Never Trump

[Stoked]

**** did you just say?

I think babe is on to something here. I've been of the opinion for a long while that Trump's attractiveness has been the outsider combined with saying dumb **** that you would hear in a bar (or by Stoked). He is by far the most populist candidate I have experienced.

You all seem to think that populism does not carry across party lines. This is not the case as Trump is clearly proving right now. His entire campaign has been based on uniting common ground, stupid *** hick America into a whole. Believe it or not, there are many democrat, union dues paying, gun toting Americans who align with the republican platform in every way outside of their own personal paycheck. Trump is capitalizing on that vote.

In his case it will not. Many of them won't embrace his ideas on Muslims and immigration for example. There is nothing to show that Sanders supporters are crossing the line en mass. Nothing. In fact the opposite. Many of the demos Bernie excelled in are dramatically opposed to the R ticket.

Maybe that will change down the road but right now it is not happening. No matter how much you down play it as something I'd say in a bar

 

[Gameface]

I get what GF was saying but I think both of you are taking this a little bit too far. There is a strong need to make kids, adults, teens earn things. That goes without saying but your mockeries of "conservative values" seem to be discounting that aspect.

Don't get me wrong; I am annoyed as any when it comes to the bitching about lazy millennials living in momma's basement. Cliche's are dumb.

I think people still earn things and kids today are no more entitled than kids have ever been and when people bitch that everyone gets a trophy they are pretty clueless because this isn't really some phenomenon that is destroying our way of life.

 

[Siro]

I get what GF was saying but I think both of you are taking this a little bit too far. There is a strong need to make kids, adults, teens earn things. That goes without saying but your mockeries of "conservative values" seem to be discounting that aspect.

Don't get me wrong; I am annoyed as any when it comes to the bitching about lazy millennials living in momma's basement. Cliche's are dumb.

How am I taking it too far? I haven't expressed an opinion on the subject. I said if you want kids to earn things, then stop giving them trophies for participating. It's the trophy-giver generation's fault. Yet they're the ones complaining.

 

[franklin]

In his case it will not. Many of them won't embrace his ideas on Muslims and immigration for example. There is nothing to show that Sanders supporters are crossing the line en mass. Nothing. In fact the opposite. Many of the demos Bernie excelled in are dramatically opposed to the R ticket.

Maybe that will change down the road but right now it is not happening. No matter how much you down play it as something I'd say in a bar

The bar line was a joke, obviously.

You may be right but don't be so sure about it. Look at all of us who generally side with republican values who refuse to vote Trump. There are likely as many if not more who tend to side with current the democratic platform who will cross sides in favor of Trump's populism combined with antiestabdysentaryism and anti-Hillaryism.

I think people still earn things and kids today are no more entitled than kids have ever been and when people bitch that everyone gets a trophy they are pretty clueless because this isn't really some phenomenon that is destroying our way of life.

I agree. Side note: I think people feel entitled and should. Entitlement is a broad spectrum tho, just like most things. What's wrong with feeling entitled to getting yours out of this world? Wasn't that a founding principle of democracy, theocracy, autocracy, monarchy, anarchy, and whatever else arcy I'm leaving out?

 

[Gameface]

I played little league baseball when I was like 7 maybe. Everyone got at least a little plastic trophy. The winners got bigger better trophies. The people I hear bitch about this are around my same age and they act like things have just absolutely fallen apart "nowadays." Makes me wonder when "nowadays" started? Like 50 years ago?

People act like everyone is getting one of these just for participation...

 

[NAOS]

I played little league baseball when I was like 7 maybe. Everyone got at least a little plastic trophy. The winners got bigger better trophies. The people I hear bitch about this are around my same age and they act like things have just absolutely fallen apart "nowadays." Makes me wonder when "nowadays" started? Like 50 years ago?

People act like everyone is getting one of these just for participation...

gawddamn liberal bias everywhere amiright?>/? EH, JOE?

 

[fishonjazz]

 

[franklin]

I played little league baseball when I was like 7 maybe. Everyone got at least a little plastic trophy. The winners got bigger better trophies. The people I hear bitch about this are around my same age and they act like things have just absolutely fallen apart "nowadays." Makes me wonder when "nowadays" started? Like 50 years ago?

People act like everyone is getting one of these just for participation...

Ones that size are reserved for the plastic mothers of 7 year old beauty pageant winners' collections. The rest of us got freaking blue ribbons.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

It's funny to me that people mention the trophy thing so much. If there's a first world problem it's that someone thinks too mask kids are getting trophies.

