View Full Version : Trump's (blank)hole comment.....
gimmethesimplelife
1-13-18, 2:26pm
OK, to be fair here I acknowledge here and now that I am one of this board's more outspoken liberals - regulars here of course know this by now. That out of the way, what do you'all make of Trump's recent comment about (blank)hole countries? As a liberal I'm very offended and utterly appalled - say what you will about Hillary Clinton but I seriously doubt she would make such a remark......I don't mean to slam on any Conservatives here, truly I don't.....I just wonder how, given this country's history welcoming immigrants, and how this country was built up on their blood, sweat, and tears - how can you continue to support Trump after this comment? To me this comment overlooks all the great things done by those who have fled war torn countries, countries of famine, just countries that were overall unstable for one reason or another.
I can't forgive Trump for this - this coment shows his true character and what he is truly all about to me. But that's just me - What about other people? I promise not to bash, really, I'm just trying to understand how anyone could continue to support Trump after this comment. Rob
iris lilies
1-13-18, 2:40pm
In the world of stupid, offensive, and annnoying Trumpisms, this one doesnt rankle me and all of the hoopla about it seems excessive. Yes it was, at the least, impolitic and at the most wrong if one is prone to seeing everything through a lense of racism.
I think Haiti and several other countries that are “war torn, countries of famine, just countries that were overall unstable” are indeed sxxxholes.
To me this comment does NOT overlook “all the great things dne by those who have fled...” It isnt about immigrants, it is about the countries they come from. How do the sxxxholes prepare these folks for respnsible citizenry here? Not well, I think.
Third world people can be great immigrants here, but careful selection of who will come in and judicious monitoring of support they get here is a huge part of the equation.
There is no way the U.S. can take in all of the refugees in the world, so how do we determine how many come here and where they come from? How do we measure the resources that go to support them and measure the resulting citizen productivity?
You cn find his words revealing of hs “true nature” and I wont argue with that. And once agan we have your inability to “forgive.” Dude, who says you have to forgive, anyway, and why do we care that you wont “forgive?”
Haiti might not be in the mess it is today if
1) We had supported their revolution instead of trying to undermine it because we were afraid it would inspire emancipation in our own country
2) We had not repeatedly intervened in the country and propped up dictators inclyding the Duvaliers
3) We had not worked to bring down the popular, and popularly elected, President Jean Bertrand Aristide
It stands to reason that people would be more motivated to leave a country that was experiencing war, famine, political unrest, climate issues...That's been the case historically. Emigres are usually a pretty resilient bunch; the truly downtrodden are likely too beaten down to take action. Trump's counterpoint--"Where are the immigrants from Norway?" was laughable, but I'm sure it played well with his base.
BikingLady
1-13-18, 3:53pm
I personally only have ever heard one person, my father who is Archie Bunker speak this way. It was sad. Expected, but sad.
flowerseverywhere
1-13-18, 4:09pm
There are some people who love he said this. Ann Coulter said he was trying to win her back
what do you expect of people who truly believe Mexico is going to pay for a great big beautiful wall across the entire south border? That Mexicans are rapists and All Muslims are terrorists and he had a plan for a health care plan that was cheaper, would provide better coverage and cover more people?
And that Obama gave up prime realestate for a new Embassy in London (false. Bush did this and for valid reasons. The new neighborhood is highly desirable by the way.
Shame on the Republican Party and the Evangelicals he touts as his supporters for not denouncing his ignorant hate speech and stupid, ignorant and often inaccurate tweets. Even if they think the overall idea is what they support. The US cannot possible take in the 65 million or so refugees in the world, so a reasonable sane immigration policy is certainly needed. And letting people who break the laws and sneak in or overstay their visa’s igo to the front of the line and bring in relatives is perhaps the most unfair.
But his behavior should not surprise us if you watched his rallies. review his first 100 day plan and you see he has done his best to implement what he promised.
https://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days
it’s the hateful and ignorant way he goes about things and outright lies. We are lucky Mr My Button is Bigger than yours hasn’t gotten us involved in yet another war. He certainly does not behave the way a stable genius would.
