We can't compromise! We can't collaborate! We can't cooperate!

[Mac1958]

Getting along is way overrated

I guess that depends on the individual and their own capacity to do so.
.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The only people you can compromise with are those you have common views on
You can't collaborate with people who hate what you stand for
You can't cooperate with people who hate your very existence.

I'd just briefly mentioned the radical center in another thread. Though, I did not expand on it. These are the folks who applaud our failed monetary policy and who want more of it. These are the folks destroying our dollar and monetizing debt. These are the people who applaud our failed foreign policy and who want more of it. These are the people who would be content to empower the Executive branch to the extent that a sitting president has free reign to do what he wants. The most recent Supreme Court pick is certainly reflective of this trend.

Now, that's likely a topic worthy of its own discussion. But it's something that needs to be watched. In all of this left versus right romper room, we're starting to see the radical center trying to kind of suck everyone into their points of political views and their very destructive policy positions. This is dangerous. It's dangerous to Individual liberty and it's dangerous to our traditional principles of governance.

 

[Mac1958]

The only people you can compromise with are those you have common views on
You can't collaborate with people who hate what you stand for
You can't cooperate with people who hate your very existence.

I'd just briefly mentioned the radical center in another thread. Though, I did not expand on it. These are the folks who applaud our failed monetary policy and who want more of it. These are the folks destroying our dollar and monetizing debt. These are the people who applaud our failed foreign policy and who want more of it. These are the people who would be content to empower the Executive branch to the extent that a sitting president has free reign to do what he wants. The most recent Supreme Court pick is certainly reflective of this trend.

Now, that's likely a topic worthy of its own discussion. But it's something that needs to be watched. In all of this left versus right nonsense, we're starting to see the radical center trying to kind of suck everyone into their points of political views and their very destructive policy positions. This is dangerous. It's dangerous to Individual liberty and it's dangerous to our traditional principles of governance.

Just for the record, you quoted someone else there. That's the opposite of my opinion.

Someone may have goofed up the quote thing along the way.
.

 

[Correll]

Would you have respect that? WOuld you have voted for him then?



Or would you have just focused, or been focused on some other reason to vote against him?


That type of "above it all" is just seen as weakness in today's America.

That one thing surely wouldn't have been enough, since it was just one of a non-stop flood of embarrassing moments.

I knew that if Trump or Cruz won the nomination, I'd have to vote for Hillary. Otherwise, I would have voted third party. I don't care much for her.
.

So, where is the positive feedback for being the better person then?


People like you, don't care. YOu talk like you, do, but it does not effect your voting.


Meanwhile to the undecided, the blue dogs, ect, people in play,


it looks like weakness, to let someone insult you like that, and say nothing back.

It only looks like weakness to people of a certain mindset.

But he's your guy. Fine with me. You don't see me insulting you for it.
.

1. I have not insulted you.

2. I think you are seriously underestimating the effect of that type of non-verbal communication. People, ALL OF THEM, are more impacted by non-verbal communication then they think.

3. In today's world, civility and decorum gets you nothing. Indeed, many consider it a sign of weakness and an invitation for attack.

I think we can improve today's world, but only if we want to.

I see no signs that we want to. We appear to be just fine with these behaviors. We even defend and justify them.
.

Trump is a brash and vulgar person.


Anyone that would equate that with being Hitler is employing seriously toxic and divisive tactics to advance their agenda at the cost of tearing this nation apart.



I'm calling people on their bs, when I can. I try to speak the Truth. I do not let people who talk shit about me and mine go unchallenged, if I have any ability to call them on it.


I'm doing what I can.

 

[kaz]

Wanting to allow illegal aliens to flood the country may be immoral, but at least it's clear why Democrats do it. Votes.

But putting violent criminals back on the street doesn't seem to serve any even selfish interest of the left. It just proves that they aren't just self absorbed, they are evil

Again, we lock up 2 million people. Most other industrialized countries lock up less than 100K. We lock up more people than Communist China.

If locking people up got us to lower crime rates, we'd have the lowest crime rates in the industrialized world, not the highest.

We don't have a quota. We lock up people who choose to commit crimes, Joey. Tell the criminals to commit fewer crimes. Maybe you can bring that up in your next meeting with them where you let them know your plan to take guns from them is to take guns away from honest citizens. Criminals in prison say they aren't afraid of the cops nearly as much as armed victims. They applaud you for your plan

 

[Natural Citizen]

Just for the record, you quoted someone else there. That's the opposite of my opinion.