And it's no doubt some dumb cliche, yet aother example of the older generation grumbling about the younger generation, which has reliably occured with every generation since caveman days.

I endured a lecture by my teabagger brother the other day about the Millenials are the most immoral generation, because . . . that's right SEX. Funny, that's what the WWII generation was saying about my brother's generation during the 60s. And this lecture on morality from a bother who as trustee of my parent's estate embezzled a couple of hundred thousand dollars to fund his get rich quick schemes, none of which, of course, ever came to fruition.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

How am I taking it too far? I haven't expressed an opinion on the subject. I said if you want kids to earn things, then stop giving them trophies for participating. It's the trophy-giver generation's fault. Yet they're the ones complaining.

Although they are part of the same generation, the trophy complainers and the trophy givers aren't the same people.

 

[One Brow]

You people... a time and place for everything.

Enjoy a flatter, crispier, usually tastier (but not always)cookie that spreads out? Use Butter.

Enjoy a cookie that rises up better, and more tender? Use Crisco.

Cookies don't rise. If your dough is room temperature, the Crisco cookie just melts a little slower.

The best solution is to use butter, and keep your dough close to refrigerator temperature. It will be tender, thick, crispy at the edges, and have the taste only butter can bring.

 

[Siro]

Obviously butter is the way to go. ****ing Crisco peasants!

 

[babe]

Yes, with Hillary (and with Trump, frankly) it's at least as much a personality/character thing for me as it is a policy thing. I won't get into all of my issues with Hillary but let's just say my dislike of her started with Travelgate and her disdain for stay-at-home mothers (I don't have time to look up the quote right now), and hasn't gotten any better since then with the more recent Bengazi and email scandals, and possible corruption involving the Clinton foundation.

As far as policies go, Trump and Hillary are roughly equidistant from my own views. If someone put a gun to my head and made me vote for one of the two, I'd pick Hillary, though. Her personality/character is less horrible than Trump's (in my opinion) and I at least know what her policies will be, which I can't say about Trump. Trump is much more the classic demagogue and who knows what he would do if he were to obtain power.

Hillary has devoted her whole life to politics. I think she's the inspiration for the Tracey character in "Election". Yes, she's been obsessed with it. She also wants to be a judge on the World Court someday.

She is absolutely the spawn of the Rockefeller-influenced Council on Foreign Relations, and she will absolutely dutifully follow the prescription for social progress.

Trump might also be a CFR man, behind all the bluster, and might do just as well for "The Club".

But "The Club" needs to reassess it's program right now. People don't want it. Well, let's say eighty percent of the American people don't want it. Fewer than ten percent even know what it is, but it's all they complain about day and night, without knowing the plan they don't like what they see happening.

Anyone who believes in human choice should be against the CFR. Probably less than five percent of Americans, if they understood it, would want it. Pretty much the college indoctrinated ideologues, that's it.

 

[babe]

So I'm both a progressive, and an ideologue who wants things to stay the same? Ooookay.

Also, your dumbass candidate will lose. Not enough "real people" (uninformed and uneducated elderly white men) to vote him into the office.

As always, rhetoric needs context. Words need definitions, too.

You are a pretty absolute materialist, you believe "Science" can properly only be applied to the material universe, and since other dimensions of existence have no vector in the plane of this dimension, you choose to ignore the mathematics that suggests there are other possibilities.

An ideologue is someone who believes in a system of ideas constructed in a certain way. You are an ideologue as a materialist.

Materialism is foundational to a number of political theories, including Marxism, Progressivism, Secular Humanism, and Fascism. All deny "God", the theory of of a sovereign all-powerful relevant ruler of the universe that applies some absolute set of moral values and executes judgment on the world. Without such a theory, we poor humans get to make up our own rules, and there is no one who can stop us if somehow we assert and maintain the necessary force of power.

A world managed by a super government staffed by hordes of very expert authorities on every possible issue, rather than on the will of humans possessed of innate rights including the right to displace governments in times of governmental bad behavior. .. . could be an oligarchy, or any form of statism. Marx at least theorized that governments would die someday in the hallowed twilight of errant humanity. . . . when we all become sufficiently evolved to not care about anything, and when the resources of the world would just assemble themselves into the stuff we need. yep. AI just might do all that work for us. lol.

I don't believe in fairy tales. I think you do.