ToomuchStuff
1-13-18, 4:27pm
A person you can't stand, that you "resist" who is unforgivable, has done something you deem unforgivable and we citizens (not renters) are supposed to be surprised?
I'm not particularly surprised by the remark. And it will indeed play well with his base so I don't see much downside for him. The 35% of the country that still think he's doing great consider this aspect of him to be a feature, not a bug.
The problem I had with what he said is not that he called the countries s***holes. Parts of them undoubtedly are. The problem is that he didn't then go on to say, "what can we do to help the people there who want to better their lives?" but instead asked why can't we get more people from norway?
Sure some people love that he said it, mainly the media. They LOVe it. They will keep up his popularity by making sure every utterance is front page news.
2056
Thankfully even our flawed electoral college isnt so badly flawed that 35% of the voters can force their will on the rest of us.
Teacher Terry
1-14-18, 1:55am
I thought my head was going to explode. Every time I think he will go no lower he does.
Being of Norwegian and Irish extraction, I appreciated the President's kind regard for people from wet, chilly places. Or perhaps he was shilling for the sunscreen industry. You never know with that guy.
Although to be fair, when my ancestors inflicted themselves on America in the 19th century both those countries had certain blank-hole aspects they were trying to escape.
I know I've said this before, but I've often thought we should adopt a Canadian-style immigration policy and trade our current identity politics approach for a more practical return on investment approach.
ApatheticNoMore
1-14-18, 2:35pm
I don't know isn't this just the Rob philosophy, choose the best country you can. So of course people are mostly coming here from countries in even worse conditions and not from countries in better shape than the U.S. (like Norway). Even those coming here to earn money don't always stay (true even if they are coming from south of the border, but probably even more true if coming from Norway or Canada etc.). Now of course all this was bad diplomacy. And just because you live in a ___hole country doesn't make you a bad person, we have to live in the U.S. under Trump afterall.
If Trump wanted to be the best Trump he could be he would focus on making conditions better for those who are living here (but we have so far to go to be Norway that that is just aiming too high - start with small achievable goals). I don't expect it from Trump mind you but it was the slogan he ran on.
...
I know I've said this before, but I've often thought we should adopt a Canadian-style immigration policy and trade our current identity politics approach for a more practical return on investment approach.
Because, when all is said and done, it's all about money. :(
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-10/the-most-awful-transit-center-in-america-could-get-unimaginably-worse
Of course the Trump administration, with the 2018 budget, just took a good step towards turning this country into a s***hole by cancelling funding to replace the train tunnels under the Hudson River that carry 430,000 people into the city each day. These tunnels are over 100 years old and are degrading quickly after being partially flooded during Hurricane Sandy. Apparently his talk of infrastructure during the campaign was just a bunch of lies, as were pretty much all of his policies that would actually help people. Supposedly he considers it a "local issue" but with 1/5 of the nation's GDP happening in NYC it's not hard to imagine what will happen when people can't get to work anymore. But, heck, the people in those states didn't vote for him, so he and the republican party are going to go out of their way to punish them as much as possible because that's the kind of childish people they are.
In my shithole state, Federal highway bridges drop into rivers and disrupt the region's economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-5_Skagit_River_Bridge_collapse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-5_Skagit_River_Bridge_collapse#/media/File:05-23-13_Skagit_Bridge_Collapse.jpg
There are a lot of bridges on the "we don't know why it is still standing..." list.
Also, take a look at the dam/reservoir safety reports.
Good luck.
Because, when all is said and done, it's all about money. :(
I don't think it outrageous that places like Canada and Mexico base a large part of their immigration policy on what immigrants can contribute to their new home. I don't think it outrageous that the US could consider similar policies.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-10/the-most-awful-transit-center-in-america-could-get-unimaginably-worse
Supposedly he considers it a "local issue" but with 1/5 of the nation's GDP happening in NYC it's not hard to imagine what will happen when people can't get to work anymore.
That's only true if you count Boston, Washington and everywhere in between as part of NYC.
