President Trump

[acbytesla]

He's going to open those libel laws, remember?

I don't think he's going to have much luck with that.
More interesting to me right now is what is going to happen with thed Trump University lawsuits. Fraud and Racketeering. Racketeering is considered to be a High Crime. Definitely an impeachable offense.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I wouldn't think it difficult, but what would be the point? Would it merely be pragmatic lying, behind which lies contempt for their views? I'm thinking that perception - of being openly respected but secretly held in contempt - is one that has to a large extent fueled this phenomenon.

Personally I'm not American, so I'll likely never meet a Trump supporter, but I think hiding contempt is harmful, more so than being honest about it.

P.S. I've probably met a Wilders supporter or two, though I'm not actually aware of it. I despise Wilders, but I do hold some respect for him and his views, very much unlike Trump, for whom I hold no respect whatsoever.

The liberal platform has always preached tolerance, respect for human dignity, equal treatment, etc. It has always spoken out against disenfranchisement, disparate treatment, etc.

Within recent years, however, it seems that there's been a huge increase in the amount of intellectual arrogance, derision, and insult directed at their political opponents. This smacks of hypocrisy to most people. If you want to further an agenda of equality for all and respect for all, then you don't do that by actively seeking disenfranchisement of half the country. You don't do that by actively insulting, mocking, and deriding half the country. You don't do that by insisting that half the country should be ignored.

 

[dudalb]

It could be his downfall. He is notoriously thin-skinned and vengeful and given the resources at hand as the President, using those resources for a little revenge wouldn't be far-fetched.

Particualry when some of the people he wants to get even with are in his own party. I think that Donald might have a LOT more resentment toward the "establishment " GOP then he does toward the Democrats.
It might be Nixon all over gain....

 

[Emily's Cat]

How about you reading what _I_ wrote:



How is this not an answer to your question following that post?

Argumemnon, I DID answer your question:

Yes.

His supporters are exactly the cohort of people who deeply believe that we have the second amendment in order to defend ourselves from usurpers and tyrants. They firmly believe that it is the duty and obligation of the citizenry to protect themselves from a government that overreaches.

Why would you expect them to meekly support a tyrant overreaching?

You followed it up by emphasizing "in the hands of citizens" so I further elaborated. I answered your question.

Then I went on and recapped your questions, and my responses to them, with even more information... which you still seem to have ignored.

If this isn't the response you're looking for, please try rephrasing the question.

 

[Giz]

No, it doesn't.

It really does.

And it would be better for both your side and the country if you tried to understand that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes and a lot more people voted for Hillary than Trump. Up to two million and counting. Of course just not the right two million.

I haven't seen 2 million. Do you have a source? All of the ones I find stopped when he crossed the threshold for electoral votes.

 

[Belz...]

Argumemnon, I DID answer your question:


You followed it up by emphasizing "in the hands of citizens" so I further elaborated. I answered your question.

Then I went on and recapped your questions, and my responses to them, with even more information... which you still seem to have ignored.

I didn't ignore it. Your further response was about the armed forces, which was NOT what we were discussing, as you now admit above ("in the hands of citizens"). Your response quoted above didn't answer my question, which wasn't about their belief but yours. I'm asking you if you think armed citizens would make a difference against a dictatorship.

 

[Spindrift]

It really does.

And it would be better for both your side and the country if you tried to understand that.

No it really doesn't. And we should stop with the "both sides are just as bad" charade. No they are not.

 

[Spindrift]

I haven't seen 2 million. Do you have a source? All of the ones I find stopped when he crossed the threshold for electoral votes.

http://www.ibtimes.com/popular-vote...ld-win-2-million-votes-over-president-2445684

Not going to change the outcome of any of the states though.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

"60 Minutes" took one of the issues (health care) and promoted it Friday. I don't know if the show released any more information from Friday before Sunday's airing. Maybe it was just health care.

It's still journalists covering what Trump says to other journalists. Apparently it was one of the strongest items CNN had first thing this morning. I can see filling up a newspaper with it on a Sunday night, because Sundays are usually very slow news days. I was a little surprised this morning that CNN was still relying so much on the interview to fill its home page. Things are more up-to-date now though.

