Thanks, septimus. Your assertions are so far removed from reality and the conclusions drawn by thousands of competent people, but okay, you’re entitled to your opinion.
That’s fine. I’ve got no problem with that, none whatsoever.
Please itemize. I’d like to know which of my assertions you consider “removed from reality.” (And who, for heaven’s sake, are the “thousands of competent people”?)
I’ve come to realize that while many Americans can be reduced to weeping love at the sight of a flag or the sound of an anthem or patriotic song the pool of hatred that some Americans have for other Americans is very very deep, even evident on this message board.
You’re absolutely right. There are Americans who are hated by many, just because they are biologically wired for sexual attraction for someone of their own gender.
I’ve posted this on other message boards and maybe even here, but hatred (maybe dislike is a better term) is the glue that binds all Americans together. At our deepest level, we really just don’t like each other. We have antipathy for pretty much everyone. That’s the American Way at its core. Sure, everyone knows about the big dividing lines like race or politics, but Americans like to take it to much farther extremes. We divide up into groups over pretty much everything and then dislike the members of our own groups. We hate our neighbors for having too bright of porch lights. We hate people who treat dogs like kids. We hate people who don’t treat dogs like kids. We hate people that watch American Idol. We hate people who care too much about sports. We hate people that care too much about art. We hate people that don’t have enough gumption to like either of those things. We hate people that ride bikes on the street. We hate people that ride bikes on the sidewalk. They hate people that drive cars (even though they drive cars too, but no one said our hatred was rational.) We hate people who drive too fast or drive too slowly. We hate people that have more money than we do and we hate those that have less and we hate people that have exactly the same amount that we do, but spend it differently. We hate parents that are too involved in their kid’s lives and hate parents who aren’t involved enough. The parents that are just as involved as we are are OK, but they are gits at the PTA meeting. People from Pawnee hate Eagletonians and Eagletonians hate Pawneeans. We hate people that are identical to us in every way except that they root for a sports team that we don’t like. Most of us hate our parents and half of us hate our spouses. None of us like their friends.
So, basically at its core, America is a society founded on a healthy dislike of everyone else. It’s why we’ll never be a socialist country. Most of us would rather die of leprosy than chip in a nickel to help that idiot that takes a cart full of groceries through the express checkout or drives too slowly in the fast lane. Screw that guy.
So Republican voters don’t care about any other issue except hating, and it’s not the only thing.
Glad that’s cleared up.
Regards,
Shodan
No, not at all. What really is going on is that the establishment doesn’t want Trump in office. So the media and celebrities have engaged in an astonishing non-stop Trump bashing 24/7 since even before he won the election. They have sought to whip up every “minority group” into a frenzy, trying to get them thinking they are in danger and Trump and his supporters hate them. But there is no truth to this (aside from the fact that any sufficiently large group will have a small percentage of haters). Try this little exercise: resolve to dismiss any idea that “minority groups” are under attack for a few hours, and read about the real issues in such a mindset.
I’m glad you have explained “what’s really going on.” I thought we all hated Trump for our own reasons, but I see it’s not that simple.:rolleyes:
I am not a member of any minority group. I’m a rich older white guy. I’m not the “Establishment” (I think) but I don’t want Trump in office. He’s an incompetent ignorant asshole. I don’t want him sweeping my streets. He actually is doing bad things, but it’s not about that. Most Republicans would do things I don’t like. What makes Trump different is that he’s divisive and dangerous, and elevates the worst characteristics of humankind to the highest office in the land. He’s an embarssment of biblical proportions. The fact that anyone thinks it’s a good idea for him to be President boggles my mind. The fact that 10s of millions of Americans support him depresses me significantly.
You say this almost like you’re proud of it, but if I agreed with you that this is how America is, then my NUMBER ONE goal would be to do whatever I could to get America to be less disgustingly EVIL.
If I dismiss the idea that minorities are under attack, then spend a few hours reading about real issues, what do I do once I come to the logical conclusion that minorities are under attack through my research? Do I need to dismiss the idea again?
Simply a statement of fact. If you want to hate me for it, that’s your prerogative. 