I have thought this too, LDAHL. Places like Norway and Australia, for example, are held up as "good" nations but their policies seem actually quite racist. So why are they considered to have good social policy, and we are considered to have bad social policy.
Why is it okay for Canada to require work requirements, training, education, etc. but we are not supposed to.
I truly think there is much hypocrisy around this issue., and much holier than thou posturing.
I don't think it outrageous that places like Canada and Mexico base a large part of their immigration policy on what immigrants can contribute to their new home. I don't think it outrageous that the US could consider similar policies.
I really don't think having, in part, a merit-based immigration policy is necessarily bad, but traditionally we have taken in the "huddled masses yearning to be free," and those people have paid us back immeasurably with their hard work, initiative, and achievements.
Jane, exactly right, and "those people" are also us, in the sense that at least in my case, most of my ancestors were European transplants, who had children with some of my more local ancestors, who were Pahmunkey, Creek, and Cherokee Indians.
Williamsmith
1-15-18, 11:57am
I really don't think having, in part, a merit-based immigration policy is necessarily bad, but traditionally we have taken in the "huddled masses yearning to be free," and those people have paid us back immeasurably with their hard work, initiative, and achievements.
Historically speaking, white Europeans legally immigrating have made up the majority of those “huddled masses” you speak about and they assimilated easily by working hard, having initiative and achieving greatly. It is naive to think that immigrants of color and undocumented immigrants will do the same. Enforcing legal immigration is about removing barriers, constructing an environment that enhances the probability of success, and providing a level playing field which encourages the very attributes that make a good citizen.
Our European culture puts people of color at a disadvantage unfairly. That has been proven by studies examining wealth inequality.
I have thought this too, LDAHL. Places like Norway and Australia, for example, are held up as "good" nations but their policies seem actually quite racist. So why are they considered to have good social policy, and we are considered to have bad social policy.
Because in the United States we are obsessed with race and our policies are viewed through a flawed lens.
flowerseverywhere
1-15-18, 12:32pm
Because in the United States we are obsessed with race and our policies are viewed through a flawed lens.
especially by our current commander in chief.
Historically speaking, white Europeans legally immigrating have made up the majority of those “huddled masses” you speak about and they assimilated easily by working hard, having initiative and achieving greatly. It is naive to think that immigrants of color and undocumented immigrants will do the same. Enforcing legal immigration is about removing barriers, constructing an environment that enhances the probability of success, and providing a level playing field which encourages the very attributes that make a good citizen.
Our European culture puts people of color at a disadvantage unfairly. That has been proven by studies examining wealth inequality.
Off the top of my head, I can think of quite a few immigrants and offspring of immigrants from non-European countries who have contributed immeasurably to this country (Steve Jobs and innumerable techies, for starters), so I have trouble with this theory. Immigrants are by definition risk-takers and prone to taking initiative, whatever their ethnicity.
especially by our current commander in chief.
The most obsessed with race are those, like Bannon, Miller, Trump, and their ilk) who are preoccupied with "whiteness" and their European heritage. Like Europeans are the only group who have ever achieved anything. (Algebra, anyone?)
I'm not sure that Trump's attitudes reflect racism so much as a generalized solipsistic misanthropy. He is operating not so much from some theory of racial superiority/inferiority as from a highly aggressive narcissism. We are all his inferiors by virtue of not being him. In that sense, he is worse than a racist.
Or maybe better--he is an equal opportunity hater.
I'm not sure that Trump's attitudes reflect racism so much as a generalized solipsistic misanthropy. He is operating not so much from some theory of racial superiority/inferiority as from a highly aggressive narcissism. We are all his inferiors by virtue of not being him. In that sense, he is worse than a racist.
That's a charitable way of looking at it, but he was raised by a father with KKK leanings (at the very least), reportedly kept Nazi writings at his bedside (doubtful, unless it was a picture book), and has surrounded himself with notorious white supremacist nationalists. He's just a kaleidoscope of awfulness.