The part where I see you wanting "things to stay the same" is as in under present global management. Which is fascist because it's corporate interests that are meaningful, and the little people really don't get meaningful votes for their government.

You might have a lot of ideas about how we can make things better. That's progressive. Progressivism today refers to a specific vision of progress that some very influential folks subscribe to and talk about in "The Club", and in general in various elite circles. I haven't seen you objecting to that vision.

 

[Stoked]

Lmfao at people not realizing that using some Crisco makes a better cookie.

It's like listening to poor people talk about being rich.

 

[moevillini]

As always, rhetoric needs context. Words need definitions, too.

You are a pretty absolute materialist, you believe "Science" can properly only be applied to the material universe, and since other dimensions of existence have no vector in the plane of this dimension, you choose to ignore the mathematics that suggests there are other possibilities.

An ideologue is someone who believes in a system of ideas constructed in a certain way. You are an ideologue as a materialist.

Materialism is foundational to a number of political theories, including Marxism, Progressivism, Secular Humanism, and Fascism. All deny "God", the theory of of a sovereign all-powerful relevant ruler of the universe that applies some absolute set of moral values and executes judgment on the world. Without such a theory, we poor humans get to make up our own rules, and there is no one who can stop us if somehow we assert and maintain the necessary force of power.

A world managed by a super government staffed by hordes of very expert authorities on every possible issue, rather than on the will of humans possessed of innate rights including the right to displace governments in times of governmental bad behavior. .. . could be an oligarchy, or any form of statism. Marx at least theorized that governments would die someday in the hallowed twilight of errant humanity. . . . when we all become sufficiently evolved to not care about anything, and when the resources of the world would just assemble themselves into the stuff we need. yep. AI just might do all that work for us. lol.

I don't believe in fairy tales. I think you do.

The part where I see you wanting "things to stay the same" is as in under present global management. Which is fascist because it's corporate interests that are meaningful, and the little people really don't get meaningful votes for their government.

You might have a lot of ideas about how we can make things better. That's progressive. Progressivism today refers to a specific vision of progress that some very influential folks subscribe to and talk about in "The Club", and in general in various elite circles. I haven't seen you objecting to that vision.

oh Babe, your posts often remind me of a cross between novels by Ayn Rand and Taylor Caldwell. Good stuff.

 

[Siro]

As always, rhetoric needs context. Words need definitions, too.

You are a pretty absolute materialist, you believe "Science" can properly only be applied to the material universe, and since other dimensions of existence have no vector in the plane of this dimension, you choose to ignore the mathematics that suggests there are other possibilities.

An ideologue is someone who believes in a system of ideas constructed in a certain way. You are an ideologue as a materialist.

I don't even know WTF you're talking about. I believe that the many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics to be an elegant and plausible look at the mathematics, but I remain agnostic about its validity as it does not meet the criteria for science. But since godists don't like MW interpretation because it messes up with how they want the universe to be, I'll assume you're talking about something else.

So point out this mathematics to me so I can properly ignore it.

Also, you're right about the materialism part. I am wholly materialist, and I don't understand what immaterialism even means.

Materialism is foundational to a number of political theories, including Marxism, Progressivism, Secular Humanism, and Fascism. All deny "God", the theory of of a sovereign all-powerful relevant ruler of the universe that applies some absolute set of moral values and executes judgment on the world. Without such a theory, we poor humans get to make up our own rules, and there is no one who can stop us if somehow we assert and maintain the necessary force of power.

This is like when I'm with my atheist friends, and they bring up Christianity and the middle ages, or Islam and the current age, to show what a rotten thing religion inherently is. It's boring and cliche when they bring it up, and it is the same when you do. As for rights, I question if morality has any meaning at all from the religious perspective. After all, if some things are fundamentally right or wrong, then gods are unnecessary, and we can make those discoveries ourselves. If what is right and wrong are only so because they are deemed so by a god, then power is the only right. Morality has no meaning if we poor humans are not free to make our own rules.

A world managed by a super government staffed by hordes of very expert authorities on every possible issue, rather than on the will of humans possessed of innate rights including the right to displace governments in times of governmental bad behavior. .. . could be an oligarchy, or any form of statism. Marx at least theorized that governments would die someday in the hallowed twilight of errant humanity. . . . when we all become sufficiently evolved to not care about anything, and when the resources of the world would just assemble themselves into the stuff we need. yep. AI just might do all that work for us. lol.


I don't believe in fairy tales. I think you do.

