Discussion in 'Latest Political News and Current Events' started by Zam-Zam, Feb 12, 2018.
It would appear he has you worried....:>)
In a sense, yes. He's a symptom of a deeper disease in the American political system -- a bone-deep infection among the Republicans, where all standards are being rejected in favor of ethics-free partisanship. That should worry any patriotic American. Why -- are you not worried?
Worry is a waste of time.
The quality of my life is outstanding.
So, no worries. Feel free to worry for me, if that's your thing.....:>)
There's a reason that humans universally evolved the tendency to worry about threats. It's an evolutionary advantage -- a mechanism that enhances the ability to survive. If any humans were born without the genes coding for worry, they were weeded out by natural selection.
Worrying about things we can't change may be wasteful, as is worrying about imaginary threats (e.g., the imaginary immigrant crime wave Republicans have been obsessed about). But worrying about a real threat that we have the ability to influence is a good first step.
The quality of my life is also outstanding. But what you need to remember is that I'm a moral person, so it's not just the quality of MY life I care about. Trump's pack of bottom feeders may be serving wealthy people like me, so I don't worry so much for myself, but I do worry for more vulnerable people. Don't you?
Do a memory test.
Try to recall what you were worrying about five years ago.
Did it matter?
Fools worry; the wise prepare.
Duane Alan Hahn
Do you consider the unborn "vulnerable"...or is that different?
Your waffling rhetoric, which can only be viewed as situational and self-serving, alternates from referring to tens of millions of Americans as "subhuman scum" to pious odes to self regarding your compassion and morality.
You know, no one in this forum compliments himself/herself nearly as much as you do - and it isn't close.
Have a nice day.
Since he's bound to know things that they don't want him to know he's possibly taking the safest route for himself and his family.
Have to wonder why these people are no longer around... it must make you suspicious as well.
Certainly fetuses are vulnerable. However, when I talk about wanting to protect the vulnerable, I'm talking not about life, generally, but sentient life, specifically. Weeds are vulnerable, but I'm not losing sleep about people plucking unwanted vegetation from their lawn.
Possibly. I'm a pretty upbeat guy, and that includes when it comes to myself. Along similar lines, I'm not sure anyone else on this forum insults people with such a high proportion of total posts as you do. Of course, in your case, your negative attitude doesn't extend to yourself, as I've never seen anything resembling introspection from you.
First off, as always, you cherry picked your comment to very early term unborn - avoiding altogether entirely viable later term babies who are likewise aborted. Are they vulnerable? Do they merit your self-testified compassion and morality?
Secondly, I made a direct factual observation regarding your near constant self-praise. Are you suggesting that what I posted was not factual? Please cite for me others in this forum who laud themselves on so regular and frequent a basis. If making factually true observations are insulting, what does this say about the subject of these observations? Anything? Anything at all?
No worries. Mow thru, Arkady. On to the next introspection-free musings of the other.
That wasn't the part I was replying to. As you know, I pare down the text I quote to make it clear which part I'm responding to. As you'll recall, you do something similar -- regularly partially quoting posts I've made to highlight the material you're commenting on.
If you believe I've edited your posts, as you do constantly to mine and others, feel free to post your original quote in it's entirety so the context is clear. I look forward to it...
No, I referred to fetuses, not embryos, so I was referring to not the very early term of pregnancy, but rather to the later term.
Yes. I already answered that.
Morality is always relevant. As for compassion, my compassion for fetuses grows gradually during a pregnancy, as the fetus gradually becomes more neurologically sophisticated. It's similar to my compassion for other forms of life -- I feel more compassionate about the life of, say, a cow, than the life of a cabbage, and more compassionate about the life of a chimp than that of a cow.
If you'll reread, you'll see I said it was possible.
To be clear, my observation about the very high percentage of your posts that involve personal insults (nearly all of them), isn't based on that single comment, but rather based on your overall pattern of behavior here. You're the least introspective poster here, and I'd wager nobody is as reliable when it comes to finding fault with others.
Have you already forgotten? Odd. Here's a reminder. My original statement (emphasis added):
No. Clinton's polling numbers went up in the wake of the deplorables comment. It pissed off the halfwits and the sub-human scum who were embarrassed to realize that people recognized how deplorable they were, but they already supported Trump, so it made no difference what they thought. There's no evidence it shifted overall public opinion.
Instances of you editing out the bolded text while quoting it:
So, even limiting myself to only a single thing I've said, I was able to find nineteen examples of you excerpting what I posted. I have no problem with that, personally, but since you whine endlessly about it, it's odd that you engage in the same behavior on such a regular basis. Introspection isn't really your strong suit, is it?
Ad hominem attacks aside, there is some school of thought that Ms. Clinton's comments may have alienated some voters. At least campaign manager seemed to think so:
Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook acknowledged the former secretary of state calling half of Donald Trump's supporters "deplorables" alienated voters, saying that's why the Democratic presidential nominee publicly expressed regret over the remarks so quickly thereafter.
Did it cost her the election? Maybe, but I personally believe she was going to lose no matter what she said or did. Of course, we can never really know for certain, so it's just another thing not worth fretting over.
It's all good.
I didn't start with a view on that. Instead, I just went to the polls to see what they indicated. If her comments had been followed by a significant and enduring dip in her poll numbers, I'd have concluded it was a serious factor in the election and may have made the difference (with an absurdly small margin in three states having effectively decided the election, it would have taken very little to swing things). But, instead, it turns out her polling numbers were actually a bit higher in the period following those comments but before Comey's October surprise than they'd been before the comments. So it just doesn't look like it hurt her. If anything, based on the numbers you could make a stronger case it helped her.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not personally defending those comments. I think it was offensive that she suggested fully half of the Trump supporters weren't deplorable. I realize she was just trying to be nice, but that kind of dishonesty is still disappointing. Still, the numbers just don't suggest it hurt her.
In a sense you could be right. With the power of Russia behind Trump, and also the FBI working so hard to get him elected, Clinton's actions didn't matter so much. There were a few points where she was able to appeal directly to the American people, without much of a media filter, and without competing with noise from Comey and Putin's army of troll accounts, and she did well then. During both the Democratic convention and during the debates, she surged dramatically in the polls. When people were judging her based on what they saw with their own eyes, she did well. But most of the time people were instead judging by the corporate media caricature of her, which in turn took its cues from the Kremlin and from Comey's personal smears, and that eroded her numbers.
It's not clear what she could have done to change that. She tried to get traction by focusing on issues that impacted everyday Americans, but her wonky political appearances were ignored by the media in favor of the obsessive focus on the non-issue of her email setup, and I just don't know how she could have pushed the coverage out of that brainless rut. That's why I'm not hard on Clinton the way so many on the left are. If I thought that she could have made changes that would have kept Trump out of office, I'd be tempted to bash her, too. But I think she did about as well as can be expected.
Your constant shirking of responsibility for nominating possibly the most despicable politician in American history is both amusing and horrifying. Your blindness is the reason people are talking about another Clinton candidacy in 2020. You people just don't get it, and never will.
To be clear, I didn't vote in the Republican primary. That's on you Republicans.
Understood, that's why I made reference to your candidate, the most despicable politician in American history.
Again, I didn't support Trump.
Separate names with a comma.