(11-03-2016 03:16 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Quote: More generally, a subtle but recurrent theme among your comments seems to be an assumption that leftists are superior thinkers. That, too, is wrong.

To the bold: You're making that jump in logic there - I certainly don't think that. There are brilliant minds and thinkers on both sides, and complete and utter idiots on both.

It is not a jump in logic at all. My observation is based entirely on your written words:

1. Yesterday at 1:21 PM you wrote:

Quote: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."

This characterization seeks to portray "your" side as distinctively thoughtful, and the opposing side as distinctively superficial -- i.e. inferior in thinking.

2. At 11:58 AM today you wrote:

Quote:"I think it does undermine the argument because it hints that the arguer doesn't understand why the phrase was uncomfortable..."

As I pointed out in reply, you didn't opine that it indicates that the arguer, e.g., questions the logical or factual basis of the claim of offense; you said it indicates that the "arguer doesn't understand..." The implication is that you believe disagreement with the claim of offense is necessarily based not on fact or reason but on a lack of understanding -- i.e. an inferiority in thinking.

3. Just now you wrote that the argument you disagree with "lacks critical thinking" and is "superficial" -- i.e. that it is based on inferior thinking to your own.

In light of that evidence, my observation that "a subtle but recurrent theme among your comments seems to be an assumption that leftists are superior thinkers" seems not only sound, but perhaps too mild. It's not actually subtle.

* * * * *

(11-03-2016 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Regarding the vote, it was 7-2-2. 7 colleges for, 2 against, 2 abstained. So 78% of those who voiced an opinion voted for the change.

You can try to spin it that way, but why? You said "overwhelmingly in favor", but only seven of the 11 current Master pairs took the position that the measure is a good idea. And as I said, that thin majority is especially unimpressive considering the professional pressure to vote that way.

* * * * *

(11-03-2016 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And to your first point, my whole argument hinged on the fact that the term Master in how it was used, has a relation to the control/lordship of people (e.g. slavery). I see the logic you're applying, but don't think it applies so strictly and bluntly here, and actually lacks critical thinking because you are only looking at things superficially.

Again, an inaccurate and self-serving characterization. I am not looking at this topic superficially (I almost NEVER look at things superficially). You BELIEVE that the details and arguments you point out are persuasive and sufficient to make your conclusion correct. I am fully aware of those details (have been for some time), and have considered and discussed them a length with many intelligent people over a fairly long period. Based on all of that information, as well as considerable reflection and analysis, my conclusion is that those details are NOT sufficient to make your conclusion correct, and that any link between the college Mastership and an antebellum slaveholder is still too tenuous and contrived to make the claims of offense objectively reasonable, or to make the proposed change either necessary or wise. That is not a superficial result, nor one that lacks critical thinking, and it is unseemly to label it as such.

In all fairness, I see the logic you're applying as well. It is a decent enough attempt, but I don't think it is strong enough to get you to the conclusion you prefer. Yet none of us on this thread have denigrated it as lacking in "understanding", or "superficial", or "lacking critical thinking."

I think there may have been a misunderstanding about exactly what I was addressing. Sorry if you took offense at my comment about the superficial nature of your thinking on this - your actual explanation and statements were not what I was calling superficial. Your simple question below is what I was talking about (I did say that I was talking about your first point in my reply):

Quote:It simply asks whether, if the word is uncomfortable in context A which is unrelated to evil X, isn't it also uncomfortable in other contexts unrelated to evil X? That is a reasonable exercise in critical thinking. "

That question, is admittedly, by you, very simplistic. Because it is simple it ignores all of the intricate details and nuances of the situation. That is what I was calling poor critical thinking, not any of your other arguments. It's poor critical thinking because it was reducing a rather complex situation, where nuance and understanding is important to a simple if-then statement. And isn't that superficial?