Someone may have goofed up the quote thing along the way.

.

Yeah. I'm still lnot used to this XenForo thing. I mess up quotes alot on here. I'm used to vBulletin. Apologies for the error. I really wish we'd only quote the person with whom we're actually responding instead of quoting 3 or 4 different posters in one response. That would be helpful.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, it would have been nice if he could have just been the adult in the room.

But that wouldn't have been Trump.
.

Would you have respect that? WOuld you have voted for him then?

Or would you have just focused, or been focused on some other reason to vote against him?

That type of "above it all" is just seen as weakness in today's America.

That one thing surely wouldn't have been enough, since it was just one of a non-stop flood of embarrassing moments.

I knew that if Trump or Cruz won the nomination, I'd have to vote for Hillary. Otherwise, I would have voted third party. I don't care much for her.
.

So, where is the positive feedback for being the better person then?

People like you, don't care. YOu talk like you, do, but it does not effect your voting.

Meanwhile to the undecided, the blue dogs, ect, people in play,

it looks like weakness, to let someone insult you like that, and say nothing back.

It only looks like weakness to people of a certain mindset.

But he's your guy. Fine with me. You don't see me insulting you for it.
.

1. I have not insulted you.

2. I think you are seriously underestimating the effect of that type of non-verbal communication. People, ALL OF THEM, are more impacted by non-verbal communication then they think.

3. In today's world, civility and decorum gets you nothing. Indeed, many consider it a sign of weakness and an invitation for attack.

Those "many" would be those intellectually arrested at the development level of schoolyard children. If your idea of leadership is a WWE wrestler type, it's your standards that are the problem. The world can't work according to "who the baddest knuckledragger is".

 

[Pogo]

That one thing surely wouldn't have been enough, since it was just one of a non-stop flood of embarrassing moments.

I knew that if Trump or Cruz won the nomination, I'd have to vote for Hillary. Otherwise, I would have voted third party. I don't care much for her.
.

So, where is the positive feedback for being the better person then?


People like you, don't care. YOu talk like you, do, but it does not effect your voting.


Meanwhile to the undecided, the blue dogs, ect, people in play,


it looks like weakness, to let someone insult you like that, and say nothing back.

It only looks like weakness to people of a certain mindset.

But he's your guy. Fine with me. You don't see me insulting you for it.
.

1. I have not insulted you.

2. I think you are seriously underestimating the effect of that type of non-verbal communication. People, ALL OF THEM, are more impacted by non-verbal communication then they think.

3. In today's world, civility and decorum gets you nothing. Indeed, many consider it a sign of weakness and an invitation for attack.

I think we can improve today's world, but only if we want to.

I see no signs that we want to. We appear to be just fine with these behaviors. We even defend and justify them.
.

Trump is a brash and vulgar person.

Anyone that would equate that with being Hitler is employing seriously toxic and divisive tactics to advance their agenda at the cost of tearing this nation apart.

Here's where you went off the rails. You're placing two different dynamics -- one a given, the other somebody else's opinion --- side by side as if they were a cause and effect.

Rump is not a Hitler because he's a brash and vulgar person. We could run a list all day of brash and vulgar people who are not a Hitler. That's a non sequitur and as such functions as a strawman.

Rump's issue is he's so obsessed with himself, and so emotionally crippled in the face of the tiniest challenge, that he'll disregard and nullify not just the "decorum" that keeps you awake at night but the very Constitution and the concepts of civil rights and human rights, in pursuit of his Creamsicle-colored Safe Space where Numero Uno has no faults and no history of error and no responsibility for anything.

That may not have the same motivations as "Hitler", but it has the same net effect.

Hitler knew how to mine the emotions of his minions and manipulate them into blind mob mentality in the relentless emotionally-driven illusion of national "glory". Rump has and employs the same skills to the letter.

When mobs are incited over emotionally-inspired bullshit -------------------- anything can happen. And whatever does happen is usually destructive.

But "brash and vulgar" has no function in that. Again, a mob manipulator can certainly accomplish that end without "brash and vulgar". Of course Rump is "brash and vulgar" but that's not necessarily a deal breaker. Rump's problem is his values. Hitler was all about "Deutschland Über Alles" -- Rump is all about "Ich Über Alles".

 

[Pogo]

So, where is the positive feedback for being the better person then?


People like you, don't care. YOu talk like you, do, but it does not effect your voting.


