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

[Pogo]

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?

And, I stand by it and shit.

You have to understand, Pogo's Law is simply my observation that wags like you will immediately try to change the subject as soon as the sunlight is on Rump. It doesn't mean that *I* do it. So your Bull Clinton allusion is going to cost you yet another five cents in royalties.

I've never been a fan of Bull Clinton anyway, which you'd know if you actually read my posts.

 

[kaz]

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?

And, I stand by it and shit.

You have to understand, Pogo's Law is simply my observation that wags like you will immediately try to change the subject as soon as the sunlight is on Rump. It doesn't mean that *I* do it. So your Bull Clinton allusion is going to cost you yet another five cents in royalties.

I've never been a fan of Bull Clinton anyway, which you'd know if you actually read my posts.

OMG, pogo has serious trump butt hurt, he must not be a fan of Slick!

Nope, I dont see why anyone would think that.

I've also read endless posts of your stupid crap and never seen you say that

 

[Pogo]

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?

And, I stand by it and shit.

You have to understand, Pogo's Law is simply my observation that wags like you will immediately try to change the subject as soon as the sunlight is on Rump. It doesn't mean that *I* do it. So your Bull Clinton allusion is going to cost you yet another five cents in royalties.

I've never been a fan of Bull Clinton anyway, which you'd know if you actually read my posts.

OMG, pogo has serious trump butt hurt, he must not be a fan of Slick!

Nope, I dont see why anyone would think that.

I've also read endless posts of your stupid crap and never seen you say that

Of course you haven't. You miss a lot, just as Finger-Boi does. As Paul Simon observed, "still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". And I ween the same is true for an androgyne.

In any case even if Finger-Boi's topic shift to avoid the question were a valid argument, it's still his ass-sertion that he purports to know who I voted for two decades ago long before the jelly on his face was put into its splooge sprayer. As such, he would have the burden of proof, now wouldn't he. The onus is on his anus.

Y'all fallacists are such cat toys.

BOTH tactics -- his Tu Quoque, your zipping in like a cheerleader girl with pom poms ---- demonstrate the OP's point yet again. Even in a topic that was never brought up, y'all go out of your way to introduce it as a wedge. Bravo Madge.

 

[kaz]

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?

And, I stand by it and shit.

You have to understand, Pogo's Law is simply my observation that wags like you will immediately try to change the subject as soon as the sunlight is on Rump. It doesn't mean that *I* do it. So your Bull Clinton allusion is going to cost you yet another five cents in royalties.

I've never been a fan of Bull Clinton anyway, which you'd know if you actually read my posts.

OMG, pogo has serious trump butt hurt, he must not be a fan of Slick!

Nope, I dont see why anyone would think that.

I've also read endless posts of your stupid crap and never seen you say that

Of course you haven't. You miss a lot, just as Finger-Boi does. As Paul Simon observed, "still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". And I ween the same is true for an androgyne.

In any case even if Finger-Boi's topic shift to avoid the question were a valid argument, it's still his ass-sertion that he purports to know who I voted for two decades ago long before the jelly on his face was put into its splooge sprayer. As such, he would have the burden of proof, now wouldn't he. The onus is on his anus.

Y'all fallacists are such cat toys.

BOTH tactics -- his Tu Quoque, your zipping in like a cheerleader girl with pom poms ---- demonstrate the OP's point yet again. Even in a topic that was never brought up, y'all go out of your way to introduce it as a wedge. Bravo Madge.

Nope. I notice leftists who question the democrat party. It's so rare it's memorable

 

[Some Guy]

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.

Looking at pure numbers is disingenuous. You need to look per capita.

But even if you do, i still agree with you in part. All you need to do is look at how many people are locked up, way too many of which for victimless crimes, to easily determine that the war on drugs needs to end. Prison should be a place for violent and/or egregious offenders, not some people who want to get high (drug users) or people that are providing supply to a societies' demands (dealers). There's obviously plenty of nuance there but the overall point remains.

The war on drugs definitely perpetuates things like giant police forces, the prison business and needless attorney fees.

 

[Pogo]

Actually that's my post. Learn to read.

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

And, I stand by it and shit.

You have to understand, Pogo's Law is simply my observation that wags like you will immediately try to change the subject as soon as the sunlight is on Rump. It doesn't mean that *I* do it. So your Bull Clinton allusion is going to cost you yet another five cents in royalties.

I've never been a fan of Bull Clinton anyway, which you'd know if you actually read my posts.

OMG, pogo has serious trump butt hurt, he must not be a fan of Slick!

Nope, I dont see why anyone would think that.