And to the comment that I think those on the right are inferior thinkers, I see where you could get that with my first statement, but not with the second. For the second, that has nothing to do with me thinking those on the left at all, that is a personal disagreement and opinion about a single individual post. I would not stretch that much further to argue that I believe leftists as a whole are superior thinkers. I could just as easily turn that argument around and say since you believe your logic is more sound than mind, that you (on the right) think that all Right-ests (is that a thing?) are superior thinkers.

Anyways, we don't see eye-to-eye, which is fine and dandy, but not sure how much further this conversation will go. Hopefully I can avoid writing anything else that leads you to think I have some intellectual superiority complex (I don't, I went to Rice where that died a long time ago).

(11-03-2016 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think there may have been a misunderstanding about exactly what I was addressing. Sorry if you took offense at my comment about the superficial nature of your thinking on this - your actual explanation and statements were not what I was calling superficial.

Thanks for clarifying. I must admit that when you wrote "the logic you are applying...lacks critical thinking" and "you are only looking at things superficially", that seemed to be a characterizations of my "actual explanation and statements."

In any case, I didn't take offense -- you've been far too polite for that to happen. Nor, on that comment alone, would I have detected an assumption of superiority. Rather, I detected the apparent assumption based on (1) last night's characterization of moderate leftists as distinctly empathetic while moderate conservatives are distinctly superficial, and (2) this morning's characterization of people questioning a claim of offense as not "understanding". It was those two that seemed to establish a pattern, which the afternoon comment (before you clarified it) seemed to confirm. But this is probably a good example of how weak evidence often undermines rather than bolsters the strong.

(11-03-2016 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Your simple question below is what I was talking about (I did say that I was talking about your first point in my reply):

Quote:It simply asks whether, if the word is uncomfortable in context A which is unrelated to evil X, isn't it also uncomfortable in other contexts unrelated to evil X? That is a reasonable exercise in critical thinking. "

That question, is admittedly, by you, very simplistic.

Simple does not mean simplistic.

(11-03-2016 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Because it is simple it ignores all of the intricate details and nuances of the situation. That is what I was calling poor critical thinking, not any of your other arguments. It's poor critical thinking because it was reducing a rather complex situation, where nuance and understanding is important to a simple if-then statement. And isn't that superficial?

A question is not an argument. A question may elicit information which informs an argument, or clarifies a perspective, or tests assumptions, or reveals a need for further information, but it is not DESIGNED to take "all the intricate details and nuances" into account. It is only an information-gathering tool. And this particular question is not unreasonable -- in fact, you went on to address it (quite reasonably) in subsequent posts where you offered some reasons why different contexts, though equally innocuous, might justify different results. Evidently you thought that this information (which the question solicited) was informative to the argument. It's hard to see how asking a question designed to elicit that very information is "poor critical thinking". At the very least, it would seem to reflect better thinking than forgoing the question on the assumption that "everyone already knows" the answer. (Not that you did that)

(11-03-2016 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And to the comment that I think those on the right are inferior thinkers, I see where you could get that with my first statement, but not with the second.

Yes, your comment at 1:21 PM yesterday was the one that planted the seed of concern. Without it, I don't think the others would have risen to the level of a detectable pattern.

(11-03-2016 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I would not stretch that much further to argue that I believe leftists as a whole are superior thinkers.

I certainly can't say that you believe that. All I meant is that your words seemed to be saying that.

(11-03-2016 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I could just as easily turn that argument around and say since you believe your logic is more sound than mind, that you (on the right) think that all Right-ests (is that a thing?) are superior thinkers.

But I didn't try to argue that moderate leftists distinctly possess a positive quality (empathy) while moderate rightists distinctly possess a negative one (superficiality). You also said in a recent post that you "try to avoid sweeping generalizations."

Aside: "Rightist" is indeed a regular word, but (while I'm admittedly not objective on the subject), somehow it just doesn't seem as meaningful (either positively or negatively) as "leftist".

(11-03-2016 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Hopefully I can avoid writing anything else that leads you to think I have some intellectual superiority complex (I don't, I went to Rice where that died a long time ago).