You said, and I quote, “Was CBF assaulted? She most definitely was.” I’m asking, if she was definitely assaulted, how is it that she’s wrong about it being Kavanaugh that assaulted her? Memory is, indeed, a funny thing and not rock solid believable, but, again, this isn’t a case where she was assaulted by a stranger and later thought she saw a guy that looked like him. She knew Kavanaugh before he assaulted her. She knew him after he assaulted her. At what point do you contend that this faulty memory took root? Was she not able to distinguish between Kavanaugh - who, again, she knew personally - and some other random rapist when she was invited into that bedroom? Or was it at some later point, when she’s sitting around, and is thinking, “Goshdarn it, who was that kid who committed a traumatic sexual assault against me in high school? Rhett? Jet? Amet? Brett? Probably Brett.”
And contrary to your movie quote, what you believe is exactly what I’m trying to understand. What you can prove doesn’t matter, because this case is never going to be tried before a court of law.
Trump supporters see the mainstream media and celebrities (except Kanye) as divisive and dangerous. We look at the ORIGINAL SOURCES OF INFO about topics and are astonished at the “Twilight Zone” spin the mainstream media puts on it to get people to hate Trump. I could see how someone who only watches cable news and/or late night comedy shows and/or celebrity social media could be living in a delusional world.
Can’t you just look at Trump and realize he’s an ignorant ass, without need to watch cable news or late night comedy? It’s not that complicated.
Please, give me one solid example of a story that happened one way (link the “ORIGINAL SOURCES OF INFO” please) and then link the “Twilight Zone” media spin.
Do you watch his entire speech (or read a transcript as I prefer), or just the soundbites cherry picked by the mainstream media/celebrities/late night “comedy” hosts?
I watch his entire speeches (or if I’m in a hurry I read the transcript). Now will you answer my question?
I’ve read his tweets. I’ve seen him debate in the primary and general elections, and I’ve watched enough of his speeches to form an opinion. I really can’t believe this is controversial; the guy is unhinged and deplorable.
Trump’s speech to the UN:
There was a brief moment of laughter in the beginning, and Trump wasn’t joking, and the media ran with “Trump is a laughingstock”. There is a short blurb in the link above before the transcript calling it "word salad’. But go ahead and actually read the full transcript of his speech. It isn’t word salad, and the place where the audience laughed is no big deal. And I happen to think his foreign policy decisions he talked about are significant steps in the right direction.
Seriously? First of all, the article you linked isn’t calling him a “laughingstock”, and I’d like a cite for that, because the “Mainstream Media” sources I’ve seen aren’t nearly that critical. The consensus seems to be that it was a rather uninspiring speech, but better than last year’s “Fire and Fury” Daenerys Targaryen cameo.
Also, the article does use the words “patriotic word salad”, and then proceeds to quote the part of Trump’s speech that the Vox writer considered to be a “word salad”:
Obviously “word salad” is a loaded and opinionated term. But the Trump quote doesn’t seem to mean much of anything – it’s just a series of vaguely patriotic terms. That’s what they mean by “word salad”. They could also have used a term like “empty platitudes” or “vaguely patriotic gestures”. Not seeing this as some Grand Conspiracy against Trump.
EDIT: And before you accuse me of being biased against Trump, his foreign policy is probably the one area where Trump hasn’t been THAT horrendous. I don’t agree with everything he did but there’s also some good there, unlike his social or fiscal policy. So his UN speech is where I’d be most likely to defend him.
Hi, late to the thread here and there’s much too much to respond to. But there’s one thing that’s really troubling me about the theories presented by senoy and sleestack on the difference between liberals and conservatives: couldn’t you use those models to form a pretty cogent defense of Osama bin Laden as a conservative?
Was he promoting traditional values? Yep.
Did he clearly value the community (ummah) over a broader more liberal notion of society? Yep.
Did his moral foundation encompass loyalty and authority? Yep and yep.
Was his way of life under threat? You betcha!
So, he was a disenfranchised conservative pushing back against against liberal society that couldn’t understand and refused to accept him, in a way consistent with his moral framework. Right?
No wonder Obama wanted him dead.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk