Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant[quote=livinincali]
It’s not brainwashing at all. It’s just a difference of ideology. You’re just so far to the left in your ideology that you can’t understand the right’s ideology.
[/quote]
“So far left?” If you’d read all the posts I’ve made on this blog, and you weren’t biased, you wouldn’t say that. If you add up all my positions (some are left, some are right), and average them, I’m probably slightly left of center. In any case, if a person can think for himself, and if a person doesn’t automatically dismiss any idea he doesn’t agree with, then that person can understand the other side’s ideology, even if he doesn’t agree with it, and even if he’s on the opposite end of the spectrum. So your above argument holds no water.[quote=livinincali]
Therefore people that don’t believe as you are brainwashed, uniformed, racists, sexists, whatever term you want to use.
[/quote]
No, I don’t consider those who don’t believe as I do as brainwashed. I consider those who clearly can’t think for themselves and who only spout right-wing talking points (or left-wing ones) as brainwashed. I consider those who argue with emotions that have clearly been manipulated as brainwashed. There’s a big difference.[quote=livinincali]
Anything that doesn’t fit into your progressive plan for the future shall be attacked and vilified. I totally get it, it’s politics.
[/quote]
Another right wing talking point. Show me you’re not brainwashed by coming up with something on your own. My original post is asking questions to try to understand the visceral hate out there, even in the middle and on the left, for Hillary. Who am I attacking and vilifying?[quote=livinincali]
There’s a looming economic disaster coming for our country. The math just ways there’s a day where medical spending/social spending/war spending will need to be reduced. The question we should be asking ourselves isn’t whom might advance LGBT rights, but who is going to get our national budget in order and how are they going to do it. I don’t think we have 8 more years of kicking the can down the road left.[/quote]
Both important questions, and we can ask them both.
Participant[quote=spdrun]I dislike Hillary exactly because of her chumminess with the more destructive Wall Street elements. I’d like her to choose another loud/outspoken woman (Elizabeth Warren) as VP, then be forced to resign “due to personal reasons” a week into her term.[/quote]
I dislike that about her also. But I don’t venomously hate her.
Participant[quote=livinincali]
Well played progressive liberal guilt card. Better vote for Hillary so we aren’t labeled a sexist. Anything but Trump so we aren’t labeled a racist.[/quote]Liberal guilt card? You’re seeing things. And, with the Trump/racist comment, you’re making stuff up out of thin air.
As I said, the fox news-watching crowd is not my concern on this issue because they’re brainwashed beyond repair. Your post is evidence of that brainwashing. Just like your ill-informed comments on global warming. Thanks for illustrating my point for me. If all you have is right-wing talking points (they’re playing the liberal guilt card!!! They’re saying if you vote for Trump you’re a racist!!! Global warming is a religion!!!), you’re only illustrating your inability to think on your own and illustrating the right-wing noise machine’s success in brainwashing you.
Participant[quote=temeculaguy] I’ll vote for anyone but Hillary.[/quote]
I’ve heard a lot of Hillary hating over the last 24 years, and, like you said, there seem to be as many reasons as people who hate her. But most of the reasons are vague and personality-related.
Sure, the fox news-listening crowd will jump on Benghazi and the email situation and whatever else fox is peddling at that particular time. But the fox news-listening crowd is brainwashed beyond repair and they’re not my concern on this issue.
Moderates and progressives who hate Hillary concern me and, for the most part, I don’t understand them. I mean, I can see not liking her secretiveness, her focus-group-dependent positions, and her chumminess with financiers. But those shouldn’t, in my opinion, add up to the venomous, I’ll-vote-for-anyone-but-her hate that is out there. To me, that has to come down to her personality. And, (I could be wrong about this, but) it seems to me that that has a lot to do with what our society expects from a woman. I think a lot of people who hate her wouldn’t hate her if she was a man, but they don’t realize that the feelings they have toward her wouldn’t exist if she were a man. A good friend of mine, for instance. He claimed he didn’t hate Hillary because she was a woman. But when I pressed him on why he did hate her, among the things he said was, “she reminds me of Sally” (a strong, rather shrill woman that we know).
Our culture says that women shouldn’t be loud, pointy, assertive, in charge, etc. We like to think we’ve evolved beyond that, but I think that’s giving us more credit than we’ve earned. Is it possible that so many people hate Hillary because, deep down, there’s some dissonance between what we want from a woman and what we see from Hillary?
Now, temeculaguy, you’ve always seemed like a pretty enlightened, reasonable guy. I’m really curious why you hate Hillary so much. And I want you to be honest with yourself and picture her as a man and see if you hate her so much. If she held the same policy positions she does now, and had basically the same personality she does now, but was a man, would you hate her so much? Would you vow to vote for anybody but her, even if that anybody was an immature, narcissistic, ignorant lunatic who poses a real and serious threat to the safety and prosperity of this country?
Do you really think that he would be a better president than her, or are you letting some vague, primordial hatred for her get in the way of a reasonable and responsible vote?