Williamsmith
1-15-18, 3:06pm
Off the top of my head, I can think of quite a few immigrants and offspring of immigrants from non-European countries who have contributed immeasurably to this country (Steve Jobs and innumerable techies, for starters), so I have trouble with this theory. Immigrants are by definition risk-takers and prone to taking initiative, whatever their ethnicity.
It is easy to demonstrate the barriers that have been set up for immigrants of specific origins. Some risk takers are more equal than others when it comes to being given opportunity in The US. I would classify Muslim Middle Easterners at the top of that list followed by African immigrants as perhaps one of the most challenged and then followed closely by Latin immigrants. Asians have been blessed with being accepted after struggling for more than a century.
It is not so much consistent with racism that Trump wishes to have immigrants from Norway. The fact is, the Europeans already here since the beginning of our nation, will accept them and provide them with immediate opportunity with which to show their initiative.
My own great grandfather lost a silverware factory because he hired Asians to do the work. Today, an Asian would most likely be CEO. Some believe it is because of their concentration on education and family values. While I believe they have done that, they could not pull themselves up collectively as they have, without acceptance by the European base which wields all the power in this country. Just ask the blacks.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-12/africa-is-sending-us-its-best-and-brightest
"Economist Edward Lazear suggests a simple experiment. Consider immigrants to the U.S. from Algeria, Israel and Japan, and rank them in order of most educated to least educated."
I may be telescoping the ease with which immigrants rise to the occasion (despite whatever pushback they encounter), and maybe optimism clouds my vision, but I never fail to be impressed with what newcomers to this country can accomplish. There can hardly be enough of them to suit me; they're the spice in the dish that is America, IMO.
Another thing to remember was that when they first started arriving, those dreadful people from the predominantly Catholic countries of Italy and Ireland were looked down upon and considered just as "not really white" as all the brown people coming today. Baseless hate was a crappy immigration policy then and it still is today.
I remember in high school reading Giants in the Earth in translation because Rolvaag had not assimilated enough to write in English, whereas Danticat does.
in the South we have a saying he is "a turd in the punch bowl"
No, I am not surprised by anything he says or does.
It does concern me that we are judged by the world on the type of leader we elected.
I do not disagree with 100% of his actions, but most of them.
Williamsmith
1-16-18, 10:50am
I’m comfortable with him. But then again, I spent my life immersed in communities full of asshats. The economy does seem to be perking up though...don’t you think?
I’m comfortable with him. But then again, I spent my life immersed in communities full of asshats. The economy does seem to be perking up though...don’t you think?
LOL......from a moderate trapped in TN..........yes I am happy about the economy
I've always been somewhat skeptical of attaching much credit or blame for swings in the economy to presidents. It's almost a sort of cargo cult mentality, attributing mystical powers to an individual rather than the billions of daily decisions made by millions of people (and increasingly, their machines). Was Mr. Obama really our savior in 2009? Do the financial markets really turn on Mr. Trump's tweets? I think presidents, along with many other individuals and institutions, can influence events, but generally not directly or immediately. It takes a lot of bad decisions by a lot of people over time to create a financial crisis, for instance.
Williamsmith
1-16-18, 11:59am
I've always been somewhat skeptical of attaching much credit or blame for swings in the economy to presidents. It's almost a sort of cargo cult mentality, attributing mystical powers to an individual rather than the billions of daily decisions made by millions of people (and increasingly, their machines). Was Mr. Obama really our savior in 2009? Do the financial markets really turn on Mr. Trump's tweets? I think presidents, along with many other individuals and institutions, can influence events, but generally not directly or immediately. It takes a lot of bad decisions by a lot of people over time to create a financial crisis, for instance.
While I do get the flavor of your perspective and in the past would defend you ...... this particular President seems to have a unique “gift” for accelerating, polarizing and inspiring bold talk and action by the influential players. And those whose actions drive the “economic indicators” seem to take the most cues from the Don. Obummer had the opposite affect.
Obummer had the opposite affect.
Yes, the economy positively tanked under Obama...
