General Chat (Non-Music-Related)

what did i misrepresent....

your words exactly.... "You could make a case that Trump supporters are swayed by emotion just as easily as non-Trump supporters"

that echos exactly the point i was making...that Trumps supporters ARE swayed by emotion just as easily as non-trump supporters.

must we flex our debating chops in some silly and pointless contest as we exbound over semantics here? (thanks, not interested).

You leave out half the sentence and interpret the meaning of what I said as completely the opposite and it is just semantics?

Let me rephrase it: You are not making the case with spurious correlations. Try again with something different than that and you might be more successful.

"try again"? why would i do that..... to further engage in a pointless debating contest? i'll leave the debating contests to you. I succeeded in making the point I intended. Did you not understand it? I'm sure you did.

I am sorry that you take umbrage that i didn't include ALL your words. let me do so now to placate you.

You could make a case that Trump supporters are swayed by emotion just as easily as non-Trump supporters, but inferring a misrepresentation of their ideology isn't supporting that.

i hope you're not offended that i took the liberty to underline the point that we both agree upon.

No umbrage. Yes, one could make that case even though you were not doing so successfully. I can see a number of approaches one could take to do so. For example, the commonality of the human trait given to wanting to believe in something at all costs is not confined to a political party. This is leveraged at rallies. The problem with emotion is that it can impair one's ability to internalize facts that might be contrary to the belief that one is all fired up about. At any rate, I would certainly not start by invoking Nazis, thereby sinking my case at the onset. One could also make the case that liberals are more greatly swayed by emotion as evidenced by the violence coming from them. For that to be true for you, you would need to place groups like Antifa within your sphere of ideology and I'm not thinking you agree with shouting down or assaulting people any more than I do. Perhaps you are familiar with the rest of the phrase: 'With friends like these...'


The more you widen the application of your conclusion, the less it applies to any given individual.

Both sides are fueled with emotion... this chit is serious.
You have one side who thinks or is being led to think... the other is trying to turn America into 1938 Germany
And then you have the other side that believes Socialist/Marxist/Communist Stalin Part II is the wanted future of these United States from the opposition.

I just don't want crazy laws without any logic thrown into the mix... like you're seeing in California... allowing illegal immigrants to vote on school board elections I believe.
I don't want babies taken from their mothers even if they came here illegally
We are all much more sensible than this chit... should be focused on who is doing this and why... rather than coming at each other.
Almost looks like... it was done intentionally...

well said Jahva.

for the record I don't believe that (many, but not all) conservatives wish to bring us back to 1938...but i do believe a good many's vision of "Making America Great Again" would have us return to the "good ol'" '50's, back when minorities knew their place, women knew their place, there was no separation between church and state, no regs or anti trust laws were in place preventing businesses from doing exactly as they pleased, and there was no concern for the environment if there was a buck to be made from polluting, or raping forests and wetlands,
etc, etc.

to your other point....i agree, it is a sad place that we've come to. one where i believe the powers that be HAVE put as at each other's throats. and it's NOT going to improve in our lifetimes. this forum is the perfect microcosm of that.....really what IS to be gained by these petty arguments and exercises in futility brought forth here w these "discussions"/arguments? No one's mind is ever changed.

https://www.facebook.com/CRTV/videos/17 ... hoakrp9xtM

It's just amazing to me that you act like you didn't notice this violent public discourse started with the Soros DNC with Al Gore. They were so freaking ugly to Bush, it was bullying. For all his inept comments, Bush (W) has a higher IQ than any of the past 3 Democrat Presidents. SO yea, he's stupid....just not as stupid as your guys.

I digress. This video sums up how most Americans "emote" about the Left these days.