ParticipantOf all the very important reasons not to vote for Trump, I’m not sure why I picked this one to post. But it does seem important. Imagine our president treating other leaders/countries like this:
Whether the ignorant rabble like it or not, diplomacy is a very important aspect of being president. And Trump is, obviously, extremely weak at diplomacy.
May 11, 2016 at 9:00 PM in reply to: The dire climate of CA public university admissions for freshmen #797503Participant[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]You quoted the wrong person.[/quote]How so?[/quote]
Because I didn’t type the things you quoted.[/quote]Come on, AN. You’re a couple of Chinese dudes. Or something similar. You think you’re entitled to her being able to tell you apart? First, you’re clogging up UC, and now you’re bitching because she can’t tell you apart? The nerve.
Participant[quote=utcsox]
It is “unusual” to claim Republican strategy is a failure when it has control of both houses of Congress for the first time since 2002. In addition, it achieve its largest majority in the house since 1929. So, let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction that Republican party are doing “mind-numingly dumb things”, they know exactly what they are doing. And most importantly, they are winning and winning yuuuuuuge.[/quote]
Winning elections does not mean that you know what you’re doing. Unless your only goal is winning elections. Which is exactly the problem with republicans. They’re not interested in running the country, they’re interested in winning elections. And why are they winning elections, even if they can’t govern? Two main reasons, in my opinion: Gerrymandering of districts, and the right-wing noise machine’s brilliant manipulation of the emotions of millions Americans. Americans who are, thanks to that manipulation, far angrier and more fearful than they need to be, but whose concocted fear and anger play right into republicans’ hands.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Then his real sin was following the religion, not what he did. If G-d didn’t intend us to enjoy sex, he’d have not designed us to enjoy it (vs needing it to survive, like a ferret or a Vulcan).[/quote]
A sin to follow a religion. Hmm.That seems impossible, given that the definition of sin is, more or less, “not following [the religion in question].”
His “sin,” in my opinion, was pretending that following his professed religion meant that he was virtuous. Just because chump voters buy that doesn’t mean it’s ok.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
We need religion to keep us in check to prevent us from committing sins.[/quote]
No, we don’t.
[quote=FlyerInHi]
I expect religious and socially conservative people to be more upstanding and sin less, a lot less than the non-religious. [/quote]
I don’t think you do expect that, Brian. You’re in your 40’s. You watch people. You’ve been watching them a long time. You know that religious and socially conservative people are not more upstanding and they don’t sin less.
Participant[quote=spdrun]
He was acting like a normal human with gonads. Nothing evil, bad, or unusual about it.[/quote]
Whether it’s evil, bad, or unusual is beside the point. It’s a sin according to his professed religion.
Participant[quote=SK in CV] I’d appreciate if you wouldn’t lie about things I’ve said. [/quote]
That’s like saying, “Mr. Trump, I’d appreciate if you wouldn’t encourage violence on the part of your supporters.” If a person is so batshit crazy that they don’t even know they’re doing what you’re accusing them of, a reasonable plea won’t help.
You can’t fight crazy, so don’t even try.
Participant[quote=flyer]I realize others have stated they disagree, but, personally, I see bs and chaos on both sides. The few times I’ve tuned in to listen to either party speak, I’ve heard raving, ranting and promises made that only a fool would believe could actually be accomplished in reality–given the involvement of the three branches of government–vs. a monarchy–which the candidates appear to believe exists in the US.
[/quote]
Yeah, but, “raving, ranting and promises made that only a fool would believe could actually be accomplished in reality” is not chaos. That’s standard operating procedure and it has been for centuries.
Having two “outsiders” be the leaders in the race for the nomination, having one of them be a lunatic, having that lunatic endorse violence by his supporters against protesters, having the establishment trying frantically to stop the lunatic with the large lead from being the nominee, having that effort include basically calling their leading candidate a dangerous lunatic, and settling on supporting, only out of desperation, a candidate they largely despise, but who isn’t as bad as the leading candidate in their eyes… that’s a lot closer to chaos.
Participant[quote=njtosd] Elizabeth Warren is also smart enough to say that she never wants to be president. The only ones who want to be are narcissistic lunatics.[/quote]
My list. We don’t really need to argue about it, it’s just for fun. I’d love to see others’ lists
These aren’t in any order. If they were, Teddy Roosevelt would be right up there with Trump.
Narcissistic lunatics:
Trump (obviously)
Bill and Hillary
Cruz
Rubio
JF Kennedy
Teddy Roosevelt
Franklin Roosevelt
Nixon
GW BushNot narcissistic lunatics:
Obama
Kasich
Elizabeth Warren
Carter
Ford
Eisenhower
Reagan (?)
GHW Bush
Bobby Kennedy
Ben Carson (although he is a lunatic IMO)
BernieSome fine presidents on both those lists, IMO.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]What if what needs to change is the financial culture of our country?[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean.
In what way could the financial culture of our country change to give equal opportunity to those whose culture doesn’t emphasize education and adapting to today’s economy?
Or do you mean something else?
-
AuthorPosts
