|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 22 2015 05:30 farvacola wrote:
Scott Walker is out.
Another one bites the dust.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
dont know about islam but christianity is sort of good or useful in the moral sense. religions are kind of like viruses of thought where a metaphysical shell containing some substance of invariably ancient moral sentiments and social structure of various quality is smuggled into the mind. unlike a virus, the 'dna' in this does react with the host and her environment, thereby providing some opportunity for guided implanting.
christianity for example, contains both moral ideals of extreme love and devotion, as well as some stone age stuff based on hierarchy and purity, with harsh sanctions extremely disrespectful of the value of life.
manifestations of both extremes have occurred under different circumstances. there are very nice lesbian episcopal ministers (or whatever she is) and there are the fundies. human thought is flexible and underdetermined by a text, but inflexible unless you go 2nd order.
the problematic situation is that, it is in general difficult for people who have some metaphysical, world-order based morality to reflect on these sentiments. the alethic attitude here is that necessarily God, therefore necessarily God's commands.
thus it is correct, but messy, to say that religion is and isn't a problem.
|
On September 22 2015 06:48 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 06:34 DickMcFanny wrote:On September 22 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2015 06:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
I like how Ben Carson says batshit insane, intellectually offensive things for months and nobody cares, now he says that someone who believes in theocracy shouldn't be elected president of a 'democracy' and he's getting flak for it from all sides.
There seems to be this cognitive dissonance on the democratic side. Defend gay rights, defend women's rights, defend freedom of speech, defend the right to religion, defend a democratic government... and defend the religion that hates all of these things.
Apparently you can deny the biggest problem the world has ever faced even exists, but if you say that a member of a death cult who literally yearns for the world to end shouldn't have control over the largest nuclear arsenal of the world you've crossed a line.
But that's how it works, you can't criticise an ideology without the 'ideots' feeling personally offended.
Thank Krishna he didn't criticise trickle-down economics, he might not have lived to tell the tale. So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way. No argument there. But you can't go on stage saying that a Christian shouldn't be president, because literally every single one of them has officially been a Christian. And there are degrees to terribleness. If you believe in any liberal values, Islam is objectively worse than the other religions. Islam is neither better nor worse. In fact, about 90% of its viewpoints are exactly the same as Christianity, and it is probably even more similar to Judaism. The problem is that there is this idea floating around that the only true Islam is a very radical form of fundamental Islam. This is supported by there being a relatively high number of vocal and violent fundamental muslims, and the middle east giving them the ideal arena to go postal.
I think that's only half the truth.
Yes, radical Islam gives moderate Islam a bad name. It's a shame that lots of people look at a Muslim and see ISIS, Al Qaida or Boko Haram.
The other half is that so called 'moderate' Muslims still have views that we wouldn't consider moderate at all if they were expressed by a political party, or by anyone else for that matter.
People get up in arms when Trump makes a period joke, but if women are only forced to cover half of their heads that's moderate? People get mad when a baker doesn't want to cater gay weddings, but when gays get thrown into prison instead of stoned to death that's moderate?
Moderate Islam means that only 60% of the population think that you should be killed for apostasy. That's Indonesia, not Mosul. Or that only 70% of the population think that Sharia Law should be enforced. That's Turkey, not Saudi Arabia.
Perspective...
To come back to politics:
Why are these republican clowns so eager to attack Obama, yet not one of them picks up on the terror campaign Obama has going on in Pakistan (and Yemen)? Why aren't they demanding he be tried by an international council?
|
United States42005 Posts
On September 22 2015 07:13 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 06:48 Acrofales wrote:On September 22 2015 06:34 DickMcFanny wrote:On September 22 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2015 06:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
I like how Ben Carson says batshit insane, intellectually offensive things for months and nobody cares, now he says that someone who believes in theocracy shouldn't be elected president of a 'democracy' and he's getting flak for it from all sides.
There seems to be this cognitive dissonance on the democratic side. Defend gay rights, defend women's rights, defend freedom of speech, defend the right to religion, defend a democratic government... and defend the religion that hates all of these things.
Apparently you can deny the biggest problem the world has ever faced even exists, but if you say that a member of a death cult who literally yearns for the world to end shouldn't have control over the largest nuclear arsenal of the world you've crossed a line.
But that's how it works, you can't criticise an ideology without the 'ideots' feeling personally offended.