Fair enough, but please don't do it for my sake -- do it for the sake of your own arguments.

* * * * *

I too will need to take a break from this topic and thread. It may not have been the wisest use of time, but it has been interesting, thought-provoking, and fun.

There has been a big change in my life as a result of this discussion.

I will no longer buy or use Master ™ padlocks. The juxtaposition of the word "Master" on an instrument of slavery is just way to much to ask certain people to bear, and i won't be a party to it.

the same goes for Master Grip, MasterCard, Masterpiece Theatre, and of course, the ultimate, that hateful Masters golf tournament. I have been insensitive, and regret the pain i have caused. I will be relinquishing all my masterpoints in bridge.

My only excuse is that I attended Rice for 5 years, and have been an alumnus for half a century since, and never once did the idea cross my mind that the master was a slavemaster. Mea culpa.

Just a few assorted ramblings...

1. I never ever referred to Dr Martin as Master. In fact if the need arose I simply referred to him as "Uncle Bill". This might have been motivated by his proposal that OCs could have access to college facilities if they were sponsored by residents.

1a. I am sick of political correctness and sick of affirmative action (aka reverse discrimination). If affirmative action hasn't worked after 40+ years what makes anyone think it's going to ever work? Instead all I see is new ethnicities being identified and exerting their 'rights'. They don't even need to prove discrimination as it is implied and if you don't agree you bigoted such and such...

2. Abstaining from voting can effectively block any motion that requires a simple majority. In the instant case if two of the seven "Yes" votes were changed to "Abstained" then the motion would have failed 5 - 2 - 4. I'm not sure if this is from Roberts Rules of Order or just something I employed when I was Master of Law for my fraternity. And abstaining is voicing an opinion. It just isn't voicing a preference. Please note that in the UK the motion would pass as majority is spelled plurality.

3. I can't remember ever using the "n" word, but I have heard black acquaintances used it to describe someone of their race they felt was feckless/useless/worthless/good-for-nothing, etc. I have little doubt that somewhere out there a black man or woman once called or will call Obama a "n".

3a. I was once besotted with this beautiful blonde woman. Unfortunately on our first date I became aware that she thought black = "n". That immediately ended the relationship. Had it happened on the fourth date I might have ended the relationship there and then or waited a few days. I am human. I am weak. (Sorry that was self indulgent.)

4. Be thankful you do not live in the UK. The press, especially the BBC, are extremely and unapologetically left wing. Being left wing is seen as a sign of intelligence. In the past two months I have been bombarded by BBC interviews of US 'intellectuals', primarily writers, extolling the virtues of HRC and lamenting the vices of DT. The BBC did find some DT supporters a few weeks ago at a truck stop in North Carolina. This is the same BBC that has reported twice that DT has called for the assassination of HRC. The BBC - Yellow journalism at its best.

5. I have already voted as I was in the States last week. Unfortunately the "Great Meteor of 2016" wasn't on the ballot. My second choice is fairly obvious. But remember most people vote against one candidate and not in favor of another. At least that what most political scholars say. A write-in vote for the "Great Meteor of 2016" would only have been effective if a majority voted likewise.

Sorry for wasting your time...

(11-03-2016 09:44 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  4. Be thankful you do not live in the UK. The press, especially the BBC, are extremely and unapologetically left wing. Being left wing is seen as a sign of intelligence. In the past two months I have been bombarded by BBC interviews of US 'intellectuals', primarily writers, extolling the virtues of HRC and lamenting the vices of DT. The BBC did find some DT supporters a few weeks ago at a truck stop in North Carolina. This is the same BBC that has reported twice that DT has called for the assassination of HRC. The BBC - Yellow journalism at its best.

I don't see think for the most part it's all that different in the States.

(11-03-2016 09:44 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Just a few assorted ramblings...

1. I never ever referred to Dr Martin as Master. In fact if the need arose I simply referred to him as "Uncle Bill". This might have been motivated by his proposal that OCs could have access to college facilities if they were sponsored by residents.