ETA: Here is probably my biggest beef, illustrated by what's on top of CNN's page now. It speaks of Chris Christie "mercilessly mocking" Marco Rubio. "Mocking" is fair but why the "mercilessly"? As a former news writer it jars me. I find myself calibrating copy for credibility - do I believe HuffPo's statistics? CNN's adjectives? MSNBC's ... whatever? I don't watch Fox News, it's too blatant but bias seems to creep in everywhere.

I hear ya. It's really been a long time since there were news organizations like in the past. The internet is the ticker-tape now, and the slants are added almost as anything comes through, for one thing, and in terms of media organizations, they all seem to be dying for attention, and dying. Only recourse seem to be searching and researching yourself. Even the WaPo is mostly crap, the NYT seems to only have nice editorials (IMO) often enough, and the rest is about how to best live as a very wealthy New Yorker. I use EurekaAlert to at least hear some things prior to spin, business news is, unsurprisingly, abundant and no problem, and for the rest, the mess.

 

[acbytesla]

The liberal platform has always preached tolerance, respect for human dignity, equal treatment, etc. It has always spoken out against disenfranchisement, disparate treatment, etc.

Within recent years, however, it seems that there's been a huge increase in the amount of intellectual arrogance, derision, and insult directed at their political opponents. This smacks of hypocrisy to most people. If you want to further an agenda of equality for all and respect for all, then you don't do that by actively seeking disenfranchisement of half the country. You don't do that by actively insulting, mocking, and deriding half the country. You don't do that by insisting that half the country should be ignored.

I think that is the narrative pushed on right wing radio stations, but has little basis in truth. I'm an atheist Emily. The least electable demographic there is. I've spread the word that science logic and rational thought is best. Yet I'm more vilified for my stance than I would dream of doing to Christians. Supposedly it is us liberals that are waging a war against Christmas when nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes, I am guilty of mocking the baker who refuses to make a gay couple a wedding cake or issuing a license as if that is exercising their freedom of religion. I got news for you, it ain't.
It's a phony excuse to try and discriminate against others. I dont tell you who you can marry or what you can do with your body, what right does Middle Americans have to tell my neighbors who and what they can do?

I want EVERYONE to prosper and live their own lives to the fullest how they best see fit. It ain't us liberals telling rural America that they can't. We're just saying you have no rights to tell the rest of us we can't.

 

[wareyin]

Yeah, nobody is asking you to value their opinions as highly as an expert. But you might consider treating them with some respect rather than insulting and mocking them.

Seriously people, is this that difficult of a concept?

Ah, my mistake. Responding in kind to someone's insults and mockery is going to prevent that person from seeing my point of view. Letting that person insult and mock the experts is the best way for that person to come around to the view that the experts just might know what they are talking about. How could I have missed such a simple concept?

 

[phiwum]

The liberal platform has always preached tolerance, respect for human dignity, equal treatment, etc. It has always spoken out against disenfranchisement, disparate treatment, etc.

Within recent years, however, it seems that there's been a huge increase in the amount of intellectual arrogance, derision, and insult directed at their political opponents. This smacks of hypocrisy to most people. If you want to further an agenda of equality for all and respect for all, then you don't do that by actively seeking disenfranchisement of half the country. You don't do that by actively insulting, mocking, and deriding half the country. You don't do that by insisting that half the country should be ignored.

There are very few who would support wishing that half the country be ignored.

That said, respect for others does not include respect for ill-informed opinions. Liberal values need not include giving face to those who doubt the moon landings are real or those who deny the validity of Cantor's theorem or those who happily claim that Trump tells it like it is and also, don't worry, he doesn't really mean what he says.

Sorry, respect for others doesn't mean treating ignorance as if it's just as good as informed reason. And if that comes off as elitist, well, then I'm an elitist, because I value methods that tend to lead to truth. Indeed, this value is the entire basis of this forum.

 

[The Atheist]

"whethered"? Really, logger, that's the kind of mistake a grade school kid would make.[/TABLE]

Pages ago, but I thought the "whethered" was kinda appropriate in the case of Dubbya. The man didn't know whether he was wearing pants without someone telling him.

The liberal platform has always preached tolerance, respect for human dignity, equal treatment, etc. It has always spoken out against disenfranchisement, disparate treatment, etc.