Thank Krishna he didn't criticise trickle-down economics, he might not have lived to tell the tale. So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way. No argument there. But you can't go on stage saying that a Christian shouldn't be president, because literally every single one of them has officially been a Christian. And there are degrees to terribleness. If you believe in any liberal values, Islam is objectively worse than the other religions. Islam is neither better nor worse. In fact, about 90% of its viewpoints are exactly the same as Christianity, and it is probably even more similar to Judaism. The problem is that there is this idea floating around that the only true Islam is a very radical form of fundamental Islam. This is supported by there being a relatively high number of vocal and violent fundamental muslims, and the middle east giving them the ideal arena to go postal. I think that's only half the truth. Yes, radical Islam gives moderate Islam a bad name. It's a shame that lots of people look at a Muslim and see ISIS, Al Qaida or Boko Haram. The other half is that so called 'moderate' Muslims still have views that we wouldn't consider moderate at all if they were expressed by a political party, or by anyone else for that matter. People get up in arms when Trump makes a period joke, but if women are only forced to cover half of their heads that's moderate? People get mad when a baker doesn't want to cater gay weddings, but when gays get thrown into prison instead of stoned to death that's moderate? Perspective...
It's not a matter of perspective. It's a matter of geography and politics. When Americans are discriminating against gays in America then it's an issue because it's happening in a place that is within the power of the American people to change and America holds itself to account for its failings. It's a big deal to Americans because they give a shit about Americans. I can assure you that no Saudi Arabians gave a shit about the baker and the gay weddings, not because of the subject but because of the distance.
Islam doesn't get a pass for being Islam. Muslims in the west are held accountable to the same standards as others, for all the fear mongering about Sharia law. The medieval, brutal incarnation of Islam found in the Middle East gets a pass because it's pretty far away and we're still smug enough in our own western virtue not to expect any better of them.
|
On September 22 2015 07:12 oneofthem wrote:
dont know about islam but christianity is sort of good or useful in the moral sense. religions are kind of like viruses of thought where a metaphysical shell containing some substance of invariably ancient moral sentiments and social structure of various quality is smuggled into the mind. unlike a virus, the 'dna' in this does react with the host and her environment, thereby providing some opportunity for guided implanting.
christianity for example, contains both moral ideals of extreme love and devotion, as well as some stone age stuff based on hierarchy and purity, with harsh sanctions extremely disrespectful of the value of life.
manifestations of both extremes have occurred under different circumstances. there are very nice lesbian episcopal ministers (or whatever she is) and there are the fundies. human thought is flexible and underdetermined by a text, but inflexible unless you go 2nd order.
the problematic situation is that, it is in general difficult for people who have some metaphysical, world-order based morality to reflect on these sentiments. the alethic attitude here is that necessarily God, therefore necessarily God's commands.
thus it is correct, but messy, to say that religion is and isn't a problem.
It 100% depends on the verses you choose to cherry pick. Very pious and good-hearted people can find morally sound Biblical verses, whereas the KKK, Nazis, and Westboro Baptist Church cherry picked not-so-nice verses.
If you want to find some really fucked up shit, check out Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
Either way, morality evolves and is relative to our modern culture and society, so people will use what they already perceive to be moral (outside of the Bible) and then just cherry pick whatever verses already justify their beliefs. I don't believe for a second anybody who claims that they literally would not know how to be a morally good person if it wasn't for the fact that they read some ideas in the Bible. You learn based on experiences and real-life situations and family and friends, and if all that fails to instill upon you a certain level of morality, there's no way in hell the Bible is going to change your mind. (And if it does, there's a 50/50 shot you end up believing the bad moral verses, rather than the good ones.)
Same goes for the Q'uran and any other religious text.
|
On September 22 2015 07:13 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 06:48 Acrofales wrote:On September 22 2015 06:34 DickMcFanny wrote:On September 22 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2015 06:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
I like how Ben Carson says batshit insane, intellectually offensive things for months and nobody cares, now he says that someone who believes in theocracy shouldn't be elected president of a 'democracy' and he's getting flak for it from all sides.
There seems to be this cognitive dissonance on the democratic side. Defend gay rights, defend women's rights, defend freedom of speech, defend the right to religion, defend a democratic government... and defend the religion that hates all of these things.
Apparently you can deny the biggest problem the world has ever faced even exists, but if you say that a member of a death cult who literally yearns for the world to end shouldn't have control over the largest nuclear arsenal of the world you've crossed a line.
But that's how it works, you can't criticise an ideology without the 'ideots' feeling personally offended.
Thank Krishna he didn't criticise trickle-down economics, he might not have lived to tell the tale. So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way. No argument there. But you can't go on stage saying that a Christian shouldn't be president, because literally every single one of them has officially been a Christian. And there are degrees to terribleness. If you believe in any liberal values, Islam is objectively worse than the other religions. Islam is neither better nor worse. In fact, about 90% of its viewpoints are exactly the same as Christianity, and it is probably even more similar to Judaism. The problem is that there is this idea floating around that the only true Islam is a very radical form of fundamental Islam. This is supported by there being a relatively high number of vocal and violent fundamental muslims, and the middle east giving them the ideal arena to go postal. I think that's only half the truth. Yes, radical Islam gives moderate Islam a bad name. It's a shame that lots of people look at a Muslim and see ISIS, Al Qaida or Boko Haram. The other half is that so called 'moderate' Muslims still have views that we wouldn't consider moderate at all if they were expressed by a political party, or by anyone else for that matter. People get up in arms when Trump makes a period joke, but if women are only forced to cover half of their heads that's moderate? People get mad when a baker doesn't want to cater gay weddings, but when gays get thrown into prison instead of stoned to death that's moderate? Moderate Islam means that only 60% of the population think that you should be killed for apostasy. That's Indonesia, not Mosul. Or that only 70% of the population think that Sharia Law should be enforced. That's Turkey, not Saudi Arabia. Perspective...
