(11-01-2016 05:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 05:03 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 04:40 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 03:46 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 03:39 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  The last person elected to the Presidency with more 'business' experience than elective office responsibility was Herbert Hoover (professional engineer & Secretary of Commerce for about 7 years), and we all know how that turned out! At least Reagan and Romney took their celebrity and business experience to a major state house before reaching for the highest and most demanding office in the world.

It is very astute to observe that experience with political responsibility is important. The failure to appreciate that in 2008 and 2012 is one of the reasons we got stuck with the current President.

Neither a good analogy nor a good interpretation of what I said.

Actually, it's a good analogy and a good interpretation of what you said.

(11-01-2016 04:40 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  And I doubt that you really want to pit President Obama's 12 years of experience as a state legislator and U.S. Senator (I assume you would claim would be non-qualifying) against, let's say, President George W. Bush's five years of experience as Governor of Texas (which I assume you would claim would be qualifying). As ineffective a Governor as W was in a state where that office is less powerful than that of the Lieutenant Governor as President of the Senate (one of the weakest of the 50 states!), the best you'd get, arguably, would be a tie.

You are wrong. Most political observers would view five years of experience as a governor as greater experience of real political responsibility than a dozen years of ideological and mostly absent service as a legislator. Even candidate Obama didn't claim to be experienced.

(11-01-2016 04:40 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  So since Obama has been President for eight years, by your definition he's "responsible" for...

I gave no such definition, and it's not clear how you could plausibly think that I did.

(11-01-2016 04:40 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  ... unemployment dropping from 10% to 4.9%, for uninsured adults dropping from 18% to 11.9%, for U.S.-made cars sold increasing from 10.4M to 17.5M, for consumer confidence increasing from 37.7 to 104.1, just to name a few. I'll have another helping of that flavor of 'political responsibility,' please!

Thank you.

Your comment is cute, but the relevant question is not whether certain statistics correlate with an office-holder's chronological term, but what are the caused results of the office-holder's actual initiatives. The American economy is both robust and cyclical, and most reasonable observers agree that saying particular indicators were "caused" by the occupant of the White House is nearly impossible. It is fair to say that some economic measures have gotten better and some have gotten worse; that in each category, it is not clear which have done so because of, in spite of, or independently of his presidency; and that some would no doubt have improved (or fallen) even more had he not been president. It is also possible that you are not a reasonable observer, as the comment in another post equating "people who distrust Hillary Clinton" with "steady consumers of Fox News factoids" tends to demonstrate.

Lastly, as noted in an edit my original post, your historical premise is false: Eisenhower served as President for eight years without previously having had elective office of any kind. Hoover was not the most recent, nor clearly representative.


Thank you. Cheers.

I agree with the logic in the first bolded part- but then doesn't that mean that the same would be said for many, if not all, of the negatives that you'd like to ascribe to Obama's time as POTUS?

But I didn't ascribe any negatives to Obama based on economic statistics. His negatives are his ideology and his foreign policy.

(11-01-2016 05:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  For the second, I think you intentionally missed a very important part of what ColOwl said. He did not say that Hoover was the last person who did not previously hold elected office, but rather that he was the last person with more 'business experience' than elective office responsibility. Eisenhower had NO business experience before he became president and went straight into the military from West Point. The closest he came to having a job in "business" was being the President of Columbia for about 1 year, which he quit to become the Supreme Commander of NATO. So I doubt business acumen was one of his selling points.

Fair point, but he went on to mention Reagan and Romney has having "celebrity and business experience", so I understood the operative distinction to be elective office experience versus other fields. I believe that is what ColOwl intended. If not, my bad -- but certainly not an intentional mistake, and I'm not sure why you would think that it was.

(11-01-2016 05:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Digging a bit more into Eisenhower's past, he was appointed the Military Governor of the US Occupation Zone in Germany, which I have to imagine is very similar to being elected.

But being a military governor of an occupied territory is not the LEAST bit similar to being elected, and I am shocked (no exaggeration) that you would think so.

(11-01-2016 06:08 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 05:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 05:03 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 04:40 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 03:46 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  It is very astute to observe that experience with political responsibility is important. The failure to appreciate that in 2008 and 2012 is one of the reasons we got stuck with the current President.

Neither a good analogy nor a good interpretation of what I said.

Actually, it's a good analogy and a good interpretation of what you said.

(11-01-2016 04:40 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  And I doubt that you really want to pit President Obama's 12 years of experience as a state legislator and U.S. Senator (I assume you would claim would be non-qualifying) against, let's say, President George W. Bush's five years of experience as Governor of Texas (which I assume you would claim would be qualifying). As ineffective a Governor as W was in a state where that office is less powerful than that of the Lieutenant Governor as President of the Senate (one of the weakest of the 50 states!), the best you'd get, arguably, would be a tie.

You are wrong. Most political observers would view five years of experience as a governor as greater experience of real political responsibility than a dozen years of ideological and mostly absent service as a legislator. Even candidate Obama didn't claim to be experienced.

(11-01-2016 04:40 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  So since Obama has been President for eight years, by your definition he's "responsible" for...

I gave no such definition, and it's not clear how you could plausibly think that I did.

(11-01-2016 04:40 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  ... unemployment dropping from 10% to 4.9%, for uninsured adults dropping from 18% to 11.9%, for U.S.-made cars sold increasing from 10.4M to 17.5M, for consumer confidence increasing from 37.7 to 104.1, just to name a few. I'll have another helping of that flavor of 'political responsibility,' please!

Thank you.

Your comment is cute, but the relevant question is not whether certain statistics correlate with an office-holder's chronological term, but what are the caused results of the office-holder's actual initiatives. The American economy is both robust and cyclical, and most reasonable observers agree that saying particular indicators were "caused" by the occupant of the White House is nearly impossible. It is fair to say that some economic measures have gotten better and some have gotten worse; that in each category, it is not clear which have done so because of, in spite of, or independently of his presidency; and that some would no doubt have improved (or fallen) even more had he not been president. It is also possible that you are not a reasonable observer, as the comment in another post equating "people who distrust Hillary Clinton" with "steady consumers of Fox News factoids" tends to demonstrate.