The thing I find fascinating is that most conservatives, who supposedly venerate the constitution and all that it stands for, seem to be perfectly fine with a president who routinely attacks and undermines all of it. From questioning the legitimacy of decisions by the judiciary branch, to attacking the motives of our law enforcement agencies and the individuals in them, to questioning the honesty and integrity of our free independent press and granting access to the press based on who will do the most suck-uppy story. What exactly will we have left if he succeeds in sowing permanent doubt in the whole structure of our constitution and government? I suppose if one wants a revolution maybe this could all be viewed as a good thing, but I didn't think revolution was something most conservatives want.
The thing I find fascinating is that most conservatives, who supposedly venerate the constitution and all that it stands for, seem to be perfectly fine with a president who routinely attacks and undermines all of it. From questioning the legitimacy of decisions by the judiciary branch, to attacking the motives of our law enforcement agencies and the individuals in them, to questioning the honesty and integrity of our free independent press and granting access to the press based on who will do the most suck-uppy story. What exactly will we have left if he succeeds in sowing permanent doubt in the whole structure of our constitution and government? I suppose if one wants a revolution maybe this could all be viewed as a good thing, but I didn't think revolution was something most conservatives want.
For a lot of Republicans, that veneration of the Constitution is just a pose, much like Christianity, "family values," support for the troops and personal freedoms, "law and order," and others. It's really about money and control, as far as I can tell.
The economy tanked under Bush. Obama's inherited it and did a lot to fix it.
iris lilies
1-16-18, 3:02pm
The thing I find fascinating is that most conservatives, who supposedly venerate the constitution and all that it stands for, seem to be perfectly fine with a president who routinely attacks and undermines all of it. From questioning the legitimacy of decisions by the judiciary branch, to attacking the motives of our law enforcement agencies and the individuals in them, to questioning the honesty and integrity of our free independent press and granting access to the press based on who will do the most suck-uppy story. What exactly will we have left if he succeeds in sowing permanent doubt in the whole structure of our constitution and government? I suppose if one wants a revolution maybe this could all be viewed as a good thing, but I didn't think revolution was something most conservatives want.
The biggest PITA in political discussion is when you liberals tell me what I think about a situation you have framed.
You know jp, I could actually tell you what I think, but you would likely tell me I am wrong.
So go forth and bat at the strawman, fan your outrage, Be my guest and enjoy yourself while at it!
I've always been somewhat skeptical of attaching much credit or blame for swings in the economy to presidents. It's almost a sort of cargo cult mentality, attributing mystical powers to an individual rather than the billions of daily decisions made by millions of people (and increasingly, their machines). Was Mr. Obama really our savior in 2009? Do the financial markets really turn on Mr. Trump's tweets? I think presidents, along with many other individuals and institutions, can influence events, but generally not directly or immediately. It takes a lot of bad decisions by a lot of people over time to create a financial crisis, for instance.
I do think there's an overall tone set by a leader. Those day-to-day decisions I'm sure are consistent "visible signs" of that tone, but I believe that there's some ineffable vibe that permeates the country. I've mentioned this article before, but I love it and I think it's true--that the country picks up on the President's enjoyment of his role, for instance.
http://www.newsweek.com/happy-leader-happy-nation-151065
Just like golf is a head game, I think the stock market is t head game, where it rises and falls on the basis of totally capricious and emotional factors. So I think it is mystical factors that effect (not A-ffect, but E-ffect) the daily decisions.
Williamsmith
1-16-18, 3:28pm
The economy tanked under Bush. Obama's inherited it and did a lot to fix it.
Tammy, I’m surprised you didn’t bring this to it’s logical conclusion....... “did a lot to fix it” and just when the economy was poised to make improvement Trump got elected and is now taking credit for it. There.
The thing I find fascinating is that most conservatives, who supposedly venerate the constitution and all that it stands for, seem to be perfectly fine with a president who routinely attacks and undermines all of it. From questioning the legitimacy of decisions by the judiciary branch, to attacking the motives of our law enforcement agencies and the individuals in them, to questioning the honesty and integrity of our free independent press and granting access to the press based on who will do the most suck-uppy story. What exactly will we have left if he succeeds in sowing permanent doubt in the whole structure of our constitution and government? I suppose if one wants a revolution maybe this could all be viewed as a good thing, but I didn't think revolution was something most conservatives want.