I think that that is mostly due to poor uneducated people having poor and uneducated opinions. And as for Sharia law, I think you´d be surprised how many people would support Sharia law if it was not named as such, and maybe some of the more ridiculous excesses trimmed. The number of times I hear people clamoring on internet forums for the most horrific punishments for minor crimes is incredible, and I don´t frequent the bad places of the internet (amongst which I already count reddit, to give you a baseline of what I consider bad places, and how much of the internet I ignore)...
But I agree with your earlier point, that we must always be on the lookout for dangerous ideologies, and engage the people who are vulnerable to these ideologies. That includes reaching out to young moderate muslims and ensure them that they have a place in Western societies, and they do not have to strap a bomb belt on and blow themselves up in a square in Aleppo.
|
On September 22 2015 06:34 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2015 06:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
I like how Ben Carson says batshit insane, intellectually offensive things for months and nobody cares, now he says that someone who believes in theocracy shouldn't be elected president of a 'democracy' and he's getting flak for it from all sides.
There seems to be this cognitive dissonance on the democratic side. Defend gay rights, defend women's rights, defend freedom of speech, defend the right to religion, defend a democratic government... and defend the religion that hates all of these things.
Apparently you can deny the biggest problem the world has ever faced even exists, but if you say that a member of a death cult who literally yearns for the world to end shouldn't have control over the largest nuclear arsenal of the world you've crossed a line.
But that's how it works, you can't criticise an ideology without the 'ideots' feeling personally offended.
Thank Krishna he didn't criticise trickle-down economics, he might not have lived to tell the tale. So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way. No argument there. But you can't go on stage saying that a Christian shouldn't be president, because literally every single one of them has officially been a Christian. And there are degrees to terribleness. If you believe in any liberal values, Islam is objectively worse than the other religions.
This is really short-sighted.
Every religion has terrible, human-rights-violating values baked into their holy scriptures. The difference is the culture that is expressed. There are many Muslim nations that respect human rights. You are just being intellectually dishonest and pigeon-holing all Muslims into bigots, which is not the case, just like not all Christian nations are bigots.
Also, the idea that this is the biggest problem the world has ever faced is laughable and displays your lack of awareness.
|
I'm talking about climate change. That is the biggest problem the world has ever faced, choose whichever metric you like.
|
On September 22 2015 07:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 06:34 DickMcFanny wrote:On September 22 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2015 06:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
I like how Ben Carson says batshit insane, intellectually offensive things for months and nobody cares, now he says that someone who believes in theocracy shouldn't be elected president of a 'democracy' and he's getting flak for it from all sides.
There seems to be this cognitive dissonance on the democratic side. Defend gay rights, defend women's rights, defend freedom of speech, defend the right to religion, defend a democratic government... and defend the religion that hates all of these things.
Apparently you can deny the biggest problem the world has ever faced even exists, but if you say that a member of a death cult who literally yearns for the world to end shouldn't have control over the largest nuclear arsenal of the world you've crossed a line.
But that's how it works, you can't criticise an ideology without the 'ideots' feeling personally offended.
Thank Krishna he didn't criticise trickle-down economics, he might not have lived to tell the tale. So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way. No argument there. But you can't go on stage saying that a Christian shouldn't be president, because literally every single one of them has officially been a Christian. And there are degrees to terribleness. If you believe in any liberal values, Islam is objectively worse than the other religions. This is really short-sighted. Every religion has terrible, human-rights-violating values baked into their holy scriptures.
Agreed, and it's not really surprising. These texts came out thousands of years ago; they're certainly not entirely relevant to the year 2015, given our more advanced understanding of facts, morality, etc.
|
On September 22 2015 07:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 07:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 22 2015 06:34 DickMcFanny wrote:On September 22 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2015 06:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
I like how Ben Carson says batshit insane, intellectually offensive things for months and nobody cares, now he says that someone who believes in theocracy shouldn't be elected president of a 'democracy' and he's getting flak for it from all sides.
There seems to be this cognitive dissonance on the democratic side. Defend gay rights, defend women's rights, defend freedom of speech, defend the right to religion, defend a democratic government... and defend the religion that hates all of these things.