Meanwhile to the undecided, the blue dogs, ect, people in play,


it looks like weakness, to let someone insult you like that, and say nothing back.

It only looks like weakness to people of a certain mindset.

But he's your guy. Fine with me. You don't see me insulting you for it.
.

1. I have not insulted you.

2. I think you are seriously underestimating the effect of that type of non-verbal communication. People, ALL OF THEM, are more impacted by non-verbal communication then they think.

3. In today's world, civility and decorum gets you nothing. Indeed, many consider it a sign of weakness and an invitation for attack.

I think we can improve today's world, but only if we want to.

I see no signs that we want to. We appear to be just fine with these behaviors. We even defend and justify them.
.

Trump is a brash and vulgar person.

Anyone that would equate that with being Hitler is employing seriously toxic and divisive tactics to advance their agenda at the cost of tearing this nation apart.

Here's where you went off the rails. You're placing two different dynamics -- one a given, the other somebody else's opinion --- side by side as if they were a cause and effect.

Rump is not a Hitler because he's a brash and vulgar person. We could run a list all day of brash and vulgar people who are not a Hitler. That's a non sequitur and as such functions as a strawman.

Rump's issue is he's so obsessed with himself, and so emotionally crippled in the face of the tiniest challenge, that he'll disregard and nullify not just the "decorum" that keeps you awake at night but the very Constitution and the concepts of civil rights and human rights, in pursuit of his Creamsicle-colored Safe Space where Numero Uno has no faults and no history of error and no responsibility for anything.

That may not have the same motivations as "Hitler", but it has the same net effect.

Hitler knew how to mine the emotions of his minions and manipulate them into blind mob mentality in the relentless emotionally-driven illusion of national "glory". Rump has and employs the same skills to the letter.

When mobs are incited over emotionally-inspired bullshit -------------------- anything can happen. And whatever does happen is usually destructive.

But "brash and vulgar" has no function in that. Again, a mob manipulator can certainly accomplish that end without "brash and vulgar". Of course Rump is "brash and vulgar" but that's not necessarily a deal breaker. Rump's problem is his values. Hitler was all about "Deutschland Über Alles" -- Rump is all about "Ich Über Alles".

For a ready example of how this works ---

When Rump brags about "grab 'em by the p***y" .... or characterizes his own daughter as a "hot piece of ass" .... or recounts how he just walks in on naked teenage girls.... or frames any bitchy comeback on a female critic in terms of "blood" ---- is he being "brash and vulgar"? Of course. Does it make him a revolting apology for a human being who has no respect for women? It would appear so.

Does that make him unfit to be a President? Not necessarily, not directly. Because that isn't the point. After all does he even genuinely feel those things? We don't even know that. Because it's all done for show. And that speaks volumes about motivation.

That is the point --- all of this shit is engineered specifically to score brownie points with Howard Stern, and more to the point Howard Stern's listeners, with misogynists in general, with the anti-intellectual knuckledragger set, and of course the sensationalist commercial news media that spreads it around because it makes them money. He puts this out there because it scores him followers. No deeper than that.

The same is true of "fire the sumbitches" and "ban Muslims" and "very fine people" and "they're rapists" ---- ALL emotional trigger-points specifically designed to resonate on the crude, purely emotional level with the misogynists and the bigots and the knuckledraggers, none of which groups will give what's happening to them a second thought and just go with it because it "feels good". Like gulping down a new food without bothering to read the ingredient label.

Whether he actually personally believes any of this misogynist / racist / bigot / antiintellectual shit, we have no way to know. Because it's not put out there as a creed --- it's put out strictly as a manipulation tool. In other words he's acting in the same way, and for the same purpose, as the media he claims to oppose (yet another manipulation trigger) --- he's milking emotions for his own personal profit. And that profit is the obsession with personal accolades of which there have never been, and never will be, enough.

THAT is why it's a problem. Nobody knows what his personal values are, if he even has any. Her won't hesitate to shift them according to what will score him personal points. When the wind is blowing one way he doesn't know who David Duke is; when it was blowing the other way he disassociated in no uncertain terms. Whichever way the winds blow. His focus is entirely and irrevocably on the Self. Discipline, rational Judgment and any sense of Responsibility are entirely absent. And those are not desirable traits in anyone, let alone somebody in charge of something.

 

[Thinker101]

It only looks like weakness to people of a certain mindset.