I take issue with a few of your premises.
As far as most conservatives being "perfectly fine" with the president, I would say a substantial number are not and never were: from the "Never-Trumpers" to those who hold their nose and make do with what is available, in the same way a lot of Democrats would have if the election had turned out differently. Questioning the judiciary was hardly considered an existential threat to our freedoms when President Obama wagged his finger at SCOTUS over Citizens United in a State of the Union Address. I personally would be more be more fearful for our liberties if all of government were in perfect accord. And as far as an alternating rocky/cozy relationship with the press is concerned, we're already well into our third century of that with no fatal effects.
I see little possibility that Mr. Trump can topple the Republic by destroying confidence in the constitution. If anything, the Trump Administration will highlight the benefits of the built-n limitations on any one component's power. While the "Resistance" may often be vocal to the point of hysteria, they don't appear to me to be the stuff revolutions are made of.
For a lot of Republicans, that veneration of the Constitution is just a pose, much like Christianity, "family values," support for the troops and personal freedoms, "law and order," and others. It's really about money and control, as far as I can tell.
When all else fails, impugning your opponents' motives can at least offer some measure of solace.
I do think there's an overall tone set by a leader. Those day-to-day decisions I'm sure are consistent "visible signs" of that tone, but I believe that there's some ineffable vibe that permeates the country. I've mentioned this article before, but I love it and I think it's true--that the country picks up on the President's enjoyment of his role, for instance.
http://www.newsweek.com/happy-leader-happy-nation-151065
Just like golf is a head game, I think the stock market is t head game, where it rises and falls on the basis of totally capricious and emotional factors. So I think it is mystical factors that effect (not A-ffect, but E-ffect) the daily decisions.
I think there is probably something to that. FDR and Reagan would certainly have agreed with you. But I think you need a healthy pig to apply the lipstick to. In the end there is no substitute for positive net income.
When all else fails, impugning your opponents' motives can at least offer some measure of solace.
It's not hard to find evidence that many right-wingers are flaming hypocrites, but
heaven knows, I can use all the solace I can get.
It's not hard to find evidence that many right-wingers are flaming hypocrites, but
heaven knows, I can use all the solace I can get.
I’m sure you get something out of it; but is it an argument?
Exactly Willismsmith! Thanks. 😄
iris lilies
1-16-18, 5:42pm
It's not hard to find evidence that many right-wingers are flaming hypocrites, but
heaven knows, I can use all the solace I can get.
Most of the “hypocrite” charges are a matter of framing the argument and priorities we emphasize.
But go on Jane, tell me my hypocitical views. Pick three. Go!
Most of the “hypocrite” charges are a matter of framing the argument and priorities we emphasize.
But go on Jane, tell me my hypocitical views. Pick three. Go!
You'll notice I used the qualifier "many." I'm sure no one here on SLN has anything but the purest and most hypocrisy-free motives. >8)
For a lot of Republicans, that veneration of the Constitution is just a pose, much like Christianity, "family values," support for the troops and personal freedoms, "law and order," and others. It's really about money and control, as far as I can tell.You may be right about the money and control part, that is if by control you mean that the limits the constitution puts on the government should be jealously guarded, and by money you mean that the government's proclivity to see approximately half of it's citizens as a profit center and the other half as voters to be bought with the proceeds from the former should be discouraged.
I think that pretty much sums up the average Republican's motivations, although I can see how progressives might intentionally misinterpret loudly and frantically, as a limited government has a lesser ability to enforce ideologies.
I take issue with a few of your premises.
As far as most conservatives being "perfectly fine" with the president, I would say a substantial number are not and never were: from the "Never-Trumpers" to those who hold their nose and make do with what is available, in the same way a lot of Democrats would have if the election had turned out differently. Questioning the judiciary was hardly considered an existential threat to our freedoms when President Obama wagged his finger at SCOTUS over Citizens United in a State of the Union Address. I personally would be more be more fearful for our liberties if all of government were in perfect accord. And as far as an alternating rocky/cozy relationship with the press is concerned, we're already well into our third century of that with no fatal effects.