Apparently you can deny the biggest problem the world has ever faced even exists, but if you say that a member of a death cult who literally yearns for the world to end shouldn't have control over the largest nuclear arsenal of the world you've crossed a line.
But that's how it works, you can't criticise an ideology without the 'ideots' feeling personally offended.
Thank Krishna he didn't criticise trickle-down economics, he might not have lived to tell the tale. So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way. No argument there. But you can't go on stage saying that a Christian shouldn't be president, because literally every single one of them has officially been a Christian. And there are degrees to terribleness. If you believe in any liberal values, Islam is objectively worse than the other religions. This is really short-sighted. Every religion has terrible, human-rights-violating values baked into their holy scriptures. Agreed, and it's not really surprising. These texts came out thousands of years ago; they're certainly not entirely relevant to the year 2015, given our more advanced understanding of facts, morality, etc.
Yes, imagine what a mess Islam would be in if people took those words literally. Oops.
|
On September 22 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Here's an article on it.
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin has concluded he no longer has a path to the Republican presidential nomination and plans to drop out of the 2016 campaign, according to three Republicans familiar with his decision, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Mr. Walker called a news conference in Madison at 6 p.m. Eastern time.
“The short answer is money,” said a supporter of Mr. Walker’s who was briefed on the decision. “He’s made a decision not to limp into Iowa.”
The supporter said Mr. Walker’s fund-raising had dried up after his decline in the polls and that campaign officials did not feel they could risk going into debt with the race so uncertain. The governor, who was scheduled to be in New York and Washington this week, partly to raise money, had built up an expansive staff, bringing on aides and consultants detailed to everything from Christian conservative outreach to Super Tuesday states. But his fund-raising did not keep pace with the money needed to sustain such an infrastructure.
Mr. Walker’s intended withdrawal is a humiliating climb down for a Republican governor once seen as all but politically invincible. He started the year at the top of the polls but has seen his position gradually deteriorate, amid the rise of Donald J. Trump’s populist campaign and repeated missteps by Mr. Walker himself.
In the most recent CNN survey, Mr. Walker drew support nationally from less than one-half of one percent of Republican primary voters. He faced growing pressure to shake up his campaign staff, a step he was loath to take, according to Republicans briefed on his deliberations.
I find this absolutely hilarious. Show nested quote +On January 31 2015 01:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 31 2015 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 31 2015 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On January 31 2015 00:59 RCMDVA wrote:
Mitt - officially not running.
Good riddance. He's given it a go twice already. I think we've seen enough. Who are you hoping to win the Republican ticket? Same person you expect to? As of now, Scott Walker and Scott Walker. Of course, this is subject to change as the campaign evolves. Show nested quote +I don't really understand the Carson-hype (such as it is). Frankly, the Tea Party already has their damn-near-perfect candidate in Scott Walker. He's pretty much everything they could want and without the baggage. Most importantly, he's actually electable. Eventually the big money republican donors are going to figure out that no one wants Jeb and will start sending more funds Walker's way. So xDaunt, with your your analysis so wrong and your favorite out months before the first primary, who's your new preferred candidate?
Who exactly correctly predicted that the republican race would be where it is now or would have anything resembling its current trajectory? With Jeb's continued popular marginalization, so far I'm looking fairly correct on that point. It's just going to be another candidate that finishes him off.
Trump sucking up all of the air aside, Walker didn't do himself any favors after getting into the race. Specifically, he failed to bone up on issues beyond those that he dealt with in Wisconsin. His debate performances were not good. He didn't really make a good case for himself after he announced.
For the record, I don't have anyone that I support at this stage and have kept an open mind to just about everyone. The only candidates whom I know that I don't like are Jeb, Jindal, Huckabee, and Carson.
|
On September 22 2015 08:02 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 07:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2015 07:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 22 2015 06:34 DickMcFanny wrote:On September 22 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2015 06:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
I like how Ben Carson says batshit insane, intellectually offensive things for months and nobody cares, now he says that someone who believes in theocracy shouldn't be elected president of a 'democracy' and he's getting flak for it from all sides.
There seems to be this cognitive dissonance on the democratic side. Defend gay rights, defend women's rights, defend freedom of speech, defend the right to religion, defend a democratic government... and defend the religion that hates all of these things.
Apparently you can deny the biggest problem the world has ever faced even exists, but if you say that a member of a death cult who literally yearns for the world to end shouldn't have control over the largest nuclear arsenal of the world you've crossed a line.
But that's how it works, you can't criticise an ideology without the 'ideots' feeling personally offended.