.

well said Jahva.

for the record I don't believe that (many, but not all) conservatives wish to bring us back to 1938...but i do believe a good many's vision of "Making America Great Again" would have us return to the "good ol'" '50's, back when minorities knew their place, women knew their place, there was no separation between church and state, no regs or anti trust laws were in place preventing businesses from doing exactly as they pleased, and there was no concern for the environment if there was a buck to be made from polluting, or raping forests and wetlands,
etc, etc.

to your other point....i agree, it is a sad place that we've come to. one where i believe the powers that be HAVE put as at each other's throats. and it's NOT going to improve in our lifetimes. this forum is the perfect microcosm of that.....really what IS to be gained by these petty arguments and exercises in futility brought forth here w these "discussions"/arguments? No one's mind is ever changed.

I find it hard to believe that very many outside of the Alt-Right wackos want any of those things you mention.

If you want to talk about "The Wall" or immigration as being racists... I don't see it as such.

If you want to talk wage gap... No economist worth their weight will side with the Women movement.

Govt. Regulations?... I believe you work for yourself as a teacher/player. So you may have a different perspective on this one.
I work for an Immigrant/citizen.
He came to the US back in the 70's.
Had to live a short bit on Welfare until he found some work in NY.
Started a family
Became a US citizen
Moved to NC
Opened a business then a second
Became a Millionaire
Ahhhh... the American dream is still alive.
Not that it matters to me but since we're talking... his skin is brown.

Regulations come in many sizes I can only speak how I see it firsthand...
We employ about 80 individuals mostly immigrants came through legally and make a pretty good living for themselves I've also seen it firsthand when they don't follow the rules and get deported...
But you should see the wall of regulations you have to post in a simple business these days.. it's crazy.
And you have these companies that want to sell you the newest regulation poster to keep you up to date so you don't get fined 10K by some random inspector who walks in your door and gets to check your wall of regulations... it's faqing extortion. 90% of the chit doesn't even apply to what you do.
We didn't have this 10-20 years ago and it keeps growing and growing... Govt. is the biggest employer in the world. Nepotism runs amok and it's the biggest waste of our taxes...
Not saying we don't or shouldn't regulate but there is no end to it... and imo it just becomes another piece of the tax pie creating new dept. and jobs in Govt.
We're a small business doing a couple mil. a year and pay thousands and thousands to cover all the Govt. tickets for rules and Regs. it's BS... extortion nonsense.
Most small biz owners have watched this chit grow over the last decade and most I'm guessing see it as nothing but a Govt. scam

Certainly there has to be a balance between the earth and it's residents... how and where we live has changed over the last 100 years and will continue to change.
You got me on this one kind of torn because of the BS politics involved here.

Here's a perspective from a reasonable Cali guy... laborer...
Not really political just supply and demand... and how it affects his livelihood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkXhx9w ... ollarLogic

I would suggest a re-examition of these arguments...
Some good points. some bad points.

I was going to poke some fun points of total ridiculosity. I resisted...

Caught in lies again:


WASHINGTON ― Forty times President Donald Trump has posted statements on Twitter asserting “NO COLLUSION” with Russia during the 2016 election. He made the claim standing next to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki last month, and then a day later during a Cabinet meeting at the White House.

Sunday, he negated all of that by admitting that his campaign had tried to collude with Russia to win the presidency, after all.

Trump wrote in an 8:35 a.m. post on Twitter that the purpose of a June 9, 2016, gathering at Trump Tower was “to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics ― and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!”

That new admission, however, is completely at odds with the statement Trump crafted for use in the July 2017 news story that first reported the Trump Tower meeting. In that statement, he falsely claimed that the session attended by his eldest son and other high-ranking campaign aides was “primarily” about the adoption of Russian children.

“Donald Trump is every attorney’s worst nightmare,” said Rick Wilson, a Republican political consultant and prominent Trump critic. “He combines a complete lack of personal discipline with an impulse to place himself at ever greater risk of prosecution. He’s the ‘Bad Idea Jeans’ of presidents.”

Just a half hour after Trump’s new tweet, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow admitted that he had put out falsehoods last year when he also claimed that the meeting was about adoption.