I see little possibility that Mr. Trump can topple the Republic by destroying confidence in the constitution. If anything, the Trump Administration will highlight the benefits of the built-n limitations on any one component's power. While the "Resistance" may often be vocal to the point of hysteria, they don't appear to me to be the stuff revolutions are made of.
Fair enough. Obviously everyone brings their own past, own beliefs, hopes and fears, and their own point on the continuum of optimism/pessimism to how they perceive things. I wish I were as optimistic as you but I've always had a fair amount of pessimism.
I don't think, though, that the "resistance" is hoping for a revolution (if I'm understanding your last sentence correctly.) At it's heart I think the resistance wants the same thing as you, the continuance of our institutions in a stable, trust-able fashion. It's just that we're concerned that if we don't fight these gross breaches of our norms that everything will in fact come tumbling down around us.
You'll notice I used the qualifier "many."
"Many" is of course a bit of sophistry.
How "many" is "many"? 40% of America seems to self-identify as "conservative", which we might choose to take as a proxy for "right-wing". There are ~246 million adults in the USA. That's ~100 million people who are "right-wing".
How many of those 100 million are "flaming hypocrites"? What *portion* of the 100 million is that? How does that compare to other political leanings?
I mean, yes, if there is a population of 100 million to draw non-random samples out of, it's pretty easy to come up with 1 million extreme cases, and use that to form a narrative "this represents the entire population". Yet those extreme cases, if the trait you are looking for is normally-distributed in the population, are more than two sigma out from the median....
Williamsmith
1-16-18, 10:35pm
Fair enough.............It's just that we're concerned that if we don't fight these gross breaches of our norms that everything will in fact come tumbling down around us.
We survived the commies........we’ll survive this.
We survived the commies........we’ll survive this.
The commies didn't scare me. I knew how to duck and cover.
It's just that we're concerned that if we don't fight these gross breaches of our norms that everything will in fact come tumbling down around us.
Conservatives have been saying something like that at least since Edmund Burke; except they are a little more forthright in that they talk about traditions, customs and values.
Recently, we hear a lot of talk about "norms" on the left. That is a conveniently vague term that could mean anything from longstanding tradition to the current week's fashion in political correctness. In the space of a few years, they have shifted from adulation of a "transformative" president to defenders of "norms" and institutions from our current vulgarian-in-chief. It's positively reactionary.
"Many" is of course a bit of sophistry.
How "many" is "many"? 40% of America seems to self-identify as "conservative", which we might choose to take as a proxy for "right-wing". There are ~246 million adults in the USA. That's ~100 million people who are "right-wing".
How many of those 100 million are "flaming hypocrites"? What *portion* of the 100 million is that? How does that compare to other political leanings?
I mean, yes, if there is a population of 100 million to draw non-random samples out of, it's pretty easy to come up with 1 million extreme cases, and use that to form a narrative "this represents the entire population". Yet those extreme cases, if the trait you are looking for is normally-distributed in the population, are more than two sigma out from the median....
I used a qualifier because I'm fully aware there are reasonable conservatives afoot. But GOP strategist Steve Schmidt has characterized today's Republican party as full of "hypocrisy and rot," which is certainly reflected in the vulgar bully who leads it.
Williamsmith
1-17-18, 10:03am
The commies didn't scare me. I knew how to duck and cover.
I was thinking more on the lines of Senator Joseph McCarthy.....you know there was a commie in every woodpile in Wisconsin.
In the space of a few years, they have shifted from adulation of a "transformative" president
If Obama was transformative in any way shape or form than I'm batman. Anyone who was calling him that clearly doesn't know the meaning of transformative.
ApatheticNoMore
1-17-18, 1:18pm
No, no he's transformative, and Coke really IS the real thing, and Snickers really satisfies you.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.