Lastly, as noted in an edit my original post, your historical premise is false: Eisenhower served as President for eight years without previously having had elective office of any kind. Hoover was not the most recent, nor clearly representative.


Thank you. Cheers.

I agree with the logic in the first bolded part- but then doesn't that mean that the same would be said for many, if not all, of the negatives that you'd like to ascribe to Obama's time as POTUS?

But I didn't ascribe any negatives to Obama based on economic statistics. His negatives are his ideology and his foreign policy.

(11-01-2016 05:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  For the second, I think you intentionally missed a very important part of what ColOwl said. He did not say that Hoover was the last person who did not previously hold elected office, but rather that he was the last person with more 'business experience' than elective office responsibility. Eisenhower had NO business experience before he became president and went straight into the military from West Point. The closest he came to having a job in "business" was being the President of Columbia for about 1 year, which he quit to become the Supreme Commander of NATO. So I doubt business acumen was one of his selling points.

Fair point, but he went on to mention Reagan and Romney has having "celebrity and business experience", so I understood the operative distinction to be elective office experience versus other fields. I believe that is what ColOwl intended. If not, my bad -- but certainly not an intentional mistake, and I'm not sure why you would think that it was.

(11-01-2016 05:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Digging a bit more into Eisenhower's past, he was appointed the Military Governor of the US Occupation Zone in Germany, which I have to imagine is very similar to being elected.

But being a military governor of an occupied territory is not the LEAST bit similar to being elected, and I am shocked (no exaggeration) that you would think so.

I was more speaking of the responsibilities that he had in the role since he had to govern. And generally, elected officials have to govern. More the job done as opposed to the means of getting the job.

(11-01-2016 07:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 06:08 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 05:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Digging a bit more into Eisenhower's past, he was appointed the Military Governor of the US Occupation Zone in Germany, which I have to imagine is very similar to being elected.

But being a military governor of an occupied territory is not the LEAST bit similar to being elected, and I am shocked (no exaggeration) that you would think so.

I was more speaking of the responsibilities that he had in the role since he had to govern. And generally, elected officials have to govern. More the job done as opposed to the means of getting the job.

I misunderstood: I thought you meant that being "appointed Military Governor" is "similar to being elected." Now that you've clarified it, it makes more sense. Governing as a military occupier is still much different from governing as an elected executive dealing with an elected legislature, but not completely inapplicable. More generally, Eisenhower had of course demonstrated tremendous executive, managerial, diplomatic and, yes, political skill in his pre-Presidential roles. In fact, very few presidents in all of American history had such a track record.

(11-01-2016 05:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 03:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Conversely, an animating thesis of much of today's left over the last decade or more has been that men, whites and/or Christians are second class citizens at best, if not the outright enemy, and that America and the world need to marginalize them. It's a view that's every bit as silly as the one you criticize, but also (like the other view) an unfortunately popular one, with seemingly no limit to its adherents' capacity for self-rationalization -- even when they have to invent words to do so. And unfortunately, many Hillary supporters and anti-Trump people don't get just how silly a view it is.

I've always been a bit amazed at this view and how people use logic to get there.

I'm a bit surprised by your ability to ignore or deny an obvious staple of modern leftism.

(11-01-2016 05:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As a white male, I don't think I've ever felt marginalized for being a white male, but I guess I shouldn't use personal experience to color my opinion on such a large issue.

I am quite sure that you know many people (as do I) who have experienced many occasions in which they have been explicitly told that they, their views, their tastes or their history are inferior, illegitimate, or otherwise undesirable because they are white and/or male. And those are just personal cases; they don't begin to touch on the fads, fetishes and indoctrinations pervading academia, entertainment and other realms.

Not long ago, I opined that Colin Kaepernick's kissing his bicep on touchdowns is, like Aaron Rodgers' touchdown "dance", kinda dumb. To any rational observer, that is not an unreasonable or inflammatory comment, and certainly not a racially tinged one. Nevertheless, in response, a communications professor told me that I am a "white motherf...", followed by "You have no humanity" and "You are offensive and stupid." This professor was supported by a mutual admiration society of like-minded race-baiting fanatics.

Not long before that, I opined that campaigning to shut down an art exhibit may not be the wisest stance for artists to take. In response, a so-called artist claimed that I have no right to an opinion on the subject, because I am white and the people demanding the shutdown are black. Again, the person who proclaimed this view was enthusiastically echoed by like-minded race-baiting fanatics.

Earlier this year, a biology professor announced to me and others that her family's Christmas dinner is superior to that of other families precisely because her family does it without believing in Christianity. She was echoed by a mutual admiration society of overtly anti-Christian academics.

These people are not just garden-variety bigots. They are proud leftists, who think it not merely justified but important to make creed or skin color a key premise of their attacks -- confident that their bigotry is actually a form of political virtue, and certain that they will receive more admiration than caution from their fellow leftists. Their bigotry is rooted in and part of their leftism. This is not all of modern leftism by any means it, but it is too much of it.

One can argue that marginalizing certain demographics is worse than others, but it's hard to argue that efforts to marginalize other demographics are good, or that such efforts don't exist.

(11-01-2016 11:08 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 05:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 03:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Conversely, an animating thesis of much of today's left over the last decade or more has been that men, whites and/or Christians are second class citizens at best, if not the outright enemy, and that America and the world need to marginalize them. It's a view that's every bit as silly as the one you criticize, but also (like the other view) an unfortunately popular one, with seemingly no limit to its adherents' capacity for self-rationalization -- even when they have to invent words to do so. And unfortunately, many Hillary supporters and anti-Trump people don't get just how silly a view it is.

I've always been a bit amazed at this view and how people use logic to get there.