The part where I see you wanting "things to stay the same" is as in under present global management. Which is fascist because it's corporate interests that are meaningful, and the little people really don't get meaningful votes for their government.

You might have a lot of ideas about how we can make things better. That's progressive. Progressivism today refers to a specific vision of progress that some very influential folks subscribe to and talk about in "The Club", and in general in various elite circles. I haven't seen you objecting to that vision.

You're arguing with the caricature you created of me in your head. I don't care about government, as you define it, at all. I'd happily vote for a Utah, or any other state's, to secede from the US. I like the Brexit decision. But I am not attached to either ideal. A global government with certain limitations is fine too. I don't know how every scenario would play out, and there many advantages/disadvantages to any system. What I actually am, is a humanist. I do believe in global camaraderie and cooperation, and I do want to "progress" toward that. I want human lives to be better, and I can't help but see "better" the way I see it, being an individual and all.

The ironic thing is, so do you. Your idea of better is just different. It's about god and inherent rights and whathaveyou. You just pretend to be above it all. But no one is.

 

[Boris]

As always, rhetoric needs context. Words need definitions, too.

You are a pretty absolute materialist, you believe "Science" can properly only be applied to the material universe, and since other dimensions of existence have no vector in the plane of this dimension, you choose to ignore the mathematics that suggests there are other possibilities.

An ideologue is someone who believes in a system of ideas constructed in a certain way. You are an ideologue as a materialist.

Materialism is foundational to a number of political theories, including Marxism, Progressivism, Secular Humanism, and Fascism. All deny "God", the theory of of a sovereign all-powerful relevant ruler of the universe that applies some absolute set of moral values and executes judgment on the world. Without such a theory, we poor humans get to make up our own rules, and there is no one who can stop us if somehow we assert and maintain the necessary force of power.

A world managed by a super government staffed by hordes of very expert authorities on every possible issue, rather than on the will of humans possessed of innate rights including the right to displace governments in times of governmental bad behavior. .. . could be an oligarchy, or any form of statism. Marx at least theorized that governments would die someday in the hallowed twilight of errant humanity. . . . when we all become sufficiently evolved to not care about anything, and when the resources of the world would just assemble themselves into the stuff we need. yep. AI just might do all that work for us. lol.

I don't believe in fairy tales. I think you do.

The part where I see you wanting "things to stay the same" is as in under present global management. Which is fascist because it's corporate interests that are meaningful, and the little people really don't get meaningful votes for their government.

You might have a lot of ideas about how we can make things better. That's progressive. Progressivism today refers to a specific vision of progress that some very influential folks subscribe to and talk about in "The Club", and in general in various elite circles. I haven't seen you objecting to that vision.

In the absence of God a people can justify any action.
In the presence of God a people can justify any action.
Progressives fail to realize morals slide. There grandchildren (if they are sane enough to have children in the first place) will be embarrassed of there current political positions.
I wonder how liberals here will feel about there grand childs embarrassed of them?

 

[moevillini]

LOL - good luck to him!

hope this works

 

[colton]

https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/poli...-letter-donald-trump-election-2016/index.html

Washington (CNN)Fifty prominent Republican foreign policy and national security experts -- many veterans of George W. Bush's administration -- have signed a letter denouncing Donald Trump's presidential candidacy and pledging not to vote for him.

The letter, first reported by The New York Times Monday, warns: "We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history."

Its signatories include former CIA and National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, former Director of National Intelligence and Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Eric Edelman, who was Vice President Dick Cheney's national security adviser and has worked closely with Michele Flournoy -- a candidate for secretary of defense in a prospective Clinton administration -- to forge a centrist group of defense experts on key military issues.

It also includes two Homeland Security secretaries under Bush, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, and Robert Zoellick, a former World Bank president, U.S. trade representative and deputy secretary of state.
The Trump campaign could not immediately be reached for comment.

Many of the same leaders wrote an open letter in March during the Republican primaries condemning Trump and pledging to oppose his candidacy, at a time when other GOP candidates remained in the race.

The letter acknowledges that many Americans "have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us."

"But Donald Trump is not the answer to America's daunting challenges and to this crucial election," it says.

In the new letter, the group warns Trump "lacks the temperament to be President."

"He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood. He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior," the letter claims. "All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal."

Trump has met with other GOP foreign policy bigwigs, including former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and James Baker. Neither signed the letter.

Yeah, I feel pretty similarly.