1a. I am sick of political correctness and sick of affirmative action (aka reverse discrimination). If affirmative action hasn't worked after 40+ years what makes anyone think it's going to ever work? Instead all I see is new ethnicities being identified and exerting their 'rights'. They don't even need to prove discrimination as it is implied and if you don't agree you bigoted such and such...

2. Abstaining from voting can effectively block any motion that requires a simple majority. In the instant case if two of the seven "Yes" votes were changed to "Abstained" then the motion would have failed 5 - 2 - 4. I'm not sure if this is from Roberts Rules of Order or just something I employed when I was Master of Law for my fraternity. And abstaining is voicing an opinion. It just isn't voicing a preference. Please note that in the UK the motion would pass as majority is spelled plurality.

3. I can't remember ever using the "n" word, but I have heard black acquaintances used it to describe someone of their race they felt was feckless/useless/worthless/good-for-nothing, etc. I have little doubt that somewhere out there a black man or woman once called or will call Obama a "n".

3a. I was once besotted with this beautiful blonde woman. Unfortunately on our first date I became aware that she thought black = "n". That immediately ended the relationship. Had it happened on the fourth date I might have ended the relationship there and then or waited a few days. I am human. I am weak. (Sorry that was self indulgent.)

4. Be thankful you do not live in the UK. The press, especially the BBC, are extremely and unapologetically left wing. Being left wing is seen as a sign of intelligence. In the past two months I have been bombarded by BBC interviews of US 'intellectuals', primarily writers, extolling the virtues of HRC and lamenting the vices of DT. The BBC did find some DT supporters a few weeks ago at a truck stop in North Carolina. This is the same BBC that has reported twice that DT has called for the assassination of HRC. The BBC - Yellow journalism at its best.

5. I have already voted as I was in the States last week. Unfortunately the "Great Meteor of 2016" wasn't on the ballot. My second choice is fairly obvious. But remember most people vote against one candidate and not in favor of another. At least that what most political scholars say. A write-in vote for the "Great Meteor of 2016" would only have been effective if a majority voted likewise.

Sorry for wasting your time...

If you haven't seen this twitter handle: https://twitter.com/votegiantmeteor

(11-04-2016 02:15 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:44 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Just a few assorted ramblings...

1. I never ever referred to Dr Martin as Master. In fact if the need arose I simply referred to him as "Uncle Bill". This might have been motivated by his proposal that OCs could have access to college facilities if they were sponsored by residents.

1a. I am sick of political correctness and sick of affirmative action (aka reverse discrimination). If affirmative action hasn't worked after 40+ years what makes anyone think it's going to ever work? Instead all I see is new ethnicities being identified and exerting their 'rights'. They don't even need to prove discrimination as it is implied and if you don't agree you bigoted such and such...

2. Abstaining from voting can effectively block any motion that requires a simple majority. In the instant case if two of the seven "Yes" votes were changed to "Abstained" then the motion would have failed 5 - 2 - 4. I'm not sure if this is from Roberts Rules of Order or just something I employed when I was Master of Law for my fraternity. And abstaining is voicing an opinion. It just isn't voicing a preference. Please note that in the UK the motion would pass as majority is spelled plurality.

3. I can't remember ever using the "n" word, but I have heard black acquaintances used it to describe someone of their race they felt was feckless/useless/worthless/good-for-nothing, etc. I have little doubt that somewhere out there a black man or woman once called or will call Obama a "n".

3a. I was once besotted with this beautiful blonde woman. Unfortunately on our first date I became aware that she thought black = "n". That immediately ended the relationship. Had it happened on the fourth date I might have ended the relationship there and then or waited a few days. I am human. I am weak. (Sorry that was self indulgent.)

4. Be thankful you do not live in the UK. The press, especially the BBC, are extremely and unapologetically left wing. Being left wing is seen as a sign of intelligence. In the past two months I have been bombarded by BBC interviews of US 'intellectuals', primarily writers, extolling the virtues of HRC and lamenting the vices of DT. The BBC did find some DT supporters a few weeks ago at a truck stop in North Carolina. This is the same BBC that has reported twice that DT has called for the assassination of HRC. The BBC - Yellow journalism at its best.

