Hello There, Guest! Registered users see far less ads! Register today and join our virtual tailgate. (Login — Register)

Post Reply 
Presidential Horse Race Thread
Author Message
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 62,547
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 901
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #1061
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-16-2016 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 10:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 09:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(11-15-2016 06:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you said in one basket you have race-baiters, violent reactionaries, etc. and in the other people who are reasonable and just looking for a better government I would know you weren't. I mean, I know who and what I am and who and what is sometimes affiliated with the party.

I guess I should have defined the other half, as Clinton did.

Half of Clinton's supporters are elitists who think they are superior to the rest of the country and should prevail in all things, and half are just sincere dupes or idiots who just want a better world.

Better now?

No. Clinton didn't use any disparaging remarks about the other basket.

Quote:but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change.It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

Where did she say anything about them being dupes or idiots? Isn't the language above what most of us having been saying about a lot of the Trump voters?

So if I'm not a deplorable, I must be in the hopeless group? I didn't need for my life to be different, not worried about losing a kid to heroin, etc. I'm sure not in a dead end.

\So which half am I in?

Well, do you feel like the government has let you down and you're desperate for change?

I am for hope and change. But not desperate. Not hopeless. I am of the school that says if you hit the nail wrong, pull out the bent nail and drive the next one better.
11-16-2016 05:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 62,547
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 901
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #1062
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-16-2016 03:30 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 02:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/d...li=BBnbcA1

I was actually going to post that one. One of us is in the wrong bubble. ;-)


I am for resonable discussion, and thought there was material in there for both sides to work with.

bubble?
11-16-2016 05:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,347
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #1063
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-15-2016 11:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  That so many decided that the absolute contempt for 18 USC 1983 (f) inter alia relating to the storage and transmission of confidential information, the underlying reason for the private server was absolute contempt for the Public Records Act and a really misguided attempt to circumvent those pesky FOIA requests, and some actions that could be readily construed as obstruction of justice in their handling post-server relevation (with a nice tasty side of rapid and incessant lies about it tending to show the necessary requisite intent for obstruction)....

This is a point that has screamed at me for months and months, and I was waiting for the Republicans to challenge Hillary with precisely this point, but it seemed like the moment never came. The additional motivation for a private server was to hide things from her boss (granting that he has the NSA at his beck and call, and I don't think it would've been too challenging for them to hack her server). Private Server == evade FOIA and evade the President. There's not much else to the issue, and everyone seemed to let her off the hook for the decision once she apologized and said she shouldn't have done that. There wasn't a lot of light shone onto why she did it.
11-16-2016 05:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,214
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 126
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #1064
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-16-2016 05:40 PM)I45owl Wrote:  
(11-15-2016 11:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  That so many decided that the absolute contempt for 18 USC 1983 (f) inter alia relating to the storage and transmission of confidential information, the underlying reason for the private server was absolute contempt for the Public Records Act and a really misguided attempt to circumvent those pesky FOIA requests, and some actions that could be readily construed as obstruction of justice in their handling post-server relevation (with a nice tasty side of rapid and incessant lies about it tending to show the necessary requisite intent for obstruction)....

This is a point that has screamed at me for months and months, and I was waiting for the Republicans to challenge Hillary with precisely this point, but it seemed like the moment never came. The additional motivation for a private server was to hide things from her boss (granting that he has the NSA at his beck and call, and I don't think it would've been too challenging for them to hack her server). Private Server == evade FOIA and evade the President. There's not much else to the issue, and everyone seemed to let her off the hook for the decision once she apologized and said she shouldn't have done that. There wasn't a lot of light shone onto why she did it.

I agree. I felt all along that the national security risk was overblown, while the truly telling element (the intentional sliminess on Clinton's part) was mostly glossed over.
11-16-2016 06:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,347
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #1065
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
I'll note in response to the thread in general, that I had not read much of the back and forth regarding Trump and everyone's personal experiences. I'll respect the agree to disagree comment.

However, I have to respond to this sidetrack...

(11-15-2016 01:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I know Soros is Jewish, but only because of the stories about how he ratted out his fellow Jews to the Nazis.