Within recent years, however, it seems that there's been a huge increase in the amount of intellectual arrogance, derision, and insult directed at their political opponents. This smacks of hypocrisy to most people. If you want to further an agenda of equality for all and respect for all, then you don't do that by actively seeking disenfranchisement of half the country. You don't do that by actively insulting, mocking, and deriding half the country. You don't do that by insisting that half the country should be ignored.

Beautiful work.

Should be the end of not just this thread, but Democratic blow-back.

I confidently predict it won't be either.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

It could be his downfall. He is notoriously thin-skinned and vengeful and given the resources at hand as the President, using those resources for a little revenge wouldn't be far-fetched.

We could take to calling him "Commander in Cheat," and alternate that with "Cheap."

 

[Marcus]

When we proposed it, T2Diabetes wasn't in the mix. Even insulin dependent Diabetes wasn't in the mix. ESRD, a collection of enzyme-related orphan diseases, some terminal cancers with high end-of-life costs, hemophilia, etc. were in there.

Diabetes, regardless of type, is generally within about 3 sd of the mean for the annual claim probability distribution - well within the range of expected variance. Hemophilia, when an event occurs, ends up being up around 6 to 10 sd. The things we wanted in the HRP are all things that are waaaaaaay out on the tail of the distribution, but that have a material effect on the outcome of the pool as a whole. The whole point of it is that it's for a very small set of people with very extraordinary medical needs and costs.

It's like the opposite of a lottery. Right now, if you win the lottery, you get some massive upside potential and nobody is unhappy. Imagine if it were the other way around - imagine if the lottery would give you a multi-million dollar debt. Nobody wants that. It makes more sense to take that very rare occurrence of OMG skyrocketed costs, and share them out over a bigger population.

The high risk group that needs to be covered is that group who will be unable to get insurance under the old system, where the insurance companies would decline anyone who was too risky.

I don't actually know where the line was drawn before, I never attempted to get insurance before the ACA, assuming I couldn't get it or it was too expensive (I'm 60).

 

[newyorkguy]

...Within recent years, however, it seems that there's been a huge increase in the amount of intellectual arrogance, derision, and insult directed at their political opponents...If you want to further an agenda of equality for all and respect for all, then you don't do that by actively insulting, mocking, and deriding half the country...

I'm a lifelong Democrat, a moderate Democrat, and with all due respect I don't really see this happening. Not by Democratic office holders, anyway. If you're talking about a Democratic officeholder occasionally taking a verbal jab at someone, then I would say it's a case of 'people in glass houses.'

Or are you primarily referring to people on the Internet -- social media groups, message boards and the like? Because I do it see it there. But that's not something the party can control nor should it try.

 

[dudalb]

I think that is the narrative pushed on right wing radio stations, but has little basis in truth. I'm an atheist Emily. The least electable demographic there is. I've spread the word that science logic and rational thought is best. Yet I'm more vilified for my stance than I would dream of doing to Christians. Supposedly it is us liberals that are waging a war against Christmas when nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes, I am guilty of mocking the baker who refuses to make a gay couple a wedding cake or issuing a license as if that is exercising their freedom of religion. I got news for you, it ain't.
It's a phony excuse to try and discriminate against others. I dont tell you who you can marry or what you can do with your body, what right does Middle Americans have to tell my neighbors who and what they can do?

I want EVERYONE to prosper and live their own lives to the fullest how they best see fit. It ain't us liberals telling rural America that they can't. We're just saying you have no rights to tell the rest of us we can't.

A lot of people would say that your equating Athiesm with "Science, Logic an Rational Thought" is wrong.

 

[Cain]

Trump told Leslie Stahl that even though he's still not a big fan of the Electoral College. If he were to become the leading spokesperson for its abolition, I would almost consider a Trump presidency worth it. "Only Nixon can go to China." What a lasting legacy that would be. Certainly better than any wallfence.

He can stay mum on the entire thing for the next two years, or even four years, or maybe eight years, but if he were to get that done...

 

[Minoosh]

Ah, my mistake. Responding in kind to someone's insults and mockery is going to prevent that person from seeing my point of view. Letting that person insult and mock the experts is the best way for that person to come around to the view that the experts just might know what they are talking about. How could I have missed such a simple concept?

Well, responding in kind probably isn't going to work. How about responding with reason?