I'm a bit surprised by your ability to ignore or deny an obvious staple of modern leftism.

(11-01-2016 05:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As a white male, I don't think I've ever felt marginalized for being a white male, but I guess I shouldn't use personal experience to color my opinion on such a large issue.

I am quite sure that you know many people (as do I) who have experienced many occasions in which they have been explicitly told that they, their views, their tastes or their history are inferior, illegitimate, or otherwise undesirable because they are white and/or male. And those are just personal cases; they don't begin to touch on the fads, fetishes and indoctrinations pervading academia, entertainment and other realms.

Not long ago, I opined that Colin Kaepernick's kissing his bicep on touchdowns is, like Aaron Rodgers' touchdown "dance", kinda dumb. To any rational observer, that is not an unreasonable or inflammatory comment, and certainly not a racially tinged one. Nevertheless, in response, a communications professor told me that I am a "white motherf...", followed by "You have no humanity" and "You are offensive and stupid." This professor was supported by a mutual admiration society of like-minded race-baiting fanatics.

Not long before that, I opined that campaigning to shut down an art exhibit may not be the wisest stance for artists to take. In response, a so-called artist claimed that I have no right to an opinion on the subject, because I am white and the people demanding the shutdown are black. Again, the person who proclaimed this view was enthusiastically echoed by like-minded race-baiting fanatics.

Earlier this year, a biology professor announced to me and others that her family's Christmas dinner is superior to that of other families precisely because her family does it without believing in Christianity. She was echoed by a mutual admiration society of overtly anti-Christian academics.

These people are not just garden-variety bigots. They are proud leftists, who think it not merely justified but important to make creed or skin color a key premise of their attacks -- confident that their bigotry is actually a form of political virtue, and certain that they will receive more admiration than caution from their fellow leftists. Their bigotry is rooted in and part of their leftism. This is not all of modern leftism by any means it, but it is too much of it.

One can argue that marginalizing certain demographics is worse than others, but it's hard to argue that efforts to marginalize other demographics are good, or that such efforts don't exist.

I assume that you're equally concerned than with the race-baiting side on the right that probably makes up the same percentage? Those that scream "Jew-S-A" at journalists, openly assault people being escorted out of political rallies, or who use racial slurs to denigrate others, right?

Those incidents you mention are pretty awful and don't really belong in a modern society as they don't leave room for those who have different ideas and beliefs. And the holiday story sounds like something right out of an internet chat room. Which university did that take place at, because that is not the mindset professors should be using when teaching students?

(11-01-2016 05:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  IMO Obama's numbers on the economy are far more positive because he just happened conveniently to take office almost at the exact bottom of a major recession than because of anything he did or did not do. Had he taken office 6 months earlier, he would have been blamed for the great recession and probably been unelectable in 2012. Had he taken office 6 months later, the recovery would already have been underway and he would have more been blamed for the sluggishness of the recovery than given credit that the recovery occurred.

That's a pretty big change in point of view, as you were they guy who continually prognosticated that Obama's presidency would lead to 50m unemployed, 50% annual inflation, and the Dow dropping to 4,000.

(11-02-2016 07:56 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 05:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  IMO Obama's numbers on the economy are far more positive because he just happened conveniently to take office almost at the exact bottom of a major recession than because of anything he did or did not do. Had he taken office 6 months earlier, he would have been blamed for the great recession and probably been unelectable in 2012. Had he taken office 6 months later, the recovery would already have been underway and he would have more been blamed for the sluggishness of the recovery than given credit that the recovery occurred.

That's a pretty big change in point of view, as you were they guy who continually prognosticated that Obama's presidency would lead to 50m unemployed, 50% annual inflation, and the Dow dropping to 4,000.

I don't think I said that if he's elected, I think I said if he is able to enact his agenda. I was very afraid that if he got into office, he would do some incredibly harmful things.

That was based on two incorrect assumptions on my part. One, that Obama was a competent leader who could get his agenda enacted. Two, that democrats would retain control of congress throughout his regime.

If you go back and look, in most if not all cases, what I said was that if he gets his full agenda in place, those results would occur. He didn't get his agenda in place, except for Obamacare which is a flop.

He's an incompetent socialist/communist. Thank God he's incompetent. A competent leader with his agenda could have destroyed the USA beyond repair.

And now the Texas Ag Commissioner - a guy who we elected statewide - has called Clinton the C-word. A facebook friend mentioned that her Capstone student interviewed him last year and when she asked about reproductive rights he told her "women just need to learn to shut their legs"...

But, of course, no misogyny in the opposition to Clinton...

Anyway as another friend put it, "OK Sid, C U Next Tuesday!"

Good post. To elaborate in response:

(11-02-2016 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I assume that you're equally concerned than with the race-baiting side on the right that probably makes up the same percentage? Those that scream "Jew-S-A" at journalists, openly assault people being escorted out of political rallies, or who use racial slurs to denigrate others, right?

I don't believe there is anything in my outlook or character that would suggest otherwise.

(11-02-2016 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Those incidents you mention are pretty awful and don't really belong in a modern society as they don't leave room for those who have different ideas and beliefs.

Of course not -- and yet, these behaviors came not from garden-variety jerks, but from supposedly educated (and certainly credentialed) members of the self-styled "creative classes." Eliminating room for different ideas and beliefs is not an unfortunate by-product of their views; it seems to be a GOAL of their views. And far from admonishing those outbursts, a number of their fellow class members -- evidently sharing the same belief in bigotry as political virtue -- endorsed them.

(11-02-2016 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And the holiday story sounds like something right out of an internet chat room. Which university did that take place at, because that is not the mindset professors should be using when teaching students?

It was a Facebook post by (I am sad to report) a long-time and quite popular Rice professor, who moved a few years ago to one of our peer institutions but remains connected to Rice in various ways. The mutual admiration society that chimed in to support her bigotry is replete with our fellow alums. So while we'd like to think it can't happen "here" in our broad Rice community, the sad fact is that it already happens.