Thank Krishna he didn't criticise trickle-down economics, he might not have lived to tell the tale. So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way. No argument there. But you can't go on stage saying that a Christian shouldn't be president, because literally every single one of them has officially been a Christian. And there are degrees to terribleness. If you believe in any liberal values, Islam is objectively worse than the other religions. This is really short-sighted. Every religion has terrible, human-rights-violating values baked into their holy scriptures. Agreed, and it's not really surprising. These texts came out thousands of years ago; they're certainly not entirely relevant to the year 2015, given our more advanced understanding of facts, morality, etc. Yes, imagine what a mess Islam would be in if people took those words literally. Oops.
It would look like the republican primary.
|
On September 22 2015 08:08 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 08:02 DickMcFanny wrote:On September 22 2015 07:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2015 07:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 22 2015 06:34 DickMcFanny wrote:On September 22 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2015 06:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
I like how Ben Carson says batshit insane, intellectually offensive things for months and nobody cares, now he says that someone who believes in theocracy shouldn't be elected president of a 'democracy' and he's getting flak for it from all sides.
There seems to be this cognitive dissonance on the democratic side. Defend gay rights, defend women's rights, defend freedom of speech, defend the right to religion, defend a democratic government... and defend the religion that hates all of these things.
Apparently you can deny the biggest problem the world has ever faced even exists, but if you say that a member of a death cult who literally yearns for the world to end shouldn't have control over the largest nuclear arsenal of the world you've crossed a line.
But that's how it works, you can't criticise an ideology without the 'ideots' feeling personally offended.
Thank Krishna he didn't criticise trickle-down economics, he might not have lived to tell the tale. So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way. No argument there. But you can't go on stage saying that a Christian shouldn't be president, because literally every single one of them has officially been a Christian. And there are degrees to terribleness. If you believe in any liberal values, Islam is objectively worse than the other religions. This is really short-sighted. Every religion has terrible, human-rights-violating values baked into their holy scriptures. Agreed, and it's not really surprising. These texts came out thousands of years ago; they're certainly not entirely relevant to the year 2015, given our more advanced understanding of facts, morality, etc. Yes, imagine what a mess Islam would be in if people took those words literally. Oops. It would look like the republican primary.
Also, it's not like all Muslims are fundamentalist nutjobs. A small fringe group is. We'd live in a much worse world if the billions of Christians and Muslims were all extremists, but most understand that such a lifestyle is absurd.
|
On September 22 2015 08:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2015 05:30 farvacola wrote:
Scott Walker is out. Here's an article on it.
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin has concluded he no longer has a path to the Republican presidential nomination and plans to drop out of the 2016 campaign, according to three Republicans familiar with his decision, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Mr. Walker called a news conference in Madison at 6 p.m. Eastern time.
“The short answer is money,” said a supporter of Mr. Walker’s who was briefed on the decision. “He’s made a decision not to limp into Iowa.”
The supporter said Mr. Walker’s fund-raising had dried up after his decline in the polls and that campaign officials did not feel they could risk going into debt with the race so uncertain. The governor, who was scheduled to be in New York and Washington this week, partly to raise money, had built up an expansive staff, bringing on aides and consultants detailed to everything from Christian conservative outreach to Super Tuesday states. But his fund-raising did not keep pace with the money needed to sustain such an infrastructure.
Mr. Walker’s intended withdrawal is a humiliating climb down for a Republican governor once seen as all but politically invincible. He started the year at the top of the polls but has seen his position gradually deteriorate, amid the rise of Donald J. Trump’s populist campaign and repeated missteps by Mr. Walker himself.
In the most recent CNN survey, Mr. Walker drew support nationally from less than one-half of one percent of Republican primary voters. He faced growing pressure to shake up his campaign staff, a step he was loath to take, according to Republicans briefed on his deliberations.
I find this absolutely hilarious. On January 31 2015 01:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 31 2015 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 31 2015 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On January 31 2015 00:59 RCMDVA wrote:
Mitt - officially not running.
Good riddance. He's given it a go twice already. I think we've seen enough. Who are you hoping to win the Republican ticket? Same person you expect to? As of now, Scott Walker and Scott Walker. Of course, this is subject to change as the campaign evolves. I don't really understand the Carson-hype (such as it is). Frankly, the Tea Party already has their damn-near-perfect candidate in Scott Walker. He's pretty much everything they could want and without the baggage. Most importantly, he's actually electable. Eventually the big money republican donors are going to figure out that no one wants Jeb and will start sending more funds Walker's way. So xDaunt, with your your analysis so wrong and your favorite out months before the first primary, who's your new preferred candidate? Who exactly correctly predicted that the republican race would be where it is now or would have anything resembling its current trajectory? With Jeb's continued popular marginalization, so far I'm looking fairly correct on that point. It's just going to be another candidate that finishes him off. Trump sucking up all of the air aside, Walker didn't do himself any favors after getting into the race. Specifically, he failed to bone up on issues beyond those that he dealt with in Wisconsin. His debate performances were not good. He didn't really make a good case for himself after he announced. For the record, I don't have anyone that I support at this stage and have kept an open mind to just about everyone. The only candidates whom I know that I don't like are Jeb, Jindal, Huckabee, and Carson.