But he's your guy. Fine with me. You don't see me insulting you for it.
.

1. I have not insulted you.

2. I think you are seriously underestimating the effect of that type of non-verbal communication. People, ALL OF THEM, are more impacted by non-verbal communication then they think.

3. In today's world, civility and decorum gets you nothing. Indeed, many consider it a sign of weakness and an invitation for attack.

I think we can improve today's world, but only if we want to.

I see no signs that we want to. We appear to be just fine with these behaviors. We even defend and justify them.
.

Trump is a brash and vulgar person.

Anyone that would equate that with being Hitler is employing seriously toxic and divisive tactics to advance their agenda at the cost of tearing this nation apart.

Here's where you went off the rails. You're placing two different dynamics -- one a given, the other somebody else's opinion --- side by side as if they were a cause and effect.

Rump is not a Hitler because he's a brash and vulgar person. We could run a list all day of brash and vulgar people who are not a Hitler. That's a non sequitur and as such functions as a strawman.

Rump's issue is he's so obsessed with himself, and so emotionally crippled in the face of the tiniest challenge, that he'll disregard and nullify not just the "decorum" that keeps you awake at night but the very Constitution and the concepts of civil rights and human rights, in pursuit of his Creamsicle-colored Safe Space where Numero Uno has no faults and no history of error and no responsibility for anything.

That may not have the same motivations as "Hitler", but it has the same net effect.

Hitler knew how to mine the emotions of his minions and manipulate them into blind mob mentality in the relentless emotionally-driven illusion of national "glory". Rump has and employs the same skills to the letter.

When mobs are incited over emotionally-inspired bullshit -------------------- anything can happen. And whatever does happen is usually destructive.

But "brash and vulgar" has no function in that. Again, a mob manipulator can certainly accomplish that end without "brash and vulgar". Of course Rump is "brash and vulgar" but that's not necessarily a deal breaker. Rump's problem is his values. Hitler was all about "Deutschland Über Alles" -- Rump is all about "Ich Über Alles".

For a ready example of how this works ---

When Rump brags about "grab 'em by the p***y" .... or characterizes his own daughter as a "hot piece of ass" .... or recounts how he just walks in on naked teenage girls.... or frames any bitchy comeback on a female critic in terms of "blood" ---- is he being "brash and vulgar"? Of course. Does it make him a revolting apology for a human being who has no respect for women? It would appear so.

Does that make him unfit to be a President? Not necessarily. Because that isn't the point.
After all does he even genuinely feel those things? We don't even know that. Because it's all done for show.

And that is the point --- all of this shit is engineered specifically to score brownie points with Howard Stern, and more to the point Howard Stern's listeners, misogynists in general, the anti-intellectual knuckledragger set, and of course sensationalist commercial news media that spread it around because it makes them money. He puts this out there because it scores him followers.

The same is true of "fire the sumbitches" and "ban Muslims" and "very fine people" and "they're rapists" ---- ALL emotional trigger-points specifically designed to resonate on the crude, purely emotional level with the misogynists and the bigots and the knuckledraggers, none of which groups will give what's happening to them a second thought and just go with it because it "feels good". Like gulping down a new food without bothering to read the ingredient label.

Whether he actually personally believes any of this misogynist / racist / bigot / antiintellectual shit, we have no way to know. Because it's not put out there as a creed --- it's put out strictly as a manipulation tool. In other words he's acting in the same way, and for the same purpose, as the media he claims to oppose (yet another manipulation trigger) --- he's milking emotions for his own personal profit. And that profit is the obsession with personal accolades of which there have never been, and never will be, enough.

THAT is why it's a problem. Nobody knows what his personal values are, if he even has any. His focus is entirely and irrevocably on the Self. Discipline, rational Judgment and any sense of Responsibility are entirely absent. And those are not desirable traits in anyone, let alone somebody in charge of something.

Dood, you're talking to yourself....again.

 

[bripat9643]

Wanting to allow illegal aliens to flood the country may be immoral, but at least it's clear why Democrats do it. Votes.

But putting violent criminals back on the street doesn't seem to serve any even selfish interest of the left. It just proves that they aren't just self absorbed, they are evil

Again, we lock up 2 million people. Most other industrialized countries lock up less than 100K. We lock up more people than Communist China.

If locking people up got us to lower crime rates, we'd have the lowest crime rates in the industrialized world, not the highest.