Getting back to the original "Horse Race" intention of this thread, a couple interesting observations from Josh Marshall at TPM:


2. One dynamic of this race is Trump's disproportionate share of the vote from non-college educated white voters. The key is that that slice of the population is relatively over-represented in the big swing states. That's the main reason why Clinton is slightly underperforming Obama in most swing states and relatively over-performing in a number of reddish states which are younger and less white. So, for instance, Arizona is very close, even though Clinton likely won't win there. Texas is closer than it usually is even though she almost certainly won't win Texas. What it amounts to is a net negative since a lot of that additional support in red states - mainly college-educated whites who voted for Romney but won't support Trump - is, in hard electoral terms, wasted.

3. One fascinating part of the 2016 cycle: In part because of dynamics I noted in Item #2 there is a decent chance that Donald Trump will win both of the archetypical battleground/swing states of the aughts (Florida and Ohio) and yet still lose the election. That's because of states like Virginia, Colorado and North Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina weren't even considered swing states in the Bush years. Now Virginia and Colorado will also certainly go to Clinton and there are better than 50-50 odds North Carolina will too.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/elec...-potpourri

(11-01-2016 05:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 04:47 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 11:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 10:00 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think the thing is for many of us, it's that yeah, she shouldn't have had a private server, etc. but it pales in comparison to Trump's corruption. \

where have you been the last 35 years? The email is just the cherry on the sundae. She has been covering up stuff and stonewalling since her days as Arkansas' First Lady, and perhaps before. she has gotten very good at it, which is one point in her favor, but to say this is the Alpha and Omega of her misdeeds is to say that Al Capone led an exemplary life prior to messing up on his taxes.

Let us be clear - this is not Mother Theresa vs. Vlad the Impaler. More Lucretzia Borgia vs. John D. Rockefeller.

Or Edwin Edwards vs. David Duke.
And as the Edwards' people said, "Vote for the Crook, it's important."

So which one is the female?

Pass.

(11-02-2016 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 11:08 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 05:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 03:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Conversely, an animating thesis of much of today's left over the last decade or more has been that men, whites and/or Christians are second class citizens at best, if not the outright enemy, and that America and the world need to marginalize them. It's a view that's every bit as silly as the one you criticize, but also (like the other view) an unfortunately popular one, with seemingly no limit to its adherents' capacity for self-rationalization -- even when they have to invent words to do so. And unfortunately, many Hillary supporters and anti-Trump people don't get just how silly a view it is.

I've always been a bit amazed at this view and how people use logic to get there.

I'm a bit surprised by your ability to ignore or deny an obvious staple of modern leftism.

(11-01-2016 05:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As a white male, I don't think I've ever felt marginalized for being a white male, but I guess I shouldn't use personal experience to color my opinion on such a large issue.

I am quite sure that you know many people (as do I) who have experienced many occasions in which they have been explicitly told that they, their views, their tastes or their history are inferior, illegitimate, or otherwise undesirable because they are white and/or male. And those are just personal cases; they don't begin to touch on the fads, fetishes and indoctrinations pervading academia, entertainment and other realms.

Not long ago, I opined that Colin Kaepernick's kissing his bicep on touchdowns is, like Aaron Rodgers' touchdown "dance", kinda dumb. To any rational observer, that is not an unreasonable or inflammatory comment, and certainly not a racially tinged one. Nevertheless, in response, a communications professor told me that I am a "white motherf...", followed by "You have no humanity" and "You are offensive and stupid." This professor was supported by a mutual admiration society of like-minded race-baiting fanatics.

Not long before that, I opined that campaigning to shut down an art exhibit may not be the wisest stance for artists to take. In response, a so-called artist claimed that I have no right to an opinion on the subject, because I am white and the people demanding the shutdown are black. Again, the person who proclaimed this view was enthusiastically echoed by like-minded race-baiting fanatics.

Earlier this year, a biology professor announced to me and others that her family's Christmas dinner is superior to that of other families precisely because her family does it without believing in Christianity. She was echoed by a mutual admiration society of overtly anti-Christian academics.

These people are not just garden-variety bigots. They are proud leftists, who think it not merely justified but important to make creed or skin color a key premise of their attacks -- confident that their bigotry is actually a form of political virtue, and certain that they will receive more admiration than caution from their fellow leftists. Their bigotry is rooted in and part of their leftism. This is not all of modern leftism by any means it, but it is too much of it.

One can argue that marginalizing certain demographics is worse than others, but it's hard to argue that efforts to marginalize other demographics are good, or that such efforts don't exist.

I assume that you're equally concerned than with the race-baiting side on the right that probably makes up the same percentage? Those that scream "Jew-S-A" at journalists, openly assault people being escorted out of political rallies, or who use racial slurs to denigrate others, right?

Those incidents you mention are pretty awful and don't really belong in a modern society as they don't leave room for those who have different ideas and beliefs. And the holiday story sounds like something right out of an internet chat room. Which university did that take place at, because that is not the mindset professors should be using when teaching students?

I think it's fairly safe to assume that most of the conservatives or moderately conservatives on this board cringe at the incidents you describe. However, their are 'intellectual' ways to not leave room for different ideas and beliefs. Because they are clothed in perceived moral superiority and are non-violent they are acceptable.

You can lynch people socially or professionally.

I've met people who believe things that I believe are wrong and you may feel are terrible and unjustified. But in their actions and dealings with people they treat people appropriately and their actions individually don't correspond to their stated beliefs.

I think there is a clear distinction between beliefs and actions/behaviors.

The Constitution clearly differentiates the two. We have freedom of belief, expression, speech. However we also have criminal laws that guarantee the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It should be OK to be pro-life (to whatever degree you are, and there are degrees), as long as you don't attack or infringe upon the rights of others. i.e., focus on the issue, not individuals. I have a position that is left of the far right, but not in line with the far left either. I would feel uncomfortable expressing my views on the issue, because, based on my experiences in the past, it would result in me being verbally and morally attacked as an individual. In fairness, I'm sure moderate pro-choice advocates feel the same way.