Do you think Trump would make a good president?
|
On September 22 2015 08:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 08:08 Jormundr wrote:On September 22 2015 08:02 DickMcFanny wrote:On September 22 2015 07:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2015 07:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 22 2015 06:34 DickMcFanny wrote:On September 22 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2015 06:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
I like how Ben Carson says batshit insane, intellectually offensive things for months and nobody cares, now he says that someone who believes in theocracy shouldn't be elected president of a 'democracy' and he's getting flak for it from all sides.
There seems to be this cognitive dissonance on the democratic side. Defend gay rights, defend women's rights, defend freedom of speech, defend the right to religion, defend a democratic government... and defend the religion that hates all of these things.
Apparently you can deny the biggest problem the world has ever faced even exists, but if you say that a member of a death cult who literally yearns for the world to end shouldn't have control over the largest nuclear arsenal of the world you've crossed a line.
But that's how it works, you can't criticise an ideology without the 'ideots' feeling personally offended.
Thank Krishna he didn't criticise trickle-down economics, he might not have lived to tell the tale. So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way. No argument there. But you can't go on stage saying that a Christian shouldn't be president, because literally every single one of them has officially been a Christian. And there are degrees to terribleness. If you believe in any liberal values, Islam is objectively worse than the other religions. This is really short-sighted. Every religion has terrible, human-rights-violating values baked into their holy scriptures. Agreed, and it's not really surprising. These texts came out thousands of years ago; they're certainly not entirely relevant to the year 2015, given our more advanced understanding of facts, morality, etc. Yes, imagine what a mess Islam would be in if people took those words literally. Oops. It would look like the republican primary. Also, it's not like all Muslims are fundamentalist nutjobs. A small fringe group is. We'd live in a much worse world if the billions of Christians and Muslims were all extremists, but most understand that such a lifestyle is absurd.
The overwhelming majority of them by an overwhelming margin.
|
On September 22 2015 08:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 08:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2015 08:08 Jormundr wrote:On September 22 2015 08:02 DickMcFanny wrote:On September 22 2015 07:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2015 07:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 22 2015 06:34 DickMcFanny wrote:On September 22 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2015 06:12 DickMcFanny wrote:
I like how Ben Carson says batshit insane, intellectually offensive things for months and nobody cares, now he says that someone who believes in theocracy shouldn't be elected president of a 'democracy' and he's getting flak for it from all sides.
There seems to be this cognitive dissonance on the democratic side. Defend gay rights, defend women's rights, defend freedom of speech, defend the right to religion, defend a democratic government... and defend the religion that hates all of these things.
Apparently you can deny the biggest problem the world has ever faced even exists, but if you say that a member of a death cult who literally yearns for the world to end shouldn't have control over the largest nuclear arsenal of the world you've crossed a line.
But that's how it works, you can't criticise an ideology without the 'ideots' feeling personally offended.
Thank Krishna he didn't criticise trickle-down economics, he might not have lived to tell the tale. So you're talking about Christianity, right? Because I am pretty sure that religion hates gays, abortions, women and all that if you read it the right way. No argument there. But you can't go on stage saying that a Christian shouldn't be president, because literally every single one of them has officially been a Christian. And there are degrees to terribleness. If you believe in any liberal values, Islam is objectively worse than the other religions. This is really short-sighted. Every religion has terrible, human-rights-violating values baked into their holy scriptures. Agreed, and it's not really surprising. These texts came out thousands of years ago; they're certainly not entirely relevant to the year 2015, given our more advanced understanding of facts, morality, etc. Yes, imagine what a mess Islam would be in if people took those words literally. Oops. It would look like the republican primary. Also, it's not like all Muslims are fundamentalist nutjobs. A small fringe group is. We'd live in a much worse world if the billions of Christians and Muslims were all extremists, but most understand that such a lifestyle is absurd. The overwhelming majority of them by an overwhelming margin.
Overwhelming majority are what? Muslim extremists? I'm not so sure about that. Are you saying that the vast majority of Muslims would be willing to recreate 9/11?
|
On September 22 2015 08:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 08:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 22 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2015 05:30 farvacola wrote:
Scott Walker is out. Here's an article on it.
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin has concluded he no longer has a path to the Republican presidential nomination and plans to drop out of the 2016 campaign, according to three Republicans familiar with his decision, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Mr. Walker called a news conference in Madison at 6 p.m. Eastern time.
“The short answer is money,” said a supporter of Mr. Walker’s who was briefed on the decision. “He’s made a decision not to limp into Iowa.”