If you exclude blacks and Hispanics, then our incarceration rates are very favorable compared to those European welfare states. I guess what you're trying to say is that American sucks because of blacks and Hispanics.

 

[bripat9643]

It only looks like weakness to people of a certain mindset.

But he's your guy. Fine with me. You don't see me insulting you for it.
.

1. I have not insulted you.

2. I think you are seriously underestimating the effect of that type of non-verbal communication. People, ALL OF THEM, are more impacted by non-verbal communication then they think.

3. In today's world, civility and decorum gets you nothing. Indeed, many consider it a sign of weakness and an invitation for attack.

I think we can improve today's world, but only if we want to.

I see no signs that we want to. We appear to be just fine with these behaviors. We even defend and justify them.
.

Trump is a brash and vulgar person.

Anyone that would equate that with being Hitler is employing seriously toxic and divisive tactics to advance their agenda at the cost of tearing this nation apart.

Here's where you went off the rails. You're placing two different dynamics -- one a given, the other somebody else's opinion --- side by side as if they were a cause and effect.

Rump is not a Hitler because he's a brash and vulgar person. We could run a list all day of brash and vulgar people who are not a Hitler. That's a non sequitur and as such functions as a strawman.

Rump's issue is he's so obsessed with himself, and so emotionally crippled in the face of the tiniest challenge, that he'll disregard and nullify not just the "decorum" that keeps you awake at night but the very Constitution and the concepts of civil rights and human rights, in pursuit of his Creamsicle-colored Safe Space where Numero Uno has no faults and no history of error and no responsibility for anything.

That may not have the same motivations as "Hitler", but it has the same net effect.

Hitler knew how to mine the emotions of his minions and manipulate them into blind mob mentality in the relentless emotionally-driven illusion of national "glory". Rump has and employs the same skills to the letter.

When mobs are incited over emotionally-inspired bullshit -------------------- anything can happen. And whatever does happen is usually destructive.

But "brash and vulgar" has no function in that. Again, a mob manipulator can certainly accomplish that end without "brash and vulgar". Of course Rump is "brash and vulgar" but that's not necessarily a deal breaker. Rump's problem is his values. Hitler was all about "Deutschland Über Alles" -- Rump is all about "Ich Über Alles".

For a ready example of how this works ---

When Rump brags about "grab 'em by the p***y" .... or characterizes his own daughter as a "hot piece of ass" .... or recounts how he just walks in on naked teenage girls.... or frames any bitchy comeback on a female critic in terms of "blood" ---- is he being "brash and vulgar"? Of course. Does it make him a revolting apology for a human being who has no respect for women? It would appear so.

Does that make him unfit to be a President? Not necessarily, not directly. Because that isn't the point. After all does he even genuinely feel those things? We don't even know that. Because it's all done for show. And that speaks volumes about motivation.

That is the point --- all of this shit is engineered specifically to score brownie points with Howard Stern, and more to the point Howard Stern's listeners, with misogynists in general, with the anti-intellectual knuckledragger set, and of course the sensationalist commercial news media that spreads it around because it makes them money. He puts this out there because it scores him followers. No deeper than that.

The same is true of "fire the sumbitches" and "ban Muslims" and "very fine people" and "they're rapists" ---- ALL emotional trigger-points specifically designed to resonate on the crude, purely emotional level with the misogynists and the bigots and the knuckledraggers, none of which groups will give what's happening to them a second thought and just go with it because it "feels good". Like gulping down a new food without bothering to read the ingredient label.

Whether he actually personally believes any of this misogynist / racist / bigot / antiintellectual shit, we have no way to know. Because it's not put out there as a creed --- it's put out strictly as a manipulation tool. In other words he's acting in the same way, and for the same purpose, as the media he claims to oppose (yet another manipulation trigger) --- he's milking emotions for his own personal profit. And that profit is the obsession with personal accolades of which there have never been, and never will be, enough.

THAT is why it's a problem. Nobody knows what his personal values are, if he even has any. Her won't hesitate to shift them according to what will score him personal points. When the wind is blowing one way he doesn't know who David Duke is; when it was blowing the other way he disassociated in no uncertain terms. Whichever way the winds blow. His focus is entirely and irrevocably on the Self. Discipline, rational Judgment and any sense of Responsibility are entirely absent. And those are not desirable traits in anyone, let alone somebody in charge of something.

That's an amusing rant coming from a douchebag who voted twice for the sexual predator Slick Willy.