ADL Condemns Glenn Beck For 'Offensive,' 'Horrific' Attacks On George Soros (VIDEO) | The Huffington Post
orge soros
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/11...82420.html Wrote:Writing in the Daily Beast, Michelle Goldberg said that Beck was repeating a false right-wing canard:
"Michell Goldberg“ Wrote:In fact, when Soros was 14 in Nazi-occupied Hungary, his father bribed an agriculture official to pretend that the boy was his Christian godson. Soros once had to accompany his protector to inventory a confiscated Jewish estate. Asked by 60 Minutes if he felt guilty about it, he said no, because he wasn’t at fault. The slander that he was a Nazi collaborator has proliferated on the right ever since.”
Abraham Foxman, the executive director of the ADL, objected strongly to Beck’s attacks:
Abraham Foxman Wrote:Glenn Beck’s description of George Soros’ actions during the Holocaust is completely inappropriate, offensive and over the top. For a political commentator or entertainer to have the audacity to say - inaccurately - that there’s a Jewish boy sending Jews to death camps, as part of a broader assault on Mr. Soros, that’s horrific. While I, too, may disagree with many of Soros’ views and analysis on the issues, to bring in this kind of innuendo about his past is unacceptable. To hold a young boy responsible for what was going on around him during the Holocaust as part of a larger effort to denigrate the man is repugnant. The Holocaust was a horrific time, and many people had to make excruciating choices to ensure their survival. George Soros has been forthright about his childhood experiences and his family’s history, and there the matter should rest.

In essence, to attack Soros for what he did to survive the Holocaust is essentially to attack him for hiding his identity rather than die in a concentration camp.

Much of what I've found on this issue indicates that at worst, he was a passive spectator. Much of it is derived from a Steve Kroft/60 minutes interview. There is a transcript and some discussion here: George Soros, Nazi collaborator - snopes.com

To blame Soros for the situation here seems to absolve the Nazis themselves of the great evil that perpetrated on the continent.

Another major theme with regards to Soros is about the Asian Financial Crisis, where he was blamed for causing it by the Malaysian Prime Minister. Malaysia has been described as the most antisemitic country in the world, and it's never really had significant number of Jews. The basic reason for that is that it is a Muslim majority nation and the Sultan needs a foil to demonize and deflect attention from the government's own corruption. That predates the financial crisis, but Soros provided a convenient scapegoat for the Prime Minister, who eventually has conceded that Soros was not to blame for causing the crisis. Nevertheless, it's hard to hear about the Asian Financial Crisis without mention of the "fact" that Soros is to blame for it.

Soros has done more than enough on his own to earn the vitriol that is directed at him, but that largely has to do with funding a myriad of organizations.

On the one issue that you cited, I think it's unfair to criticize him for actions as a boy (he had yet to turn 15 at the end of WWII, and was 10 when Hungary joined the Axis powers).
11-16-2016 07:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 82,008
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3446
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #1066
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-16-2016 06:06 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 05:40 PM)I45owl Wrote:  
(11-15-2016 11:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  That so many decided that the absolute contempt for 18 USC 1983 (f) inter alia relating to the storage and transmission of confidential information, the underlying reason for the private server was absolute contempt for the Public Records Act and a really misguided attempt to circumvent those pesky FOIA requests, and some actions that could be readily construed as obstruction of justice in their handling post-server relevation (with a nice tasty side of rapid and incessant lies about it tending to show the necessary requisite intent for obstruction)....
This is a point that has screamed at me for months and months, and I was waiting for the Republicans to challenge Hillary with precisely this point, but it seemed like the moment never came. The additional motivation for a private server was to hide things from her boss (granting that he has the NSA at his beck and call, and I don't think it would've been too challenging for them to hack her server). Private Server == evade FOIA and evade the President. There's not much else to the issue, and everyone seemed to let her off the hook for the decision once she apologized and said she shouldn't have done that. There wasn't a lot of light shone onto why she did it.
I agree. I felt all along that the national security risk was overblown, while the truly telling element (the intentional sliminess on Clinton's part) was mostly glossed over.