The supporter said Mr. Walker’s fund-raising had dried up after his decline in the polls and that campaign officials did not feel they could risk going into debt with the race so uncertain. The governor, who was scheduled to be in New York and Washington this week, partly to raise money, had built up an expansive staff, bringing on aides and consultants detailed to everything from Christian conservative outreach to Super Tuesday states. But his fund-raising did not keep pace with the money needed to sustain such an infrastructure.
Mr. Walker’s intended withdrawal is a humiliating climb down for a Republican governor once seen as all but politically invincible. He started the year at the top of the polls but has seen his position gradually deteriorate, amid the rise of Donald J. Trump’s populist campaign and repeated missteps by Mr. Walker himself.
In the most recent CNN survey, Mr. Walker drew support nationally from less than one-half of one percent of Republican primary voters. He faced growing pressure to shake up his campaign staff, a step he was loath to take, according to Republicans briefed on his deliberations.
I find this absolutely hilarious. On January 31 2015 01:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 31 2015 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 31 2015 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On January 31 2015 00:59 RCMDVA wrote:
Mitt - officially not running.
Good riddance. He's given it a go twice already. I think we've seen enough. Who are you hoping to win the Republican ticket? Same person you expect to? As of now, Scott Walker and Scott Walker. Of course, this is subject to change as the campaign evolves. I don't really understand the Carson-hype (such as it is). Frankly, the Tea Party already has their damn-near-perfect candidate in Scott Walker. He's pretty much everything they could want and without the baggage. Most importantly, he's actually electable. Eventually the big money republican donors are going to figure out that no one wants Jeb and will start sending more funds Walker's way. So xDaunt, with your your analysis so wrong and your favorite out months before the first primary, who's your new preferred candidate? Who exactly correctly predicted that the republican race would be where it is now or would have anything resembling its current trajectory? With Jeb's continued popular marginalization, so far I'm looking fairly correct on that point. It's just going to be another candidate that finishes him off. Trump sucking up all of the air aside, Walker didn't do himself any favors after getting into the race. Specifically, he failed to bone up on issues beyond those that he dealt with in Wisconsin. His debate performances were not good. He didn't really make a good case for himself after he announced. For the record, I don't have anyone that I support at this stage and have kept an open mind to just about everyone. The only candidates whom I know that I don't like are Jeb, Jindal, Huckabee, and Carson. Do you think Trump would make a good president?
Do you think Obama has made a good president? What exactly did Obama have to show for himself back in 2007-2008 beyond the ability to give a really good speech? From the perspective of skillsets and experience, Trump is infinitely more qualified to be president than Obama was back then. People don't get to where to Trump is unless they are incredibly impressive on a multitude of levels.
In short, I can't say that I know that Trump would make a good president. But I don't see anything that immediately disqualifies him from that possibility.
|
On September 22 2015 08:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 08:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2015 08:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 22 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2015 05:30 farvacola wrote:
Scott Walker is out. Here's an article on it.
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin has concluded he no longer has a path to the Republican presidential nomination and plans to drop out of the 2016 campaign, according to three Republicans familiar with his decision, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Mr. Walker called a news conference in Madison at 6 p.m. Eastern time.
“The short answer is money,” said a supporter of Mr. Walker’s who was briefed on the decision. “He’s made a decision not to limp into Iowa.”
The supporter said Mr. Walker’s fund-raising had dried up after his decline in the polls and that campaign officials did not feel they could risk going into debt with the race so uncertain. The governor, who was scheduled to be in New York and Washington this week, partly to raise money, had built up an expansive staff, bringing on aides and consultants detailed to everything from Christian conservative outreach to Super Tuesday states. But his fund-raising did not keep pace with the money needed to sustain such an infrastructure.
Mr. Walker’s intended withdrawal is a humiliating climb down for a Republican governor once seen as all but politically invincible. He started the year at the top of the polls but has seen his position gradually deteriorate, amid the rise of Donald J. Trump’s populist campaign and repeated missteps by Mr. Walker himself.
In the most recent CNN survey, Mr. Walker drew support nationally from less than one-half of one percent of Republican primary voters. He faced growing pressure to shake up his campaign staff, a step he was loath to take, according to Republicans briefed on his deliberations.
I find this absolutely hilarious. On January 31 2015 01:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 31 2015 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 31 2015 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On January 31 2015 00:59 RCMDVA wrote:
Mitt - officially not running.