 

[kaz]

Wanting to allow illegal aliens to flood the country may be immoral, but at least it's clear why Democrats do it. Votes.

But putting violent criminals back on the street doesn't seem to serve any even selfish interest of the left. It just proves that they aren't just self absorbed, they are evil

Again, we lock up 2 million people. Most other industrialized countries lock up less than 100K. We lock up more people than Communist China.

If locking people up got us to lower crime rates, we'd have the lowest crime rates in the industrialized world, not the highest.

If you exclude blacks and Hispanics, then our incarceration rates are very favorable compared to those European welfare states. I guess what you're trying to say is that American sucks because of blacks and Hispanics.

OMG is Joe back to his racist rants again?

 

[Mac1958]

That one thing surely wouldn't have been enough, since it was just one of a non-stop flood of embarrassing moments.

I knew that if Trump or Cruz won the nomination, I'd have to vote for Hillary. Otherwise, I would have voted third party. I don't care much for her.
.

So, where is the positive feedback for being the better person then?


People like you, don't care. YOu talk like you, do, but it does not effect your voting.


Meanwhile to the undecided, the blue dogs, ect, people in play,


it looks like weakness, to let someone insult you like that, and say nothing back.

It only looks like weakness to people of a certain mindset.

But he's your guy. Fine with me. You don't see me insulting you for it.
.

1. I have not insulted you.

2. I think you are seriously underestimating the effect of that type of non-verbal communication. People, ALL OF THEM, are more impacted by non-verbal communication then they think.

3. In today's world, civility and decorum gets you nothing. Indeed, many consider it a sign of weakness and an invitation for attack.

I think we can improve today's world, but only if we want to.

I see no signs that we want to. We appear to be just fine with these behaviors. We even defend and justify them.
.

Trump is a brash and vulgar person.


Anyone that would equate that with being Hitler is employing seriously toxic and divisive tactics to advance their agenda at the cost of tearing this nation apart.



I'm calling people on their bs, when I can. I try to speak the Truth. I do not let people who talk shit about me and mine go unchallenged, if I have any ability to call them on it.


I'm doing what I can.

You're doing what you can to do what? Open lines of communication and look for ways to collaborate?
.

 

[Pogo]

1. I have not insulted you.

2. I think you are seriously underestimating the effect of that type of non-verbal communication. People, ALL OF THEM, are more impacted by non-verbal communication then they think.

3. In today's world, civility and decorum gets you nothing. Indeed, many consider it a sign of weakness and an invitation for attack.

I think we can improve today's world, but only if we want to.

I see no signs that we want to. We appear to be just fine with these behaviors. We even defend and justify them.
.

Trump is a brash and vulgar person.

Anyone that would equate that with being Hitler is employing seriously toxic and divisive tactics to advance their agenda at the cost of tearing this nation apart.

Here's where you went off the rails. You're placing two different dynamics -- one a given, the other somebody else's opinion --- side by side as if they were a cause and effect.

Rump is not a Hitler because he's a brash and vulgar person. We could run a list all day of brash and vulgar people who are not a Hitler. That's a non sequitur and as such functions as a strawman.

Rump's issue is he's so obsessed with himself, and so emotionally crippled in the face of the tiniest challenge, that he'll disregard and nullify not just the "decorum" that keeps you awake at night but the very Constitution and the concepts of civil rights and human rights, in pursuit of his Creamsicle-colored Safe Space where Numero Uno has no faults and no history of error and no responsibility for anything.

That may not have the same motivations as "Hitler", but it has the same net effect.

Hitler knew how to mine the emotions of his minions and manipulate them into blind mob mentality in the relentless emotionally-driven illusion of national "glory". Rump has and employs the same skills to the letter.

When mobs are incited over emotionally-inspired bullshit -------------------- anything can happen. And whatever does happen is usually destructive.

But "brash and vulgar" has no function in that. Again, a mob manipulator can certainly accomplish that end without "brash and vulgar". Of course Rump is "brash and vulgar" but that's not necessarily a deal breaker. Rump's problem is his values. Hitler was all about "Deutschland Über Alles" -- Rump is all about "Ich Über Alles".

For a ready example of how this works ---

When Rump brags about "grab 'em by the p***y" .... or characterizes his own daughter as a "hot piece of ass" .... or recounts how he just walks in on naked teenage girls.... or frames any bitchy comeback on a female critic in terms of "blood" ---- is he being "brash and vulgar"? Of course. Does it make him a revolting apology for a human being who has no respect for women? It would appear so.