I've also read endless posts of your stupid crap and never seen you say that

Of course you haven't. You miss a lot, just as Finger-Boi does. As Paul Simon observed, "still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". And I ween the same is true for an androgyne.

In any case even if Finger-Boi's topic shift to avoid the question were a valid argument, it's still his ass-sertion that he purports to know who I voted for two decades ago long before the jelly on his face was put into its splooge sprayer. As such, he would have the burden of proof, now wouldn't he. The onus is on his anus.

Y'all fallacists are such cat toys.

BOTH tactics -- his Tu Quoque, your zipping in like a cheerleader girl with pom poms ---- demonstrate the OP's point yet again. Even in a topic that was never brought up, y'all go out of your way to introduce it as a wedge. Bravo Madge.

Nope. I notice leftists who question the democrat party. It's so rare it's memorable

It would be rare indeed since there's no such thing as a "democrat party".

However nothing in the above was about ANY party at all. It was a personal psychological examination of one person. Nothing about "parties".

I see you've moved on from the Tu Quoque back to the old reliable Composition Fallacy, where the one becomes the collective --- just because the one cannot be defended.

Ah, home sweet home.

Your greater overall fallacy is False Dichotomy --- the imaginary world where everything is "black" or "white" --- or in this case "Republican" or "democrat [sic]". Which is ironic considering how much energy you expend crowing that you're "not a Republican", yet are willing to expend the same energy on putting other people into the same boxes you resist.

Which makes you a hypocrite.

Yer a mess, Dude(tte).

 

[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.

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.

Looking at pure numbers is disingenuous. You need to look per capita.

But even if you do, i still agree with you in part. All you need to do is look at how many people are locked up, way too many of which for victimless crimes, to easily determine that the war on drugs needs to end. Prison should be a place for violent and/or egregious offenders, not some people who want to get high (drug users) or people that are providing supply to a societies' demands (dealers). There's obviously plenty of nuance there but the overall point remains.

The war on drugs definitely perpetuates things like giant police forces, the prison business and needless attorney fees.

Yes, victimless crimes are ridiculus and should be abolished

 

[Some Guy]

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.

Looking at pure numbers is disingenuous. You need to look per capita.

But even if you do, i still agree with you in part. All you need to do is look at how many people are locked up, way too many of which for victimless crimes, to easily determine that the war on drugs needs to end. Prison should be a place for violent and/or egregious offenders, not some people who want to get high (drug users) or people that are providing supply to a societies' demands (dealers). There's obviously plenty of nuance there but the overall point remains.

The war on drugs definitely perpetuates things like giant police forces, the prison business and needless attorney fees.

Yes, victimless crimes are ridiculus and should be abolished

If you masturbate, you should be thrown in jail.
Why?
Cause it's bad for you.
Why is bad for you?
Cause i said so.
What gives you the authority to tell me what i can and can't do in the comfort of my own home?
People voted for me, so now i have the authority to tell you what you can and can't do within the comfort of your own home, punishable by taking your property, imprisoning or even killing you if need be.

...

Replace the word "masturbate" with "smoke weed" and you have what we currently have in place.

 

[kaz]

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

And, I stand by it and shit.

You have to understand, Pogo's Law is simply my observation that wags like you will immediately try to change the subject as soon as the sunlight is on Rump. It doesn't mean that *I* do it. So your Bull Clinton allusion is going to cost you yet another five cents in royalties.

I've never been a fan of Bull Clinton anyway, which you'd know if you actually read my posts.

OMG, pogo has serious trump butt hurt, he must not be a fan of Slick!

Nope, I dont see why anyone would think that.

I've also read endless posts of your stupid crap and never seen you say that

Of course you haven't. You miss a lot, just as Finger-Boi does. As Paul Simon observed, "still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". And I ween the same is true for an androgyne.

In any case even if Finger-Boi's topic shift to avoid the question were a valid argument, it's still his ass-sertion that he purports to know who I voted for two decades ago long before the jelly on his face was put into its splooge sprayer. As such, he would have the burden of proof, now wouldn't he. The onus is on his anus.

Y'all fallacists are such cat toys.

BOTH tactics -- his Tu Quoque, your zipping in like a cheerleader girl with pom poms ---- demonstrate the OP's point yet again. Even in a topic that was never brought up, y'all go out of your way to introduce it as a wedge. Bravo Madge.

Nope. I notice leftists who question the democrat party. It's so rare it's memorable

It would be rare indeed since there's no such thing as a "democrat party".

However nothing in the above was about ANY party at all. It was a personal psychological examination of one person. Nothing about "parties".

I see you've moved on from the Tu Quoque back to the old reliable Composition Fallacy, where the one becomes the collective --- just because the one cannot be defended.