I don't believe you ever served in the military. Those of us who did and who had access to classified information tend to believe that the national security aspect has been, if anything, grossly understated. I held a TS clearance for 22+ years, and if I had done what Hillary did, I would be spending 40 in Leavenworth, and justifiably so. If any information about the whereabouts of our ambassador to Libya, prior to his death, was found to have been placed on a non-secure server or transmitted over an uncovered circuit, there's an argument that it's a capital offense.

I've long thought that we have a major disconnect in our treatment of classified material. If you get a clearance while in the military, you undergo a thorough investigation first, and then receive extensive training. But we elect politicians to positions requiring access, and when we do we short-circuit the process. The end result is that we have any number of politicians and political appointees who are not properly prepared for the classified materials to which they have access. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I am sure that it is, and has been for some time, a serious problem.
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2016 08:30 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
11-16-2016 08:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,655
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #1067
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-16-2016 06:06 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 05:40 PM)I45owl Wrote:  
(11-15-2016 11:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  That so many decided that the absolute contempt for 18 USC 1983 (f) inter alia relating to the storage and transmission of confidential information, the underlying reason for the private server was absolute contempt for the Public Records Act and a really misguided attempt to circumvent those pesky FOIA requests, and some actions that could be readily construed as obstruction of justice in their handling post-server relevation (with a nice tasty side of rapid and incessant lies about it tending to show the necessary requisite intent for obstruction)....

This is a point that has screamed at me for months and months, and I was waiting for the Republicans to challenge Hillary with precisely this point, but it seemed like the moment never came. The additional motivation for a private server was to hide things from her boss (granting that he has the NSA at his beck and call, and I don't think it would've been too challenging for them to hack her server). Private Server == evade FOIA and evade the President. There's not much else to the issue, and everyone seemed to let her off the hook for the decision once she apologized and said she shouldn't have done that. There wasn't a lot of light shone onto why she did it.

I agree. I felt all along that the national security risk was overblown, while the truly telling element (the intentional sliminess on Clinton's part) was mostly glossed over.

When you read 18 USC 793 f there is no intent element. All it requires is gross negligence. The risk involved is also not a factor.

It was really interesting to read Comey's recitation of the physical findings, then characterize the culpability level as being "extremely careless", and then compare the combination of the actions and the culpability to 793(f)..... scratch that..... not interesting but abjectly disheartening.....
11-16-2016 09:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,342
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #1068
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-16-2016 08:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 06:06 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 05:40 PM)I45owl Wrote:  
(11-15-2016 11:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  That so many decided that the absolute contempt for 18 USC 1983 (f) inter alia relating to the storage and transmission of confidential information, the underlying reason for the private server was absolute contempt for the Public Records Act and a really misguided attempt to circumvent those pesky FOIA requests, and some actions that could be readily construed as obstruction of justice in their handling post-server relevation (with a nice tasty side of rapid and incessant lies about it tending to show the necessary requisite intent for obstruction)....
This is a point that has screamed at me for months and months, and I was waiting for the Republicans to challenge Hillary with precisely this point, but it seemed like the moment never came. The additional motivation for a private server was to hide things from her boss (granting that he has the NSA at his beck and call, and I don't think it would've been too challenging for them to hack her server). Private Server == evade FOIA and evade the President. There's not much else to the issue, and everyone seemed to let her off the hook for the decision once she apologized and said she shouldn't have done that. There wasn't a lot of light shone onto why she did it.
I agree. I felt all along that the national security risk was overblown, while the truly telling element (the intentional sliminess on Clinton's part) was mostly glossed over.

I don't believe you ever served in the military. Those of us who did and who had access to classified information tend to believe that the national security aspect has been, if anything, grossly understated. I held a TS clearance for 22+ years, and if I had done what Hillary did, I would be spending 40 in Leavenworth, and justifiably so. If any information about the whereabouts of our ambassador to Libya, prior to his death, was found to have been placed on a non-secure server or transmitted over an uncovered circuit, there's an argument that it's a capital offense.

I've long thought that we have a major disconnect in our treatment of classified material. If you get a clearance while in the military, you undergo a thorough investigation first, and then receive extensive training. But we elect politicians to positions requiring access, and when we do we short-circuit the process. The end result is that we have any number of politicians and political appointees who are not properly prepared for the classified materials to which they have access. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I am sure that it is, and has been for some time, a serious problem.