5. I have already voted as I was in the States last week. Unfortunately the "Great Meteor of 2016" wasn't on the ballot. My second choice is fairly obvious. But remember most people vote against one candidate and not in favor of another. At least that what most political scholars say. A write-in vote for the "Great Meteor of 2016" would only have been effective if a majority voted likewise.

Sorry for wasting your time...

If you haven't seen this twitter handle: https://twitter.com/votegiantmeteor

You got his name wrong. He goes by SMOD, and he's been running for office since 2012. https://twitter.com/smod2016?lang=en

(10-26-2016 07:10 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 01:43 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  Other than noting that the linked speech still contained more substantive policy points than a typical Clinton speech,...

That's demonstrably untrue. In fact, the opposite is true.

I'll stretch and count Trump as having made four "substantive policy points" in the previously-linked speech ( http://time.com/4532181/donald-trump-nor...ranscript/ ). Taking a random Hillary speech from the same week ( http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/...state.html ), she doubled Trump's number.

(10-25-2016 01:43 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  one might look at the speech he gave Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, which contains more substantive content than anything Clinton has said in total since perhaps the Democratic national convention.

This comment is both misleading and non-responsive.

Your claim had been that Trump "has been going out just about every day as of late and making substantive policy speeches", while Hillary's speeches are not substantive. Rather than point to any of the number of speeches Trump had made over the time period you referenced, you instead bring up a speech that he made _after_ you made your claim -- a speech touted by his campaign as "groundbreaking" and "game-changing", presenting his "revolutionary 'Contract with the American Voter'". That is, a speech not representative of his typical speeches as of late.

I linked to the speech that I did because it was at the time quite recent. The fact that it was made between the time you made your post and the time that I replied doesn't mean that he hadn't previously made speeches like that. He's been doing that fairly regularly since the convention. If the mainstream media is all that you've been paying attention to, you may be forgiven for your impression, as they seem to focus only on his more salacious comments.

I took a look at the link to Clinton's speech at Ohio State, and there was very little of substance to it. There were the usual ritual denunciations of Trump, along with lots of boilerplate (invest in infrastructure, invest in clean energy, crack down on corporate fraud, universal pre-K, tuition-free college). She floated a couple of ideas (indexed repayment of college loans, National Service Reserve) with little detail. All of these items had two things in common: they'd cost additional money, and no mention was made of where that money would come from, other than a vague reference to having the "wealthy" pay their "fair share" in taxes. Overall, that's not substantial.

It seems rather clear that, since the beginning of the primaries, Clinton has been engaged in a giant political version of a prevent defense (is David Bailiff her campaign manager?). It's been noted by more than one pundit that, every time Clinton makes substantive statements about her policies, her poll numbers decline. That's why she tends to avoid situations that would lead her to do that (such as going nine months between press conferences). Instead, she usually talks about how her sex and her experience as senator and Secretary of State make her qualified to be president (while avoiding mention of how she actually performed in those positions). When Trump was confirmed as the Republican nominee, she added attacks on his character to her speeches (and he's a target-rich environment for that).

This strategy would seem to make sense. At the outset, Clinton polled ahead of possible challengers, so it would seem smart to sit on that lead. As the WikiLeaks e-mails have shown, the Democratic National Committee would do everything it could to help her win the nomination, and the mainstream media wouldn't provide an obstacle (and in some cases even collaborate with her campaign). The only weakness with this strategy is that ten months is a long time to run out the clock. As recent events have shown, the unexpected can happen, and it isn't easy to have to suddenly start having to make first downs again. Clinton may yet manage to run out the clock successfully, but the score is getting awfully close, and momentum doesn't appear to be on her side. Will this be a case of the prevent defense preventing victory (and have I used enough sports clichés in this post)?

