did I say half? When did I say half? This is the problem. Filing in facts and repeating them.
I respect your poiunt of view. I believe the demonetization is an immensely dangerous threat. I also believe that the massive undesirability of Clinton was a Republican manufactured event in great part to a much greater degree that any she actually deserved while still being, in my opinion, far far from a perfect candidate.This in an increasingly binary society where "the other guy" is always at fault. ........................ They have very conservative minds, holding on to old ideas past their time. We shall see.
I respect your poiunt of view. I believe the demonetization is an immensely dangerous threat. I also believe that the massive undesirability of Clinton was a Republican manufactured event in great part to a much greater degree that any she actually deserved while still being, in my opinion, far far from a perfect candidate.
So, I have certain facts I feel personally I have to face. I hate the demonetization of the other as inherently evil, but also, owing to the universal presence of self hate that is used to enforce conformist behavior in children, remember, I am speaking from my personal point of view, I know that it is this very fear that politicians, and especially Republicans have turned to in order to counteract their generally less popular views on the nature of reality, that the US and the world are trending liberal in recognition of our common plight and universal humanity are a message that terrifies them, and provokes all manner of justifications for what they do.
So we have a force in our political system that uses evil to win and it works and you are asking Democrats to stay true to their message that we are all human beings all deserving of respect and this evil force wins elections by the elevation of one group over another.
We have a political system in which democracy is stymied by the distortion of political campaign contributions of the wealthy and the need for money to run campaigns and that frustration has turned to rage, a pox on all and a will to self destruction as the only obvious avenue of expression. Neither party will vote to eliminate money from the equation because both are bought by the wealthy.
So what is there but to burn the system down, to hope that Trump destroys politics in general, that the lives of average people become even worse than they are. The media is controlled by the wealthy, no message of the need to destroy the power of wealth will be forthcoming there. The parties are paralyzed, the people dumbed-down. What is left but a class war against the wealthy who are at that very war and winning? A machine that sleeps dies of mechanical breakdown. We create what we fear. The pendulum swings from the right to the left and we are in for a shit storm of liberal rage.
The problem, in short, I believe, is that the demonetization of the right is an evil that will take everybody off the cliff. You are asking liberals to be tolerant of a choate psychotic dementia, turn the other cheek and love thine enemies.
So my question is, if, 'If it's war they want it's war they'll get" isn't the answer, but no response means you will be beaten and beaten, where will your suggestion take us? agent007 wants to know, also, I suspect.
I think Mohamed had to face this issue when the people of God were being slaughtered for their tolerance and they lost the capacity to forbare. Normal people, it seems to me, have normal limits and revenge is within easy reach.
When Dems were lined up against Trump, Hillary came out worse than most including Bernie. Biden would have run away with the election being oh, human and all. I'd have picked him without any regret.
Biden was comprehensible and had some degree of empathy which was not unnaturally forced. He would have been a superior candidate to either eventual choice but his wife did not want the family to go through that stress especially after losing a son not long before.What is weird for me as a conservative (independent) is that Biden would have stood a good chance of getting my vote instead of Johnson. Biden would have won.
Biden was comprehensible and had some degree of empathy which was not unnaturally forced. He would have been a superior candidate to either eventual choice but his wife did not want the family to go through that stress especially after losing a son not long before.
There are rational reasons for supporting candidates like Biden or Sanders over Clinton, the most compelling being the drive to win elections.What this thread clearly illustrates is that people don't use logic when voting, it's all gut feeling and emotional appeal. Only in an emotional world could someone say they'd vote for Bernie or Biden over Clinton.
No big deal, we've been reaping the rewards for our stupidity for a while now.
What this thread clearly illustrates is that people don't use logic when voting, it's all gut feeling and emotional appeal. Only in an emotional world could someone say they'd vote for Bernie or Biden over Clinton.
No big deal, we've been reaping the rewards for our stupidity for a while now.
There are rational reasons for supporting candidates like Biden or Sanders over Clinton, the most compelling being the drive to win elections.
Biden gets it and doesn't surpise me that he would be the first to voice criticism at Clinton's campaign.
"I think Mohamed had to face this issue when the people of God were being slaughtered for their tolerance and they lost the capacity to forbare. Normal people, it seems to me, have normal limits and revenge is within easy reach."
This sort of sentiment, writ large, probably is why Islam is so backwards compared to the rest of the world.
Overall, this is a formula for endless in-fighting, higher than other societies.
MLK actually recognized that the hardline stance was a possible stance, and since black people were outnumbered, they would lose. So he decided to appeal along the civilizational line of Christianity. By staying within the civilizational discourse, he made his appeal acceptable. Nelson Mandela did something similar in ending Apartheid.
You do know that Islamic society was also responsible for some of humanity's greatest scientific achievements, and was once known as a bastion of cultural acceptance, right? That a lot of the violence you believe is inherent to the religion is frequently a product of 20th- and 21st-century political situations?
This doesn't mean that there aren't people who use Islamic teachings as justification for terrorism and other horrible things. But whenever someone tries to argue that Islam itself is the problem, they sound a bit like Kurtz in Heart of Darkness: deep down, they feel the only real option is total annihilation. I know that's not what you're arguing for, but if you think an entire religion is irredeemable, that leads you down a dark logical path.