Ah, home sweet home.

Your greater overall fallacy is False Dichotomy --- the imaginary world where everything is "black" or "white" --- or in this case "Republican" or "democrat [sic]". Which is ironic considering how much energy you expend crowing that you're "not a Republican", yet are willing to expend the same energy on putting other people into the same boxes you resist.

Which makes you a hypocrite.

Yer a mess, Dude(tte).

Yee haw, a hillbilly speaking French. Now I've seen everything. You used it wrong like the other fallacies, but a noble effort even if you are puttin on airs.

Tu Quoque - Nope. I said you're full of shit that you talk about opposing Slick. I didn't even make an argument, so Tu Quoque by definition couldn't applly

reliable composition fallacy - Again it makes sense. I said something about you, not a group

False Dichotomy - Again it doesn't even make sense. I said I remember hard left posters who contradict the Democrat party, and you don't. I didn't make any dichotomy much less a false one

You failed badly, your claims didn't even make sense. Oh well, que sera sera

 

[kaz]

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?

And, I stand by it and shit.

You have to understand, Pogo's Law is simply my observation that wags like you will immediately try to change the subject as soon as the sunlight is on Rump. It doesn't mean that *I* do it. So your Bull Clinton allusion is going to cost you yet another five cents in royalties.

I've never been a fan of Bull Clinton anyway, which you'd know if you actually read my posts.

Dude, you have a complete in ability to admit you're wrong ever to the point where it's embarassing

 

[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.

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".

Actually, the recent historical record shows that the behavior I was discussing was yours, ie you lefty assholes.


That's why you people keep whining about how Trump has to counter attack everyone who attacks him.


Because you cowards miss the "good old days" when stupid Republicans would ignore your attacks and you could smear and defame people without any push back.

THose days are over loser. Times have changed. We are not your parents Republicans, any-fucking-more.

 

[Correll]

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. .....r. ...".

Yeah, I'm still not feeling talking seriously with a child.


So, piss off.


Loser.

 

[Correll]

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.

I seem to have lost my ability, or at least part of it, to pretend that these liberals, are capable of anything even close to rational discourse.


I just can't do it. At least not with some of the more obviously moronic of the assholes.


I just can't.


I used to be able to. Very recently.


But not anymore.


DO you think it will come back?

 

[Correll]

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?
.

Collaboration with people who want to destroy you is not a valid option.


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've been hearing some encouraging details coming out of the Proud Boys recently. A novel way to counter the Identify Politics of the Regressive Left.


Have you heard anything of them?

 

[Correll]

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?

And, I stand by it and shit.

You have to understand, Pogo's Law is simply my observation that wags like you will immediately try to change the subject as soon as the sunlight is on Rump. It doesn't mean that *I* do it. So your Bull Clinton allusion is going to cost you yet another five cents in royalties.

I've never been a fan of Bull Clinton anyway, which you'd know if you actually read my posts.

It could be, that since you talk like a dim witted child, that he doesn't have enough respect for you to read your posts carefully.


YOu know, because it is hard to pretend that you are going to have anything to actually say.

 

[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. 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.

I seem to have lost my ability, or at least part of it, to pretend that these liberals, are capable of anything even close to rational discourse.


I just can't do it. At least not with some of the more obviously moronic of the assholes.


I just can't.


I used to be able to. Very recently.


But not anymore.


DO you think it will come back?

Nope. Once the veil falls, you can never unsee what you have seen.

 

[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.



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?
.

Collaboration with people who want to destroy you is not a valid option.


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've been hearing some encouraging details coming out of the Proud Boys recently. A novel way to counter the Identify Politics of the Regressive Left.


Have you heard anything of them?

They are the creation of Gavin McGinness. Tune into his youTube channel if you want to learn more.

 

[JoeB131]

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

Yes, because crooks in prison are so honest. Not a one of them did what they were in for. Just ask them.

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.

again, if we lock up 2 million people and the rest of the world only locks up a few thousand, we are doing it wrong.

Sorry this isn't clear to you.

 

[Correll]

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?
.

Collaboration with people who want to destroy you is not a valid option.


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've been hearing some encouraging details coming out of the Proud Boys recently. A novel way to counter the Identify Politics of the Regressive Left.


Have you heard anything of them?

They are the creation of Gavin McGinness. Tune into his youTube channel if you want to learn more.

I've been watching clips. I am thinking of subscribing.


It is a very encouraging development.

 

[JoeB131]

Looking at pure numbers is disingenuous. You need to look per capita.

Our Per Capita numbers are pretty bad, too. We lock up 1/150, while Germany locks up 1/1000. Even Communist China locks up less per capita than we do.