I guess given Breitbart's and Bannon's anti-Semitism this shouldn't be shocking, but Trump closes up campaign by going all in on the anti-Semitism...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trum...closing-ad

I really truly don't understand how someone who is not racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic, etc. justifies voting for this man. (Or how his son in law and daughter tolerate it.)

(11-06-2016 02:50 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I guess given Breitbart's and Bannon's anti-Semitism this shouldn't be shocking, but Trump closes up campaign by going all in on the anti-Semitism...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trum...closing-ad

I really truly don't understand how someone who is not racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic, etc. justifies voting for this man. (Or how his son in law and daughter tolerate it.)

I just saw the ad. I guess I'm missing something you see that I don't.

Do you believe the Trump ad is the prelude to Kristallnacht II?

In the extreme, if someone verbally attacks the Rothschilds should I be appalled as a second generation American of Austrian ancestry? Or Nancy Pelosi because were both Catholics?

I really truly don't understand how someone with any level of comprehension that has access to Google, etc., can justify voting for HRC?

No one in my extended family is voting for HRC. That extended family includes a mixture of college grads, technical school grads, and 'rednecks'.

That mix also includes my Dad who had to leave school after completing the fifth grade and who taught me two things: what is fair and what is honest.

HRC is neither fair nor honest.

As previously posted I would have preferred voting for someone else. I also pointed out that according to political scholars people vote against one candidate and not for the other. My vote was against a corrupt career politician.

And just for the record I am not racist, bigoted, or anti-Semitic.

(11-06-2016 04:11 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 02:50 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I guess given Breitbart's and Bannon's anti-Semitism this shouldn't be shocking, but Trump closes up campaign by going all in on the anti-Semitism...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trum...closing-ad

I really truly don't understand how someone who is not racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic, etc. justifies voting for this man. (Or how his son in law and daughter tolerate it.)

I just saw the ad. I guess I'm missing something you see that I don't.

Do you believe the Trump ad is the prelude to Kristallnacht II?

In the extreme, if someone verbally attacks the Rothschilds should I be appalled as a second generation American of Austrian ancestry? Or Nancy Pelosi because were both Catholics?

I really truly don't understand how someone with any level of comprehension that has access to Google, etc., can justify voting for HRC?

No one in my extended family is voting for HRC. That extended family includes a mixture of college grads, technical school grads, and 'rednecks'.

That mix also includes my Dad who had to leave school after completing the fifth grade and who taught me two things: what is fair and what is honest.

HRC is neither fair nor honest.

As previously posted I would have preferred voting for someone else. I also pointed out that according to political scholars people vote against one candidate and not for the other. My vote was against a corrupt career politician.

And just for the record I am not racist, bigoted, or anti-Semitic.

As I saw someone post on Facebook, a bad way to reduce blood pressure is to cut off your head.

(11-06-2016 04:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As I saw someone post on Facebook, a bad way to reduce blood pressure is to cut off your head.

Fair enough, but it also achieves the real possibility of "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil".

Equally bad (at least the first two).

That was just the last in a long line of anti-semitism from the Trump campaign. Which is run by an anti-semite.

Some things are just plain wrong and trump (no pun intended) policy and other issues. Racism, bigotry, anti-semitism, etc. fall into that category. I could even accept someone ignoring Trump's complete lack of knowledge and experience on the basis of party/ideology.

But support a campaign which most acknowledge is one of white nationalism? Sorry, there is no way to morally defend that.

(11-06-2016 05:25 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  That was just the last in a long line of anti-semitism from the Trump campaign. Which is run by an anti-semite.

Some things are just plain wrong and trump (no pun intended) policy and other issues. Racism, bigotry, anti-semitism, etc. fall into that category. I could even accept someone ignoring Trump's complete lack of knowledge and experience on the basis of party/ideology.

But support a campaign which most acknowledge is one of white nationalism? Sorry, there is no way to morally defend that.

Supporting a crook on moral grounds? What a concept.