Weird, because Petraeus did something worse (intentionally provided classified material to someone) and all he got was a two year probationary period...

And I quote,

Quote:...he admitted that he improperly removed and retained highly sensitive information in eight personal notebooks that he gave the biographer, Paula Broadwell, to read.

When FBI agents confronted him in his CIA office in October 2012, Petraeus said he had never provided classified information to Broadwell, prosecutors said.

So please tell me more about how just having documents on a less-secure server is more of a crime than this.
11-16-2016 11:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 82,008
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3446
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #1069
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
Broad well actually held the requisite security clearance. It was determined that she did not have need to know. The damaging part was her affair with Petraeus.

Putting material on a non-secure server, or transmitting it over uncovered circuits, exposes it to the world, including people who are not cleared and do not have need to know. That's why it's worse.
11-17-2016 07:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #1070
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-16-2016 05:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 03:30 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 02:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/d...li=BBnbcA1

I was actually going to post that one. One of us is in the wrong bubble. ;-)


I am for resonable discussion, and thought there was material in there for both sides to work with.

bubble?

Yeah, I think it's a good article, as is the Post's original with her: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...kes-sense/

There are a couple others I'll post if I find the links.

I was just making a joke about the "bubble" because there have been so many articles about how each side lives in their own bias-reinforcing bubble. It's a good thing when bubbles overlap. We need more of that if we are going to move forward as a country.
11-17-2016 09:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #1071
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-15-2016 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  No offense intended and apologies

None taken and thanks, but unnecessary.
11-17-2016 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 62,547
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 901
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #1072
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-17-2016 07:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Broad well actually held the requisite security clearance. It was determined that she did not have need to know. The damaging part was her affair with Petraeus.

Putting material on a non-secure server, or transmitting it over uncovered circuits, exposes it to the world, including people who are not cleared and do not have need to know. That's why it's worse.

I hope Trump finds a place for Petraeus in his administration. Despite his lapse of judgement, I think he would be valuable to the nation. The only spot I think Clinton would be good at is Director of Cyber Security for the nation.
11-17-2016 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #1073
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-16-2016 12:01 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Maybe I just think too much.

That probably applies to everyone who posts here. :-)

I'm responding generally to the role of Islamophobia in Trump's campaign, not necessarily to a specific post or question.

Early on Trump repeated his story of having seen thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating on 9/11, a claim which had already been thoroughly debunked. (He insisted on doubling down on it, saying he saw it, remembered it, and had "the world's best memory" - worrisome in its own right, but not the main point here.) There is only one reason to further a lie like this - to stoke anger and hatred.

There were other things, condemned by his own party in some cases - the Muslim ban for example. Quite often the things he said were inaccurate and misleading, like suggesting there was no screening for refugees. And of course attacking the Khan family.

The best example is in the town hall debate - a Muslim American woman said she was concerned about rising anti-Muslim feelings. Trump's answer was basically, well Muslims should stop aiding the enemy and cooperate with authorities, then citing another thoroughly debunked falsehood about Muslims knowing about the San Bernadino shooter and not reporting on it.

I don't know if Trump knew these things were both lies or if he actually believed them, but in either case he is spreading falsehoods to generate hate and anger against a minority group. That is not OK, and one of the many reasons I am still struggling to understand how so many people could vote for him.
11-17-2016 10:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 29,287
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 4900
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #1074
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-16-2016 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 02:15 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Interesting. Don't recall this scale of thing being done to President-elect Obama. Where's the tolerance for diversity?

http://www.ajc.com/news/local/anti-trump...gt7z6U5KP/

Not much different than this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.1191812

Only difference here is someone used a giant projector.