Modern society is bound and determined to try and outlaw being offended, and to go beyond protecting improper treatment of others to 'criminalizing' or shouting down beliefs.

What George is alluding to, is that in the rush to eliminate prejudice, we often eliminate free discussion that most effectively counters prejudice, and have in turn tolerated or approved counter-prejudice.

We tend to judge people we don't know in light of our perception of their belief on one issue or another. The person or groups of people have no identity for us, other than that one issue.

It's how an otherwise educated person can coin a phrase like "deplorables".

Is Donald Trump prejudiced (bearing in mine I've already identified him as unfit for the office of President? Based on some stated beliefs, most of us would assume so.

However, when Hillary used the term 'deplorables' most of us have a pretty good picture of the demographic she was trying to portray. There is every bit as much judgment and prejudice implicit in that term as Donald Trump's worst pronouncements. She is reducing a group of people to a position or belief set, lumping them together without regard to who they are as individuals, life experiences and whatever positive traits they might have beyond their political position.

Since I don't support Trump (and as an individual almost certainly don't fit a number of other aspects that draw her ire) I guess I'm not included in that group. But my demographic (white, male, Christian) certainly is the distinguishing 'characteristic of the picture she created in everyone's mind when she coined the phrase.

And there is a sizable percentage of the population that believes she was right and 100% justified in using that label.

(11-02-2016 08:33 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  But, of course, no misogyny in the opposition to Clinton...

Of course there is some -- too much. But to claim that it is a defining theme of the opposition generally is wrong. As hard as it may be for Clinton's admirers and enablers to believe, there are millions of good, smart, decent, egalitarian people who oppose her because of her ideology and (lack of) character -- full stop. (To be clear, many of those millions will vote for her next week in preference to Trump, which says a lot about Trump's vices, but nothing about Clinton's alleged virtues.)

It bears repeating: if she were Margaret Thatcher, she would have been elected 20 years ago (glossing over the whole eligibility thing).

It also bears repeating that every step in Hillary Clinton's political career has occurred more BECAUSE she is female (specifically because she is Mrs Bill Clinton) than in spite of it. Being female has certainly given her some disadvantages, but those have paled in comparison to the advantages she has had by being the wife of Bill -- a position for which, for all his proven lechery, being female seems to be an essential qualification.

(11-02-2016 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I assume that you're equally concerned than with the race-baiting side on the right that probably makes up the same percentage? Those that scream "Jew-S-A" at journalists, openly assault people being escorted out of political rallies, or who use racial slurs to denigrate others, right?

Strongly disagree with the bolded part of your statement.

I know lots of Trump supporters, and not one is in the "race-baiting" side. I know lots of Clinton supporters, and all but one think Trump supporters are race-baiters. I have spent the last eight years being accused of being a racist, because when I voiced opposition to anything associated with Obama, the immediate response was that I just couldn't stand a black man being POTUS. I think the attitude on the left the left George described is pervasive, and embodied in the term "PC". The things you mention are much closer to one-offs, yet they are hailed as representative of Trump supporters.

I was initially offended when Trump used "rapists" to describe illegal immigrants, coming from a South Texas multi-ethnic family with extended members both north and south of the Rio Grande. But rather than join in the hue and cry that he was xenophobic, I realized that he was talking about illegals, not Mexicans, and about some illegals, not all. I don't agree at all with his solutions, but I do think he has pointed out a problem. Xenophobia? Who made that up?

I think the reprehensible, racist portion of Trump's supporters are a much smaller percentage of them than the the virunlently PC are of the left. JMHO.

(11-02-2016 11:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 06:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I assume that you're equally concerned than with the race-baiting side on the right that probably makes up the same percentage? Those that scream "Jew-S-A" at journalists, openly assault people being escorted out of political rallies, or who use racial slurs to denigrate others, right?

Strongly disagree with the bolded part of your statement.

I know lots of Trump supporters, and not one is in the "race-baiting" side. I know lots of Clinton supporters, and all but one think Trump supporters are race-baiters. I have spent the last eight years being accused of being a racist, because when I voiced opposition to anything associated with Obama, the immediate response was that I just couldn't stand a black man being POTUS. I think the attitude on the left the left George described is pervasive, and embodied in the term "PC". The things you mention are much closer to one-offs, yet they are hailed as representative of Trump supporters.

I was initially offended when Trump used "rapists" to describe illegal immigrants, coming from a South Texas multi-ethnic family with extended members both north and south of the Rio Grande. But rather than join in the hue and cry that he was xenophobic, I realized that he was talking about illegals, not Mexicans, and about some illegals, not all. I don't agree at all with his solutions, but I do think he has pointed out a problem. Xenophobia? Who made that up?

I think the reprehensible, racist portion of Trump's supporters are a much smaller percentage of them than the the virunlently PC are of the left. JMHO.

In the conversation with George and I was talking about his examples that were extreme. You really think there are substantially more people on the left that that do things like call others "white motherf..." and who tell others they have no opinion because they are white?

Because those are the extreme examples of the left that really are apt comparisons to the actions on the right that I mentioned, which have been seen and documented at Trump rallies. I think both sides of the political spectrum have members that act on the extreme, and I don't think one side has a significantly larger amount of crazy.

I find it ironic that you complain about one-off instances being used to paint a broadbrush of Trump supporters, yet you do the same with the left. While the left is often more cognizant of the issues associated with being PC (not using language that may offend [see Master's titles at Rice], gender neautrality, race relations, etc), there are millions of people on the left who are not militant about these topics and just happen to fall on on side of the spectrum. That's just like how there are millions on the right who aren't xenophobic racists, and just happen to want a more stringent immigration process, etc.

