who little hands and his cohorts are. As well as cheats and haters of everyone who isn't like them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 10 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said: I know of some Hillary supporters that are definitely racist. Idk what exactly you mean by "nazi". In a literal way or some other hyperbolic way? Hell I even know racist Obama voters, cuz ya know he's not like those other ones and he's kinda white. I mean it exactly in the way I posted. Have you not seen the video of the people doing the Nazi salute while punchface says "hail trump"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 15 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Barbara Bush, Mccain, Powell, Bloomberg... Just off the top of my head....... And now they're doing the right thing. This is significant and interesting though I still think they're missing the whole Donald Trump disparaging Nordstrom for dropping the brand or the larger conflicts of interest situation with foreign governments paying Donald Trump organizations large amounts of money. Still, if the WH ends up sacrificing an aid, love that Conway is first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 17 minutes ago, TrueMetis said: I mean it exactly in the way I posted. Have you not seen the video of the people doing the Nazi salute while punchface says "hail trump"? Well, it turns out that's not a Nazi thing. No genocide, no Nazi. Which makes you the bad guy here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 26 minutes ago, mormont said: See, this is both misunderstanding and actually confirming my point. When I say 'ethics are for Democrats', what I mean is that ethical considerations are only used as a weapon against Democrats. Case in point. So you think that anyone who does anything short of directing an actual genocide cannot fairly be called a Nazi? If we agree that Clinton and Trump had the same aims in the campaign, then yes, we agree. Your original point seemed to question that. I'm not sure where you got that from. The post of mine that you took umbrage to was refuting the notion that the electoral college was a technicality. here it is if you'd like to refresh your memory: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.