I agree that's disgusting, anyone who knows anything about people like Emmett Till and the Scottsboro Boys would rightfully be appalled, I sure am--but a private front yard is far different than the side of a building in the 10th biggest city literally right next to two major interstates with the worst expletive. Takes a different and larger kind of ignorance and arrogance, imo. I don't think they're equivalent. Just saying. Libs win this one. Coexist, indeed.
11-17-2016 10:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,342
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #1075
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-17-2016 10:33 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 02:15 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Interesting. Don't recall this scale of thing being done to President-elect Obama. Where's the tolerance for diversity?

http://www.ajc.com/news/local/anti-trump...gt7z6U5KP/

Not much different than this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.1191812

Only difference here is someone used a giant projector.

I agree that's disgusting, anyone who knows anything about people like Emmett Till and the Scottsboro Boys would rightfully be appalled, I sure am--but a private front yard is far different than the side of a building in the 10th biggest city literally right next to two major interstates with the worst expletive. Takes a different and larger kind of ignorance and arrogance, imo. I don't think they're equivalent. Just saying. Libs win this one. Coexist, indeed.

Honestly, this is the kind of attitude that is just as divisive as the ones you rail against.

Why does there have to be a winner/loser in this situation? Does that add to the conversation about the rightness/wrongness of projecting this display?
11-17-2016 10:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 29,287
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 4900
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #1076
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-17-2016 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-17-2016 10:33 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 02:15 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Interesting. Don't recall this scale of thing being done to President-elect Obama. Where's the tolerance for diversity?

http://www.ajc.com/news/local/anti-trump...gt7z6U5KP/

Not much different than this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.1191812

Only difference here is someone used a giant projector.

I agree that's disgusting, anyone who knows anything about people like Emmett Till and the Scottsboro Boys would rightfully be appalled, I sure am--but a private front yard is far different than the side of a building in the 10th biggest city literally right next to two major interstates with the worst expletive. Takes a different and larger kind of ignorance and arrogance, imo. I don't think they're equivalent. Just saying. Libs win this one. Coexist, indeed.

Honestly, this is the kind of attitude that is just as divisive as the ones you rail against.

Why does there have to be a winner/loser in this situation? Does that add to the conversation about the rightness/wrongness of projecting this display?

I believe you posted above "Not much different than" and while agreeing that what you posted was offensive, I disagree with the relative level and said so, which appears to be what you were referring to, a contest of which was worse. Yes, they are both terrible examples of ignorance, but not at all on the same level of ignorance and arrogance due to size, location, effort and reach (view-ability by most people). If you didn't want to get into a comparison, you might have instead posted something more like: 'here's another one,' or 'there are many other examples,' which of course there are and unfortunately probably always will be.

Moreover, the 'coexist' reference is especially relevant, speaking to the very same double-standard your post appears to be exhibiting, and one which inflames and confounds folks who may happen to differ from your perspective, which you are free to choose (as are folks who differ in perspective should be recognized as allowed to, which is not often the case.)

As Owl69 posted above, it is the arrogance of the left that has brought them to this point as much as their generally bad ideas and overreach for solving their sometimes legitimate issues.
11-17-2016 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,342
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #1077
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-17-2016 11:16 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  
(11-17-2016 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-17-2016 10:33 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 02:15 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Interesting. Don't recall this scale of thing being done to President-elect Obama. Where's the tolerance for diversity?

http://www.ajc.com/news/local/anti-trump...gt7z6U5KP/

Not much different than this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.1191812

Only difference here is someone used a giant projector.

I agree that's disgusting, anyone who knows anything about people like Emmett Till and the Scottsboro Boys would rightfully be appalled, I sure am--but a private front yard is far different than the side of a building in the 10th biggest city literally right next to two major interstates with the worst expletive. Takes a different and larger kind of ignorance and arrogance, imo. I don't think they're equivalent. Just saying. Libs win this one. Coexist, indeed.

Honestly, this is the kind of attitude that is just as divisive as the ones you rail against.

Why does there have to be a winner/loser in this situation? Does that add to the conversation about the rightness/wrongness of projecting this display?

I believe you posted above "Not much different than" and while agreeing that what you posted was offensive, I disagree with the relative level and said so, which appears to be what you were referring to, a contest of which was worse. Yes, they are both terrible examples of ignorance, but not at all on the same level of ignorance and arrogance due to size, location, effort and reach (view-ability by most people). If you didn't want to get into a comparison, you might have instead posted something more like: 'here's another one,' or 'there are many other examples,' which of course there are and unfortunately probably always will be.