(11-06-2016 05:25 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  That was just the last in a long line of anti-semitism from the Trump campaign. Which is run by an anti-semite.

Some things are just plain wrong and trump (no pun intended) policy and other issues. Racism, bigotry, anti-semitism, etc. fall into that category. I could even accept someone ignoring Trump's complete lack of knowledge and experience on the basis of party/ideology.

But support a campaign which most acknowledge is one of white nationalism? Sorry, there is no way to morally defend that.

Well you're telling me DT is an anti-Semite. Personally I haven't seen evidence of this as reported in the UK. If he acts accordingly no doubt he will be punished.

Contrast that with the congenital liar named Hilary Clinton...

(11-06-2016 05:25 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  That was just the last in a long line of anti-semitism from the Trump campaign. Which is run by an anti-semite.
Some things are just plain wrong and trump (no pun intended) policy and other issues. Racism, bigotry, anti-semitism, etc. fall into that category. I could even accept someone ignoring Trump's complete lack of knowledge and experience on the basis of party/ideology.
But support a campaign which most acknowledge is one of white nationalism? Sorry, there is no way to morally defend that.

Your saying those things doesn't make them true.

Jonathan Sadow ' Wrote:  I linked to the speech that I did because it was at the time quite recent. The fact that it was made between the time you made your post and the time that I replied doesn't mean that he hadn't previously made speeches like that. He's been doing that fairly regularly since the convention. If the mainstream media is all that you've been paying attention to, you may be forgiven for your impression, as they seem to focus only on his more salacious comments.

The fact that you continue to respond to this thread claiming the speech that I selected at random is the outlier, while claiming the one _his own staff_ had hyped as singular is in fact representative of his typical speeches, is just making it clear that you've taken an unsupportable position and simply aren't willing to let it go.

To reiterate, your claim that Trump was daily making speeches that blew Hilary out of the water in terms of substantive content seems to be nothing more than your own fantasy. I randomly picked a speech from each in the week to referred to, and Trump had four points of substantive policy discussion while Hilary had eight.

As expected:

Quote:"Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July," Comey said in the letter to top Republicans on the House Oversight Committee.

...

The emails, thousands found, were mostly duplicates of what had already been seen and personal emails, law enforcement officials said in explaining how the conclusion was reached so quickly. The laptop which was found was around a decade old, with lots of personal content on it not relevant to the investigation, according to one source."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com...index.html

(11-06-2016 06:08 PM)JOwl Wrote:  As expected:

Quote:"Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July," Comey said in the letter to top Republicans on the House Oversight Committee.

...

The emails, thousands found, were mostly duplicates of what had already been seen and personal emails, law enforcement officials said in explaining how the conclusion was reached so quickly. The laptop which was found was around a decade old, with lots of personal content on it not relevant to the investigation, according to one source."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com...index.html

Will love to see how each side decides to treat Comey now. Both Reps/Dems have praised/demonized him.

Do a lot of Dems begin to back track on the crucifixion of Comey that they started? Do a lot of Reps praise continue to praise Comey and the FBI for the job they are doing, as they were once that letter was released?

The one thing that does seem clear to me though, is that there is a healthy portion of the FBI (not necessarily Comey) that acted a more partisan manner than they should have as leaks began springing all over the place once that letter was written.

(11-06-2016 05:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-06-2016 05:25 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  That was just the last in a long line of anti-semitism from the Trump campaign. Which is run by an anti-semite.
Some things are just plain wrong and trump (no pun intended) policy and other issues. Racism, bigotry, anti-semitism, etc. fall into that category. I could even accept someone ignoring Trump's complete lack of knowledge and experience on the basis of party/ideology.
But support a campaign which most acknowledge is one of white nationalism? Sorry, there is no way to morally defend that.

Your saying those things doesn't make them true.

Which things? That supporting racism, bigotry, and anti-semitism is morally indefensible? Fair enough, that is merely my opinion. And thankfully the opinion of most people with a sense of decency.