Easy to say try proving it at all
Eta: okay you ninja’d me that was for the Post before that one
Again, I’m not a fan of reasoning that leads to “your mouth says ‘no,’ but I know the answer is really ‘you do want me’.” All I can say is, here I am, expressly offering up a flat “no” – and here I am, in a country that explicitly labels what they’re doing as, well, “illegal”. Is there anything we can do to more clearly explain that, “hey, look, all apologies for any misunderstanding, but, ah, that’s a ‘no’, see?”
Going back to the OP:
On the bright side it’s a fascinating phenomenon that I’m sure we’re be talking about for years after Don finishes his presidency.
It’s not just the incompetence; every leader is incompetent to one level or another (and the opposing party is always inclined to think to a high level). What’s different this time is the daily lies and the lack of integrity. The whole office of president has been trashed.
What’s going through Trump supporters’ minds is difficult to say, but one observation is that they are seeing the situation as some kind of sport or reality TV show. For them, listening to Trump is like listening to a WWE wrestler trying to psyche out his opponent pre-fight: his supporters don’t care about the shit that doesn’t make sense or seems to show a contempt for basic values (and his supporters); they are just waiting for the next zinger to take down his opponents.
Trump doesn’t really have any consistent principles, but he does often espouse hate, and that seems to be a popular feeling right now in American culture.
Like I say, fascinating. I just wish I was looking at this phenomenon from the comfort of a few generations in the future, where society has embraced verifiable facts and science, and considers things like lying and ad hominems to be disqualifying for any kind of higher government office (yes I can dream)
:dubious:
Eh, I like reading differing points of view. There’s no fun in complete conformity of thought.
This.
So the best way to consider these voters “decent people” is to think of them as just gullible?
Gullible, yes to some degree but also think desperate and bordering on hopeless; sure that the world they are giving their kids is worse then the one their parent gave them. This explains a lot of the vote I think.
And yes, we all know who the racists voted for, but it took another large group in states that use to vote Dem to get Rump elected.
ETA: Oh, I know quite a few Trump voters that would have voted for Sanders because he also gave a populist message and was more believable. His free college proposal* struck a cord with a lot of those desperate people worried about their kids.
Warning issued for trolling the thread. Contribute if you want to actually contribute; otherwise, please take it to the Pit.
If you have a house, and have implemented policies to make it harder for your neighbors to have houses, and it is snowing out, then I can’t really blame them for taking shelter under your eaves.
You are now equating trespassing with burglary, two separate crime, with different motives, and different consequences. Why you would do that, I have no idea. But, in the case that you explain that no one may borrow your possessions, you are also laying claim to community property, and you don’t have exclusive say in that.
And now you are equating trespassing with rape. If equating trespass with burglary is a stretch, equating with rape is about as false an equivalence as you can find. It is hard to take such attempts at equivalating someone breaking a law non-violently with violent rape seriously. It sounds like some sort of attempt at emotional pleading, but it fails at that entirely because trespassing is not rape, no matter how much you want to equate the two.
It works because it’s not trying to equate trespassing and rape.
If I were a canadian citizen, I would lobby the gov’t to take on more immigration.
As it is, they are more willing to take on refugees than we are, even thought hey have a smaller population to absorb them into. I wouldn’t bring canada up in this, as we compare very unfavorably to canada in this.
If a third party brings up a motivation, then that party should either be able to explain that motivation to others, or should be able to agree with the others that they do not understand that motivation. If you understand their motives, please, explain. If you do not, then don’t disparage others for asking you to explain the motives that you have said they have.
And whose fault is that? Job prospects aren’t that bad. Unemployment is at its lowest level in decades, and it was on its way to that level well before trump was elected.
If you can’t find a job right now, the problem is you, not the economy.
Well, I need some employees. I know alot of restaurants around here need employees, cooks, dishwashers, servers. My neighbor runs a landscaping company, and he needs employees. I don’t know anyone in the construction industry well enough to know what the demands are, but looking at my local craig’s list, I see construction jobs starting at $15 an hour.
We spent the last year trying. We are still willing to try. It doesn’t do any good until they try listening. Got any advice for that?
So, on the day you need CPR, you would welcome someone coming to your house to save you, but until then, keep out, right?
This equating the country and our shared property with your personal private property runs the risk of allowing for analogies that do not map, but are still used in lines of argument, and I think in your post here, that risk has been aptly realized.
Say it is -40 out (I use this number so I don’t have to define units), and you hear someone come in through your window to one of your many, many unused rooms in your mansion. You go to investigate, and by the time you get there, you see that they have replaced the shutters and curtains, added carpeting, painted, and they seem to be working to get rid of your termite problem. When you approach them, you notice that they have a CPR certification badge, and while you aren’t having a heart attack right now, there are some concerns about your overall heart health.
You want to kick them out. I want to see if they can cook, too.
Not the best analogy, but I’m up against your equating trespassing with rape, so I feel I have a bit of room here.
Perhaps they thought that Clinton would be even worse? Has Trump actually achieved anything yet, policy-wise? Many people might deem such a lack of achievement a plus point.
Is that -40 Kelvin?
*degrees *Kelvin. 
:eek:
I shouldn’t have to equate it with anything. As soon as I say “I find that unacceptable; and enough voters and enough elected officials agree, such that the government has passed laws codifying that decision and the courts are with us on this, so knock it the hell off,” that should be the beginning and the end of the whole thing.