Moreover, the 'coexist' reference is especially relevant, speaking to the very same double-standard your post appears to be exhibiting, and one which inflames and confounds folks who may happen to differ from your perspective, which you are free to choose (as are folks who differ in perspective should be recognized as allowed to, which is not often the case.)

As Owl69 posted above, it is the arrogance of the left that has brought them to this point as much as their generally bad ideas and overreach for solving their sometimes legitimate issues.

I had no problem with the comparison of the two incidents, I highlighted the language you used about how "Libs win this one." I was asking how that was constructive to the argument, because there were no winners and losers, only two choices that were both wrong.

And are you suggesting that my post somehow didn't recognize your perspective on the situation or didn't allow for you to have a different opinion? Are you suggesting that my post was somehow arrogant? If so, I'd appreciate you explaining how you came to those conclusions. And I'd also appreciate a better explanation of the double-standard you're accusing me of right now - I don't quite follow.

My second post about the winners was targeting the fact that that line in particular adds no value to the conversation and only makes the conversation divisive. It doesn't assist the argument that the project had a wider reaching audience because more people could see it, and therefore those two examples are different. Instead, it paints a wide swath of an entire group based on the actions of potentially one individual who may not even be a democrat. I saw you and other people of conservative leanings complaining about that with the deplorables comment, so I figured it wouldn't be inappropriate to bring that up.
11-17-2016 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rick Gerlach Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,529
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 70
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #1078
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-17-2016 10:33 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  
(11-16-2016 12:01 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Maybe I just think too much.

That probably applies to everyone who posts here. :-)

I'm responding generally to the role of Islamophobia in Trump's campaign, not necessarily to a specific post or question.

Early on Trump repeated his story of having seen thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating on 9/11, a claim which had already been thoroughly debunked. (He insisted on doubling down on it, saying he saw it, remembered it, and had "the world's best memory" - worrisome in its own right, but not the main point here.) There is only one reason to further a lie like this - to stoke anger and hatred.

There were other things, condemned by his own party in some cases - the Muslim ban for example. Quite often the things he said were inaccurate and misleading, like suggesting there was no screening for refugees. And of course attacking the Khan family.

The best example is in the town hall debate - a Muslim American woman said she was concerned about rising anti-Muslim feelings. Trump's answer was basically, well Muslims should stop aiding the enemy and cooperate with authorities, then citing another thoroughly debunked falsehood about Muslims knowing about the San Bernadino shooter and not reporting on it.

I don't know if Trump knew these things were both lies or if he actually believed them, but in either case he is spreading falsehoods to generate hate and anger against a minority group. That is not OK, and one of the many reasons I am still struggling to understand how so many people could vote for him.

I agree that a lot of what Trump said/says is full of it, and as posted earlier, I didn't vote for any of the main party candidates.

My personal belief is that Trump doesn't pre-plan much of his public speaking. I think when he says something (usually) that he honestly believes it to be true, at least at the minute he's speaking. That doesn't make what he says correct mind you, but I know a number of people like that.

On the Myer's-Briggs personality-type indicator scale they are strongly F versus T. That is they are more apt to focus on Feeling, rather than Truth.

I knew someone who had a habit of contradicting himself and it infuriated another friend who basically stated that he was a bald-faced liar. What he didn't understand was that the actual words weren't what the other person remembered about things he had said in the past, what mattered to him was his 'intent' and how be 'felt' about the interaction.

(You can sometimes see this on this Board in the regular sports-topic forum by the way)

To a lot of us, words and their meaning matter. My posts are generally long, specifically because I want to make sure I'm not misunderstood and that my words actively reflect what I mean.

Trusting that everyone else is trying to apply that same standard is probably a mistake, at least unless you know them well enough to say it's at least a strong tendency.

In Trump's case, I think there is ample evidence that he often is simply 'winging' it. I doubt that he consciously is intending to lie or falsely present information, at least not 100% of the time. He believes what he is saying, he just may not literally mean everything he says.