I find it likely that your interactions with Obama and Trump supporters support your views because that's how bubbles work, and we all live in one. I know that the vast majority of Trump supporters aren't out there yellow Jew-S-A, and at the same time, a majority of Clinton supporters aren't in the streets yelling things like about persecuting white, male, Christians. My guess is that you view some actions on the left and more extreme then I do, which is why you have the opinion that there are more extreme lefties than righties.

(11-02-2016 08:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 07:56 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2016 05:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  IMO Obama's numbers on the economy are far more positive because he just happened conveniently to take office almost at the exact bottom of a major recession than because of anything he did or did not do. Had he taken office 6 months earlier, he would have been blamed for the great recession and probably been unelectable in 2012. Had he taken office 6 months later, the recovery would already have been underway and he would have more been blamed for the sluggishness of the recovery than given credit that the recovery occurred.

That's a pretty big change in point of view, as you were they guy who continually prognosticated that Obama's presidency would lead to 50m unemployed, 50% annual inflation, and the Dow dropping to 4,000.

I don't think I said that if he's elected, I think I said if he is able to enact his agenda. I was very afraid that if he got into office, he would do some incredibly harmful things.

That was based on two incorrect assumptions on my part. One, that Obama was a competent leader who could get his agenda enacted. Two, that democrats would retain control of congress throughout his regime.

If you go back and look, in most if not all cases, what I said was that if he gets his full agenda in place, those results would occur. He didn't get his agenda in place, except for Obamacare which is a flop.

He's an incompetent socialist/communist. Thank God he's incompetent. A competent leader with his agenda could have destroyed the USA beyond repair.

Your words from back then speak for themselves; see below.Just wondering: Did you actually save the post below so you make Lord Stanley eat crow?

http://csnbbs.com/thread-315626-post-355...pid3557016

(09-17-2008 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

Lord Stanley Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:My scenario for some time in the next 5-10 years:

50% inflation rate
50 million unemployed
armed class warfare in the streets

I think we get to the inflation and unemployment faster with Obama, the class warfare faster with McCain.

I'm moving my investments to be as well prepared as possible for this.

Don't forget Zombie Invasion in your irrational, dystopian future.

How about I save this post, and call it to your attention when we get there. That is, if you can still get to the internet.

(11-02-2016 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In the conversation with George and I was talking about his examples that were extreme. You really think there are substantially more people on the left that that do things like call others "white motherf..." and who tell others they have no opinion because they are white?

yes.

Quote:Because those are the extreme examples of the left that really are apt comparisons to the actions on the right that I mentioned, which have been seen and documented at Trump rallies. I think both sides of the political spectrum have members that act on the extreme, and I don't think one side has a significantly larger amount of crazy.

Well, I seen no large scale amount race-baiting and personal violence, just a few isolated incidents played up on the media. But the left is seemingly united in defining the racist, xenophobic right as deplorable.

Quote:I find it ironic that you complain about one-off instances being used to paint a broadbrush of Trump supporters, yet you do the same with the left. While the left is often more cognizant of the issues associated with being PC (not using language that may offend [see Master's titles at Rice], gender neautrality, race relations, etc), there are millions of people on the left who are not militant about these topics and just happen to fall on on side of the spectrum.

Try using a non PC term and watch the reaction. I am glad you agree the Trump supporter things are one-offs, but I disagree that PC reaction from the left are equally one-offs.

Quote:I find it likely that your interactions with Obama and Trump supporters support your views because that's how bubbles work, and we all live in one. I know that the vast majority of Trump supporters aren't out there yellow Jew-S-A, and at the same time, a majority of Clinton supporters aren't in the streets yelling things like about persecuting white, male, Christians. My guess is that you view some actions on the left and more extreme then I do, which is why you have the opinion that there are more extreme lefties than righties.

We are both in bubbles, but yours is more truthful?

No, Clinton supporters are not in the street yelling things about persecuting white Christian males, they are on the news and in the courts making their points.

I am not worried about the extremists as much as i worry about the broader movement. If there were thousands chanting Jew-S-A offsetting the thousands saying "you are deplorable", I would consider the extremism more balanced. Remember, my first quibble with you was over the statement that the two sides probably make up the same percentage.

BTW, what is the PC way to say "Master" now, and what happens if you say "Master"?

(11-02-2016 11:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In the conversation with George and I was talking about his examples that were extreme. You really think there are substantially more people on the left that that do things like call others "white motherf..." and who tell others they have no opinion because they are white?

yes.

Quote:Because those are the extreme examples of the left that really are apt comparisons to the actions on the right that I mentioned, which have been seen and documented at Trump rallies. I think both sides of the political spectrum have members that act on the extreme, and I don't think one side has a significantly larger amount of crazy.

Well, I seen no large scale amount race-baiting and personal violence, just a few isolated incidents played up on the media. But the left is seemingly united in defining the racist, xenophobic right as deplorable.

Quote:I find it ironic that you complain about one-off instances being used to paint a broadbrush of Trump supporters, yet you do the same with the left. While the left is often more cognizant of the issues associated with being PC (not using language that may offend [see Master's titles at Rice], gender neautrality, race relations, etc), there are millions of people on the left who are not militant about these topics and just happen to fall on on side of the spectrum.

Try using a non PC term and watch the reaction. I am glad you agree the Trump supporter things are one-offs, but I disagree that PC reaction from the left are equally one-offs.

Quote:I find it likely that your interactions with Obama and Trump supporters support your views because that's how bubbles work, and we all live in one. I know that the vast majority of Trump supporters aren't out there yellow Jew-S-A, and at the same time, a majority of Clinton supporters aren't in the streets yelling things like about persecuting white, male, Christians. My guess is that you view some actions on the left and more extreme then I do, which is why you have the opinion that there are more extreme lefties than righties.

We are both in bubbles, but yours is more truthful?

No, Clinton supporters are not in the street yelling things about persecuting white Christian males, they are on the news and in the courts making their points.

I am not worried about the extremists as much as i worry about the broader movement. If there were thousands chanting Jew-S-A offsetting the thousands saying "you are deplorable", I would consider the extremism more balanced. Remember, my first quibble with you was over the statement that the two sides probably make up the same percentage.