Since I’m mystified as to why that statement isn’t carrying the day here all by itself, I’ll shrug and then equate it to everything: to rape, to theft, to trespassing, to murder, to a dozen other things, to a hundred other things. I shouldn’t have to; the argument should be over as soon as I start pointing out that I’ve made my decision and the legislature and the judiciary back me up in saying “uh, that’s illegal for a damn good reason.” But since folks like you are refusing to nod in agreement with that – which I thought we were all on board about? – I’m honestly wondering what the hell else you’re not going to nod in agreement with.
Well, look, the philosophy that somebody who’d get denied legal permission to do what they want, and then nods in understanding before going ahead and doing it anyway – that’s everything.
I’m not harmed much by someone taking a beer out of my fridge after I say “no,” and I’m maybe not harmed at all by someone who responds to a second “no” by sleeping in my bed while I’m out and then tidying up so well that I almost wouldn’t know they were ever there; and, absent my consent, I’m harmed more by a near-lethal beating than by a slap; and a guy who borrows my car and returns it after being refused does me less harm than a guy who steals it and smashes it to bits; and sex without my consent is even worse.
But I shouldn’t have to repeat myself for each of those, should I? If I’m the one who can give permission, and I keep saying “no” before and during and after, then I shouldn’t need to equate any of those with anything else: you should be interrupting me to say “hey, this was over when you said ‘no’.”
Here, my country has said no.
Uh, yes. If we’re going to do more equations, then there’s hypothetically a day when I’d welcome a surgeon looking to perform a tracheotomy on me; but as long as I’m telling you “no, not now, don’t put a blade to my throat, and get the hell out of here,” they can keep out. And there’s a time when I’ll consent to someone injecting me with the contents of a syringe; but that time is not now, so they can keep out instead. And so on.
I don’t see the problem. I have the authority to tell a guy to stay out of my house; the US government has the authority to tell that same guy to stay out of this country. The owner of a local bar has the authority to explain that you don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here; a local museum, which is run by the government, can and does of course do likewise. My kid’s school is public property, but of course has a strict policy on Who Can Go Where When; an amusement part may be the private property of a corporation, but it calls the shots in a significantly similar way.
You’re not a fan of me equating stuff, but what the hell is the difference? In every case, you either get permission from someone who can legitimately give it, or you don’t; and good luck to you if you pursue the “don’t” strategy.
Yeah, see, in that analogy I have a mansion with “many, many unused rooms”. But in my analogy, I don’t have that; we’re full up; I’m just a guy who liked my shutters and curtains just fine, and wanted neither additional carpeting nor another coat of paint; and my heart doesn’t exactly skip a beat when I use a calm clear voice to announce that I Want You To Leave Now and I Never Wanted You To Come Here In The First Place and At No Point Have You Had My Permission To Be Here; and I call out, over my shoulder, to my wife, explaining that she should call the police because the guy I’m pointing a gun at shows no signs of leaving.
You are only mystified because you are not paying attention. You think that you and you alone, are the only one who can say what happens in the country that you and I share. I disagree with what you demand. The point is that we are looking to change our “no trespassing policy”, and you are trying to claim that your statement that you are against it should carry the day.
I don’t think that is illegal for damn good reason, so I’m not going to nod along in agreement on that. You just want to shut down debate, and insist that your opinion is the only one that is valid, and that everyone must nod in agreement. That’s not the values of the country that we share, and it is values that I will fight against.
Well, if you don’t get everyone to agree with you, do you think that just repeating yourself without actually acknowledging your opponent’s position is a good way to get them too?
No, here, some people in the country have said no, mostly out of irrational fears, enough so that at the current time it is a violation of immigration policies for them to do so. I acknowledge the current legislation, but I disagree with it, and lobby for a country that says yes. It is not your right to tell me I can’t do that. It baffles me that it confuses you that other people in this country would have other viewpoints and express those.
But until that day that you need a tracheotomy, you don’t want to see that surgeon, you don’t want that surgeon using your resources, you don’t want that surgeon to have any more rights than a rapist, in fact.
And you are not the sole arbiter of who can come in and out. Telling me that because you don’t want these people here, that I can’t advocate for that policy to change demonstrates to me that it is not the immigrants who are the danger to the values of our country.
What’s the difference between trespass and rape? You really just asked that?
Yews, but if you are making an analogy to the united states, then we do have unused room. How are we full up? You may be happy with the old dilapidated carpet in the basement, but I’m not. If you want to use your analogy again, it would be like, as you are pointing the gun at the invader, your wife calls back, “hey first, find out if he can cook.”
I think that’s the point of this thread. No rational person could have thought “Clinton would be even worse.” Thus, many have a “hard time accepting republican voters are decent people.”
One other point of the analogy that I made there, is that it is -40 outside.
If you kick him out, you may as well just shoot him now, either way, you are sending them to their death, oh, and there are no police, if this is an analogy of the country, you are the police. You are going to do your own dirty work.
No rational person could think that no rational person could think that Clinton could be worse.
Fair enough. But this is IMHO (I learned the hard way) and the thread is about how hard it is to view Republican voters as “decent people.” And, IMO, it is hard. Very hard.
It isn’t the result of rationality, but emotion.
Damn it!! You’re supposed to dig your heals in and insist I’m wrong!! 