Or in Seinfeld terms, as George Costanza gave this advice to Jerry who was about to undergo a polygraph test to determine whether he was lying about his TV viewing habits (to a police officer he was dating):

"Jerry, the only bit of advice I can give you . . . . It's not a lie if you really believe it."

It's all in the way a person sees the world.

That doesn't change the fact that Trump has spit out a lot of whoppers over the last year or so. I just don't think he 'thinks/vetts' about what he's saying, and therefore, not everything he says necessarily has (so much) malicious intent behind it. It may tell you something about what he 'believes' or 'fears' or 'feels'. But the specific details about what he's saying, not so much.

Or to refer to another personal experience, a friend of mine was talking to the father of another mutual friend. That mutual friend had a tendency to regale folks with stories day and night. He's a good guy and quite entertaining.

My friend told our mutual friend's father, "When I'm talking with 'Mutual Friend X', I always remember to divide by 2."

Our mutual friend's father replied, "I find it works better if you divide by 4."

I think we all know people like that. We generally don't expect them to be presidential candidates.

Thanks for responding by the way.
(This post was last modified: 11-17-2016 12:37 PM by Rick Gerlach.)
11-17-2016 12:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,214
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 126
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #1079
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-17-2016 12:33 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  On the Myer's-Briggs personality-type indicator scale they are strongly F versus T. That is they are more apt to focus on Feeling, rather than Truth.

. . .

To a lot of us, words and their meaning matter. My posts are generally long, specifically because I want to make sure I'm not misunderstood and that my words actively reflect what I mean.

Trusting that everyone else is trying to apply that same standard is probably a mistake, at least unless you know them well enough to say it's at least a strong tendency.

I had an interesting experience recently in another forum. A friend of mine posted a statement that said essentially "A, not B". I questioned how A could be true. In response, I was told rather angrily that what was obviously meant was "B, not A", and that I should stop "parsing words". The whole thing caught me off guard.
11-17-2016 01:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jonathan Sadow Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,104
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Strigids
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #1080
RE: Presidential Horse Race Thread
(11-15-2016 08:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Do I think Donald Trump is racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, or misogynist? I don't know.
Do I think any significant number of Donald Trump's supporters are racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, or misogynist? Absolutely not.
Do I think there was a concerted effort by democrats to paint Trump and his supporters in those terms in an attempt to marginalize their legitimate issues? Absolutely so.

You may disagree. If so, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I think you're starting to realize the state of political discourse today, if you haven't already realized it. The problem is that, as it's been said, while conservatives tend to see their ideological opponents as wrong and misguided, liberals tend to see their opposition as stupid and evil. To the left, there can be no honest disagreements, because the right is fundamentally dishonest due to its opposition to liberal views. Therefore, any opposition must be rooted in some sort of bigotry, whether it be racism/sexism/xenophobia/"Islamophobia"/Bailiff apologia/whatever; the one thing opposition couldn't be is principled.

Appeals to bigotry are especially perfidious because of the slippery nature of the offense. As Justice Potter Stewart wrote about pornography, you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. However, that makes bigotry as much a function of the observer as the observed, and in my experience accusations of bigotry tell us as much about the accuser as they do about the accused. That's why the community standard concept has been used in regard to pornography; let the community decide what's acceptable following the principle of subsidiarity.

Unfortunately, it seems that a good portion of the left isn't willing to do that. Because its opposition is (to them) immoral, it must be crushed, in all aspects of life, and driven out of the public square of ideas. It's argument by epithet, and it formed the basis of Hillary Clinton's campaign. As you pointed out, Trump at least advanced policies during his campaign, ones that you may have found disagreeable, but nonetheless substantive policies. Clinton did little of that beyond a vague "Stay the course!" meme, focusing instead on how disreputable Trump (and by extension his supporters) are. It was a campaign of little substance, making bad-faith arguments because it presumed that its opposition was necessarily operating in bad faith. What's scary is that a slight plurality of the voters actually bought into that. Hurling insults is always easier than thinking, and the fact that the Democratic Party has essentially gone all-in on that philosophy for its campaigns can have only deleterious effects on the body politic and on society.
11-18-2016 03:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2026 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2026 MyBB Group.