BTW, what is the PC way to say "Master" now, and what happens if you say "Master"?

Rice Masters just voted 7-2 (2 abstained) to change the term Master into something else. One of the motivations was because of the historical context it has with slavery.

And regarding the bubble, I don't think mine is more right. I do think that I recognize the bubble better though, and that is likely due to my line of work. My friends are generallly left leaning, but I work in a industry that is surprisingly conservative and I work with a lot of blue collar guys. I've heard plenty of racist and misogynistic things said about Obama and Hillary (drillers LOVE to talk politics for some reason). I mean, if they didn't like Obama just because of his policies, why did the N-word get thrown around when talking about him so frequently? But here's the thing, I recognized that that drill crew was not EVERY drill crew, and that more likely than not, the majority of conservatives were like those I worked in the office with. However, one interesting thing is that, as the polls show, most of the people who would fall into the driller category are Trump supporters (white, non-college educated) while my coworkers and people like my father, and likely you (white, college educated) aren't fans of Trump.

But anyways, back to the bubble. My work pushes me outside of my bubble regularly, so I try and remind myself of that when talking in sweeping generalizations.

And I guess if you're not as worried about the extremists as much as the broader movement, did the Birther Movement give you pause?

(11-02-2016 11:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 11:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In the conversation with George and I was talking about his examples that were extreme. You really think there are substantially more people on the left that that do things like call others "white motherf..." and who tell others they have no opinion because they are white?

yes.

Quote:Because those are the extreme examples of the left that really are apt comparisons to the actions on the right that I mentioned, which have been seen and documented at Trump rallies. I think both sides of the political spectrum have members that act on the extreme, and I don't think one side has a significantly larger amount of crazy.

Well, I seen no large scale amount race-baiting and personal violence, just a few isolated incidents played up on the media. But the left is seemingly united in defining the racist, xenophobic right as deplorable.

Quote:I find it ironic that you complain about one-off instances being used to paint a broadbrush of Trump supporters, yet you do the same with the left. While the left is often more cognizant of the issues associated with being PC (not using language that may offend [see Master's titles at Rice], gender neautrality, race relations, etc), there are millions of people on the left who are not militant about these topics and just happen to fall on on side of the spectrum.

Try using a non PC term and watch the reaction. I am glad you agree the Trump supporter things are one-offs, but I disagree that PC reaction from the left are equally one-offs.

Quote:I find it likely that your interactions with Obama and Trump supporters support your views because that's how bubbles work, and we all live in one. I know that the vast majority of Trump supporters aren't out there yellow Jew-S-A, and at the same time, a majority of Clinton supporters aren't in the streets yelling things like about persecuting white, male, Christians. My guess is that you view some actions on the left and more extreme then I do, which is why you have the opinion that there are more extreme lefties than righties.

We are both in bubbles, but yours is more truthful?

No, Clinton supporters are not in the street yelling things about persecuting white Christian males, they are on the news and in the courts making their points.

I am not worried about the extremists as much as i worry about the broader movement. If there were thousands chanting Jew-S-A offsetting the thousands saying "you are deplorable", I would consider the extremism more balanced. Remember, my first quibble with you was over the statement that the two sides probably make up the same percentage.

BTW, what is the PC way to say "Master" now, and what happens if you say "Master"?

Rice Masters just voted 7-2 (2 abstained) to change the term Master into something else. One of the motivations was because of the historical context it has with slavery.

And regarding the bubble, I don't think mine is more right. I do think that I recognize the bubble better though, and that is likely due to my line of work. My friends are generallly left leaning, but I work in a industry that is surprisingly conservative and I work with a lot of blue collar guys. I've heard plenty of racist and misogynistic things said about Obama and Hillary (drillers LOVE to talk politics for some reason). I mean, if they didn't like Obama just because of his policies, why did the N-word get thrown around when talking about him so frequently? But here's the thing, I recognized that that drill crew was not EVERY drill crew, and that more likely than not, the majority of conservatives were like those I worked in the office with. However, one interesting thing is that, as the polls show, most of the people who would fall into the driller category are Trump supporters (white, non-college educated) while my coworkers and people like my father, and likely you (white, college educated) aren't fans of Trump.

But anyways, back to the bubble. My work pushes me outside of my bubble regularly, so I try and remind myself of that when talking in sweeping generalizations.

And I guess if you're not as worried about the extremists as much as the broader movement, did the Birther Movement give you pause?

I thought it was silly, as the location of birth is unimportant if the mother is an American citizen. As for as i am concerned, if you are an american citizen when you draw your first breath, you are a natural born citizen.

So are the guys racist because they are blue collar? No educated people would talk that way, right?

My experience with blue collar over the five plus decades is that there is a lot of talk, but when push comes to shove, people act like people. maybe they just need retraining in the proper way to speak and think.

But I think a lot of things are silly. The master, as in a college master, goes back to a English history that has nothing to do with slavery. More Downton Abbey than plantation. I would be bound to disagree (can I say bound?). Let me know what nonoffensive term is chosen.

Still, I am more concerned with the disapproving looks I would likely garner if I inadvertently referred to the Master at my college fifty years ago. will I be considered a racist, yet again?

People saying racist things in a work environment is not the same thing as opposing Obama just because he is black. I expect we will now have four to eight years when if we opposes President Clinton's policies, we will be called sexist. And I oppose a lot of her pronounced policies.

Still my basic disagreement with you is on perceived volume on either side. I have given my perceptions, you have yours. We will neither be able to convert the other, I think. Let us each go on our own way respectfully. But next time somebody chides you for using the wrong word, think of the source. I prefer to remain the Master of my fate, the Captain of my soul. Oops. Sorry about that.

(11-02-2016 01:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 11:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 11:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 11:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In the conversation with George and I was talking about his examples that were extreme. You really think there are substantially more people on the left that that do things like call others "white motherf..." and who tell others they have no opinion because they are white?

yes.