There are rational reasons for supporting candidates like Biden or Sanders over Clinton, the most compelling being the drive to win elections.
Biden gets it and doesn't surpise me that he would be the first to voice criticism at Clinton's campaign.
The "drive to win" is not a rational reason to vote for someone for president. That's an emotional value that serves no purpose when it comes to being president.
Besides, it's kind of hard to believe Clinton didn't have the drive when she did it twice or when she contributed doing it despite being sick. So bullshit on that.
Clinton lost because she didn't have a compelling message (which is another appeal to emotion) and she didn't have a good electoral strategy.
But that's all besides the point because if one is being rational and liked biden or Bernie, voting for trump worth directly or indirectly is as about as irrational as you can get. Unless, of course, you think trumps policies/positions are more similar to bidens and Bernie's.
In short she couldn't understand or connect with people and apparently had no interest in doing so. Naturally people warm to dismissive candidates. Well no and that the basic and proper reactions of people resulted in this reaction should be utterly unsurprising.
Well balanced people have both intellectual and emotional aspects and it's entirely healthy. Know who doesn't allow emotion to impact them? Sociopaths.
But I do agree that supporting a Bernie or Biden then going for Trump is not consistent with healthy reason or emotions and so likely in part for the lowest voter turnout since 1996. It was a Hobson's choice for a vast number of people.
Well better luck next time America I guess.
Yeah she had no interest in connecting with people. Lol. That's why she did more town halls than rallies, that's why she kept in touch with some of the people she met on the campaign trail. That's why she's been caught on camera holding back tears. The only way you could believe the bullshit you just posted is if you believed everything the rights been telling you about her for years. Is that you? Are you one of those gullible, easily manipulated fools that the right targets for their propaganda?
I get the feeling you are a pretty poor judge of character. I mean shit, trump is a text book definition of a sociopath.
I don't really give them credit for those advances either. They were good empire builders, I'll say that, who did transmit Indian ideas like zero to other areas. But saying that Muslims deserve credit for calculus because they transmitted the idea of zero from India is ridiculous political correctness. Giving them credit for preserving Greek texts is like saying the British deserve credit for their museums housing Egyptian artifacts.
Frankly, Islam should be annihilated when its people decide to move to other societies. I should hope that by the third or fourth generation you see Muslims abandoning Islam all together and adopting the customs of local peoples. No one is advocating annihilating Islam in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, and for all I care they can go hog-wild with sharia in Islamic lands. Just don't bother other societies which is what is occurring.
she didnt call every human in the rust belt a deplorable. She was talking directly about the alt right. It was spun like that. She shouldnt of said it because of the spin not because it wasnt true.
How about Ibn al-Haytham? He discovered a key aspect of light (that it travels in straight lines), created the first pinhole camera and also set forth important guidelines for scientific research (question everything, don't trust one source too heavily). Also, the text that many credit with founding algebra is considered the first to set it out as an actual discipline... it's not just rehashing someone else's work. Point being: for at least a few centuries, the Islamic world was considered a go-to place for knowledge and discussion.
We can abolish Islam as soon as you also agree to abolish Christianity and all other religions in western societies. After all, many of them have ideas that are fostering hate, ignorance and violence right now (stances on abortion, homosexuality, non-believers, science...). Deal?
I need to find the links, but Time and the NY Times just published some interesting data on the Obama coalition and also when the cracks started to first appear in the Clinton firewall. I scanned them in passing but will try to find them again. Both were excellent articles.The "drive to win" is not a rational reason to vote for someone for president. That's an emotional value that serves no purpose when it comes to being president.
Besides, it's kind of hard to believe Clinton didn't have the drive when she did it twice or when she contributed doing it despite being sick. So bullshit on that.
Clinton lost because she didn't have a compelling message (which is another appeal to emotion) and she didn't have a good electoral strategy.
But that's all besides the point because if one is being rational and liked biden or Bernie, voting for trump worth directly or indirectly is as about as irrational as you can get. Unless, of course, you think trumps policies/positions are more similar to bidens and Bernie's.
I love watching conservatives forget how much they despise Biden simply because he isn't a political threat. It's like he never said fire warning shots or you don't need an AR for home defense.
If I'm such a poor judge of character why did you fail to realize how people understood Hillary? How can I and Biden be of like mind unless he's an easily manipulated fool the right targeted? Trump a sociopath? Sure, but in the real world things are not mutually exclusive, although it might simply be narcissistic personality disorder for both. Regarding the mentioned drive to win I recall you were fairly smug that as long as Hillary won nothing else mattered. Well it does as you know.
No, Hillary is a progressive, probably an OG one at that, her problem is that she isn't a politician (more accurately she is a horrible politician). If she had a quarter of the political capability as her husband she'd make bernie look like the centrist. While you think the big idea candidate, bernie sanders, is the true progressive, we've got clinton who has been making actual progress throughout her public career.
I'd rather bet on the achiever than the believer myself.
Democrats, in general, aren't good at playing politics. You can see this happening right now with the democrat presidential candidates, especially hillary and her attempt at going after Bernie. She's horrible at it.
My guess is it's because democrats aren't as emotional as the right and are therefore not good at playing emotional politics (compare dems emotional appeal regarding gun control to that of republicans and their appeal to voter ID laws).
I'm sure moonie could chime in