Does that make him unfit to be a President? Not necessarily, not directly. Because that isn't the point. After all does he even genuinely feel those things? We don't even know that. Because it's all done for show. And that speaks volumes about motivation.

That is the point --- all of this shit is engineered specifically to score brownie points with Howard Stern, and more to the point Howard Stern's listeners, with misogynists in general, with the anti-intellectual knuckledragger set, and of course the sensationalist commercial news media that spreads it around because it makes them money. He puts this out there because it scores him followers. No deeper than that.

The same is true of "fire the sumbitches" and "ban Muslims" and "very fine people" and "they're rapists" ---- ALL emotional trigger-points specifically designed to resonate on the crude, purely emotional level with the misogynists and the bigots and the knuckledraggers, none of which groups will give what's happening to them a second thought and just go with it because it "feels good". Like gulping down a new food without bothering to read the ingredient label.

Whether he actually personally believes any of this misogynist / racist / bigot / antiintellectual shit, we have no way to know. Because it's not put out there as a creed --- it's put out strictly as a manipulation tool. In other words he's acting in the same way, and for the same purpose, as the media he claims to oppose (yet another manipulation trigger) --- he's milking emotions for his own personal profit. And that profit is the obsession with personal accolades of which there have never been, and never will be, enough.

THAT is why it's a problem. Nobody knows what his personal values are, if he even has any. Her won't hesitate to shift them according to what will score him personal points. When the wind is blowing one way he doesn't know who David Duke is; when it was blowing the other way he disassociated in no uncertain terms. Whichever way the winds blow. His focus is entirely and irrevocably on the Self. Discipline, rational Judgment and any sense of Responsibility are entirely absent. And those are not desirable traits in anyone, let alone somebody in charge of something.

That's an amusing rant coming from a douchebag who voted twice for the sexual predator Slick Willy.

Actually that's my post. Learn to read.

 

[bripat9643]

I think we can improve today's world, but only if we want to.

I see no signs that we want to. We appear to be just fine with these behaviors. We even defend and justify them.
.

Trump is a brash and vulgar person.

Anyone that would equate that with being Hitler is employing seriously toxic and divisive tactics to advance their agenda at the cost of tearing this nation apart.

Here's where you went off the rails. You're placing two different dynamics -- one a given, the other somebody else's opinion --- side by side as if they were a cause and effect.

Rump is not a Hitler because he's a brash and vulgar person. We could run a list all day of brash and vulgar people who are not a Hitler. That's a non sequitur and as such functions as a strawman.

Rump's issue is he's so obsessed with himself, and so emotionally crippled in the face of the tiniest challenge, that he'll disregard and nullify not just the "decorum" that keeps you awake at night but the very Constitution and the concepts of civil rights and human rights, in pursuit of his Creamsicle-colored Safe Space where Numero Uno has no faults and no history of error and no responsibility for anything.

That may not have the same motivations as "Hitler", but it has the same net effect.

Hitler knew how to mine the emotions of his minions and manipulate them into blind mob mentality in the relentless emotionally-driven illusion of national "glory". Rump has and employs the same skills to the letter.

When mobs are incited over emotionally-inspired bullshit -------------------- anything can happen. And whatever does happen is usually destructive.

But "brash and vulgar" has no function in that. Again, a mob manipulator can certainly accomplish that end without "brash and vulgar". Of course Rump is "brash and vulgar" but that's not necessarily a deal breaker. Rump's problem is his values. Hitler was all about "Deutschland Über Alles" -- Rump is all about "Ich Über Alles".

For a ready example of how this works ---

When Rump brags about "grab 'em by the p***y" .... or characterizes his own daughter as a "hot piece of ass" .... or recounts how he just walks in on naked teenage girls.... or frames any bitchy comeback on a female critic in terms of "blood" ---- is he being "brash and vulgar"? Of course. Does it make him a revolting apology for a human being who has no respect for women? It would appear so.

Does that make him unfit to be a President? Not necessarily, not directly. Because that isn't the point. After all does he even genuinely feel those things? We don't even know that. Because it's all done for show. And that speaks volumes about motivation.

That is the point --- all of this shit is engineered specifically to score brownie points with Howard Stern, and more to the point Howard Stern's listeners, with misogynists in general, with the anti-intellectual knuckledragger set, and of course the sensationalist commercial news media that spreads it around because it makes them money. He puts this out there because it scores him followers. No deeper than that.