“I had bad information at that time and made a mistake in my statement,” he said on ABC’s “This Week” program, before continuing attacks on the integrity of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in U.S. politics, a strategy Trump personally began from the time he took office.

Sekulow ― whose career has made him an expert on school voucher and religious freedom cases, not criminal law – claimed that meeting with Russians tied to their country’s government with the goal of getting assistance to win a U.S. election was not illegal.

“The question is how would it be illegal?” Sekulow said. “The question is, what law, statute or rule or regulation has been violated? No one has pointed to one.”

In reality, numerous criminal lawyers have pointed out that colluding with a foreign power to win an election or even attempting to do so may constitute conspiracy against the United States.

That Sekulow had misstated the origin of the July 2017 statement provided to The New York Times and attributed to Donald Trump Jr. became clear earlier this year, in a leaked letter from Trump’s legal team to Mueller’s office. In it, lawyers stated that Trump had dictated the statement written aboard Air Force One as it flew back from the G-20 summit in Germany. At the time, Trump and his White House had falsely claimed that he had only offered his input into the crafting of the statement.

While Trump has claimed since taking office that “no collusion” occurred between his campaign and Russia and that Mueller was conducting a “witch hunt,” Trump’s acceptance of Russian help has been out in the open since the final month of the 2016 campaign.

Throughout that October, Trump cited emails disseminated by WikiLeaks on a near daily basis ― even though he began receiving briefings in August 2016 that told him that U.S. intelligence agencies had determined those emails had been stolen by Russian spies. U.S. intelligence made that assessment public in an Oct. 7 statement.

Trump publicly denied that it was even possible to know who had stolen the emails, at times blaming it on other countries, a 400-pound man sitting in his bed or someone from New Jersey.

“I think there’s plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight. Now, that’s a different statement than saying that there’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a criminal conspiracy,” Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the ranking member Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” show on Sunday. “Bob Mueller will have to determine that.”

Trump fired then-FBI director James Comey a few months after taking office. He told both NBC News and Russian officials visiting the Oval Office that he had done so because of the Russia investigation. Mueller was appointed to take over the probe after the firing.

Since that point, it has resulted in charges against 32 individuals and three Russian companies and five guilty pleas, including those from Trump’s deputy campaign chairman and his initial national security adviser. Paul Manafort, who ran Trump’s campaign at a crucial time leading into the Republican National Convention, is currently on trial on charges concerning his previous business activities that grew out of Mueller’s probe.
•This article originally appeared on HuffPost.

So does this mean they actually got him on something or is this just more of the same we've been watching for the past year? I know people that had him impeached almost a year ago now... still waiting.

Dude you better go buy some guns...
You hate America, American law, And MY PRESIDENT!

What? Are you going to shoot up another innocent citizen! Can't do that without any guns.
Even congress had to be persuaded to stand up to the co-ordinnators of WW2. They were very careful in deciding what to do.

What you write is just pure HATE!
I don't hate you. Yod doesn't hate you. Nobody up here does!!!!

So what the fuuuck is your problem?

It sure isn't mine. Until you make it so...

This was directed at MARK.
Either he took down a post or I was distracted by my wife... OR... somehow something else happened .

Actually I may be having problems with this MAC.

So we've cycled through;

You're a pedophile
You're a bad musician
You're an America hater
You're a crack addict

And now once again, people who have no interest in owning guns need to go aquire them in order to carry out a conversation about politics. This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. The status quo with Glenny. It needs to end, because I'm not coexisting with that.

So we've cycled through;

You're a pedophile
You're a bad musician
You're an America hater
You're a crack addict

And now once again, people who have no interest in owning guns need to go aquire them in order to carry out a conversation about politics. This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. The status quo with Glenny. It needs to end, because I'm not coexisting with that.

Wait wait...I know this one...You're a hoplophobe! Ding! Am I right?