Quote:Because those are the extreme examples of the left that really are apt comparisons to the actions on the right that I mentioned, which have been seen and documented at Trump rallies. I think both sides of the political spectrum have members that act on the extreme, and I don't think one side has a significantly larger amount of crazy.

Well, I seen no large scale amount race-baiting and personal violence, just a few isolated incidents played up on the media. But the left is seemingly united in defining the racist, xenophobic right as deplorable.

Quote:I find it ironic that you complain about one-off instances being used to paint a broadbrush of Trump supporters, yet you do the same with the left. While the left is often more cognizant of the issues associated with being PC (not using language that may offend [see Master's titles at Rice], gender neautrality, race relations, etc), there are millions of people on the left who are not militant about these topics and just happen to fall on on side of the spectrum.

Try using a non PC term and watch the reaction. I am glad you agree the Trump supporter things are one-offs, but I disagree that PC reaction from the left are equally one-offs.

Quote:I find it likely that your interactions with Obama and Trump supporters support your views because that's how bubbles work, and we all live in one. I know that the vast majority of Trump supporters aren't out there yellow Jew-S-A, and at the same time, a majority of Clinton supporters aren't in the streets yelling things like about persecuting white, male, Christians. My guess is that you view some actions on the left and more extreme then I do, which is why you have the opinion that there are more extreme lefties than righties.

We are both in bubbles, but yours is more truthful?

No, Clinton supporters are not in the street yelling things about persecuting white Christian males, they are on the news and in the courts making their points.

I am not worried about the extremists as much as i worry about the broader movement. If there were thousands chanting Jew-S-A offsetting the thousands saying "you are deplorable", I would consider the extremism more balanced. Remember, my first quibble with you was over the statement that the two sides probably make up the same percentage.

BTW, what is the PC way to say "Master" now, and what happens if you say "Master"?

Rice Masters just voted 7-2 (2 abstained) to change the term Master into something else. One of the motivations was because of the historical context it has with slavery.

And regarding the bubble, I don't think mine is more right. I do think that I recognize the bubble better though, and that is likely due to my line of work. My friends are generallly left leaning, but I work in a industry that is surprisingly conservative and I work with a lot of blue collar guys. I've heard plenty of racist and misogynistic things said about Obama and Hillary (drillers LOVE to talk politics for some reason). I mean, if they didn't like Obama just because of his policies, why did the N-word get thrown around when talking about him so frequently? But here's the thing, I recognized that that drill crew was not EVERY drill crew, and that more likely than not, the majority of conservatives were like those I worked in the office with. However, one interesting thing is that, as the polls show, most of the people who would fall into the driller category are Trump supporters (white, non-college educated) while my coworkers and people like my father, and likely you (white, college educated) aren't fans of Trump.

But anyways, back to the bubble. My work pushes me outside of my bubble regularly, so I try and remind myself of that when talking in sweeping generalizations.

And I guess if you're not as worried about the extremists as much as the broader movement, did the Birther Movement give you pause?

I thought it was silly, as the location of birth is unimportant if the mother is an American citizen. As for as i am concerned, if you are an american citizen when you draw your first breath, you are a natural born citizen.

So are the guys racist because they are blue collar? No educated people would talk that way, right?

My experience with blue collar over the five plus decades is that there is a lot of talk, but when push comes to shove, people act like people. maybe they just need retraining in the proper way to speak and think.

But I think a lot of things are silly. The master, as in a college master, goes back to a English history that has nothing to do with slavery. More Downton Abbey than plantation. I would be bound to disagree (can I say bound?). Let me know what nonoffensive term is chosen.

Still, I am more concerned with the disapproving looks I would likely garner if I inadvertently referred to the Master at my college fifty years ago. will I be considered a racist, yet again?

People saying racist things in a work environment is not the same thing as opposing Obama just because he is black. I expect we will now have four to eight years when if we opposes President Clinton's policies, we will be called sexist. And I oppose a lot of her pronounced policies.

Still my basic disagreement with you is on perceived volume on either side. I have given my perceptions, you have yours. We will neither be able to convert the other, I think. Let us each go on our own way respectfully. But next time somebody chides you for using the wrong word, think of the source. I prefer to remain the Master of my fate, the Captain of my soul. Oops. Sorry about that.

To the bold: I never said that in the slightest. Correlation doesn't equal causation. It's just that my experience matches what demographic trends are telling us about Trump supporters. And I would find it odd that someone would need to use a racial slur about someone if all they didn't like were his policies.

And about your few comments about the Master term. I don't necessarily agree with the change and wouldn't have been championing it myself. But I think this is where there is a massive chasm between those on the left and right, moderate, extreme, and anywhere in between. I don't need to explain what side of the argument each side falls on, but I think your comments are a perfect example of the foundational difference in thinking.

On the left the moderates go "Hm, I know that the word is not meant to evoke references to slavery, but I understand that the word has obvious subtext that relates to slavery; therefore, if people would prefer that the name be changed, that's their right. I can empathize with that."

On the right, the moderates go "Well, that isn't offensive to me, it's so obvious it's not event about that. I'm not going to try and look at the situation through another lens and empathize with that person." I mean, your post makes a good point about where the word originated for Rice's context, but then it devolved into quips about using the term master or bound in every context, which undermined the initial argument.

And honestly, when I first heard about this issue a few weeks back, I didn't think much of it. I really didn't understand the situation until this was brought up at a party and one of my black friends told me how uncomfortable she had been using that term, and that apparently, her friends who were also black had echoed that sentiment. I had never been put into a position like that, and when I tried to empathize with my friend, I partially understood where she was coming from.

And this has nothing to do with the overzealous safe space issues that seem to be permeating higher education at the moment, where students try and block speakers who they disagree with from coming to campus. This isn't keeping specific ideologies out, it's just altering some language to make students a bit less uncomfortable.