The same is true of "fire the sumbitches" and "ban Muslims" and "very fine people" and "they're rapists" ---- ALL emotional trigger-points specifically designed to resonate on the crude, purely emotional level with the misogynists and the bigots and the knuckledraggers, none of which groups will give what's happening to them a second thought and just go with it because it "feels good". Like gulping down a new food without bothering to read the ingredient label.

Whether he actually personally believes any of this misogynist / racist / bigot / antiintellectual shit, we have no way to know. Because it's not put out there as a creed --- it's put out strictly as a manipulation tool. In other words he's acting in the same way, and for the same purpose, as the media he claims to oppose (yet another manipulation trigger) --- he's milking emotions for his own personal profit. And that profit is the obsession with personal accolades of which there have never been, and never will be, enough.

THAT is why it's a problem. Nobody knows what his personal values are, if he even has any. Her won't hesitate to shift them according to what will score him personal points. When the wind is blowing one way he doesn't know who David Duke is; when it was blowing the other way he disassociated in no uncertain terms. Whichever way the winds blow. His focus is entirely and irrevocably on the Self. Discipline, rational Judgment and any sense of Responsibility are entirely absent. And those are not desirable traits in anyone, let alone somebody in charge of something.

That's an amusing rant coming from a douchebag who voted twice for the sexual predator Slick Willy.

Actually that's my post. Learn to read.

Yes, it's your post . . . and?

 

[JoeB131]

We don't have a quota. We lock up people who choose to commit crimes, Joey. Tell the criminals to commit fewer crimes. Maybe you can bring that up in your next meeting with them where you let them know your plan to take guns from them is to take guns away from honest citizens. Criminals in prison say they aren't afraid of the cops nearly as much as armed victims. They applaud you for your plan

actually, they are more afraid of cops. Cops can shoot them without consequences.

But you miss the point Mr. "I'm so Libertarian I think locking up 2 million people is okay when most countries only lock up 70,000."

The Prison Industrial Complex works very well for those profiting off of it, but for the rest of us who have to foot the bill and have to deal with the 7 million people on probation or parole who we can't fit in prison because there isn't enough room for them... not so much.

What we are doing isn't working. Time to try something else.

 

[JoeB131]

If you exclude blacks and Hispanics,

If my Aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

then our incarceration rates are very favorable compared to those European welfare states.

No, they really aren't.

39% of the Prison population is white... so we lock up 900,000 white people. Compared to Germany, that only locks up 80,000 people.

 

[Vastator]

We don't have a quota. We lock up people who choose to commit crimes, Joey. Tell the criminals to commit fewer crimes. Maybe you can bring that up in your next meeting with them where you let them know your plan to take guns from them is to take guns away from honest citizens. Criminals in prison say they aren't afraid of the cops nearly as much as armed victims. They applaud you for your plan

What we are doing isn't working. Time to try something else.

Indeed. Our entire criminal justice system is a failure. And I have just the solution...

Do We Really Get Any Justice From Our Penal System?

 

[kaz]

We don't have a quota. We lock up people who choose to commit crimes, Joey. Tell the criminals to commit fewer crimes. Maybe you can bring that up in your next meeting with them where you let them know your plan to take guns from them is to take guns away from honest citizens. Criminals in prison say they aren't afraid of the cops nearly as much as armed victims. They applaud you for your plan

actually, they are more afraid of cops. Cops can shoot them without consequences.

The difference is I'm going by polls of criminals in prisons and you made it up

But you miss the point Mr. "I'm so Libertarian I think locking up 2 million people is okay when most countries only lock up 70,000."

The Prison Industrial Complex works very well for those profiting off of it, but for the rest of us who have to foot the bill and have to deal with the 7 million people on probation or parole who we can't fit in prison because there isn't enough room for them... not so much.

What we are doing isn't working. Time to try something else.

Libertarians are law and order. You're ill informed that you think we want people who have with due process had the right to life, liberty and property removed put back on the street. The term you're looking for who want to do that is "leftist."

And I just addressed that point. We don't have a quota for prisoners. It's based on individuals and the crime they committed. If they committed a violent crime, they should stay in jail a long time. Arguing overall prison rates is irrelevant. You're the collectivist. I believe in individuals. Believing in individuals includes individual responsibility.

So what's your "something else" than prisons for violent criminals? A big brother and trips to the mall for ice cream every Saturday?