Good riddance. He's given it a go twice already. I think we've seen enough. Who are you hoping to win the Republican ticket? Same person you expect to? As of now, Scott Walker and Scott Walker. Of course, this is subject to change as the campaign evolves. I don't really understand the Carson-hype (such as it is). Frankly, the Tea Party already has their damn-near-perfect candidate in Scott Walker. He's pretty much everything they could want and without the baggage. Most importantly, he's actually electable. Eventually the big money republican donors are going to figure out that no one wants Jeb and will start sending more funds Walker's way. So xDaunt, with your your analysis so wrong and your favorite out months before the first primary, who's your new preferred candidate? Who exactly correctly predicted that the republican race would be where it is now or would have anything resembling its current trajectory? With Jeb's continued popular marginalization, so far I'm looking fairly correct on that point. It's just going to be another candidate that finishes him off. Trump sucking up all of the air aside, Walker didn't do himself any favors after getting into the race. Specifically, he failed to bone up on issues beyond those that he dealt with in Wisconsin. His debate performances were not good. He didn't really make a good case for himself after he announced. For the record, I don't have anyone that I support at this stage and have kept an open mind to just about everyone. The only candidates whom I know that I don't like are Jeb, Jindal, Huckabee, and Carson. Do you think Trump would make a good president? Do you think Obama has made a good president? What exactly did Obama have to show for himself back in 2007-2008 beyond the ability to give a really good speech? From the perspective of skillsets and experience, Trump is infinitely more qualified to be president than Obama was back then. People don't get to where to Trump is unless they are born into families with self-perpetuating amounts of wealth. In short, I can't say that I know that Trump would make a good president. But I don't see anything that immediately disqualifies him from that possibility.
I went ahead and fixed that for you  I'd like to see how Trump would respond to, "Would you consider filing chapter 11 as president?"
|
On September 22 2015 08:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 08:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2015 08:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 22 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2015 05:30 farvacola wrote:
Scott Walker is out. Here's an article on it.
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin has concluded he no longer has a path to the Republican presidential nomination and plans to drop out of the 2016 campaign, according to three Republicans familiar with his decision, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Mr. Walker called a news conference in Madison at 6 p.m. Eastern time.
“The short answer is money,” said a supporter of Mr. Walker’s who was briefed on the decision. “He’s made a decision not to limp into Iowa.”
The supporter said Mr. Walker’s fund-raising had dried up after his decline in the polls and that campaign officials did not feel they could risk going into debt with the race so uncertain. The governor, who was scheduled to be in New York and Washington this week, partly to raise money, had built up an expansive staff, bringing on aides and consultants detailed to everything from Christian conservative outreach to Super Tuesday states. But his fund-raising did not keep pace with the money needed to sustain such an infrastructure.
Mr. Walker’s intended withdrawal is a humiliating climb down for a Republican governor once seen as all but politically invincible. He started the year at the top of the polls but has seen his position gradually deteriorate, amid the rise of Donald J. Trump’s populist campaign and repeated missteps by Mr. Walker himself.
In the most recent CNN survey, Mr. Walker drew support nationally from less than one-half of one percent of Republican primary voters. He faced growing pressure to shake up his campaign staff, a step he was loath to take, according to Republicans briefed on his deliberations.
I find this absolutely hilarious. On January 31 2015 01:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 31 2015 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 31 2015 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On January 31 2015 00:59 RCMDVA wrote:
Mitt - officially not running.
Good riddance. He's given it a go twice already. I think we've seen enough. Who are you hoping to win the Republican ticket? Same person you expect to? As of now, Scott Walker and Scott Walker. Of course, this is subject to change as the campaign evolves. I don't really understand the Carson-hype (such as it is). Frankly, the Tea Party already has their damn-near-perfect candidate in Scott Walker. He's pretty much everything they could want and without the baggage. Most importantly, he's actually electable. Eventually the big money republican donors are going to figure out that no one wants Jeb and will start sending more funds Walker's way. So xDaunt, with your your analysis so wrong and your favorite out months before the first primary, who's your new preferred candidate? Who exactly correctly predicted that the republican race would be where it is now or would have anything resembling its current trajectory? With Jeb's continued popular marginalization, so far I'm looking fairly correct on that point. It's just going to be another candidate that finishes him off. Trump sucking up all of the air aside, Walker didn't do himself any favors after getting into the race. Specifically, he failed to bone up on issues beyond those that he dealt with in Wisconsin. His debate performances were not good. He didn't really make a good case for himself after he announced. For the record, I don't have anyone that I support at this stage and have kept an open mind to just about everyone. The only candidates whom I know that I don't like are Jeb, Jindal, Huckabee, and Carson. Do you think Trump would make a good president? Do you think Obama has made a good president? What exactly did Obama have to show for himself back in 2007-2008 beyond the ability to give a really good speech? From the perspective of skillsets and experience, Trump is infinitely more qualified to be president than Obama was back then. People don't get to where to Trump is unless they are incredibly impressive on a multitude of levels. In short, I can't say that I know that Trump would make a good president. But I don't see anything that immediately disqualifies him from that possibility.
Don´t you mean that people don´t get to where Trump is unless they have a rich daddy? I don't think Trump did much of anything on the business side of things. He did run a successful reality TV show, though.
Source, before I get yelled at: https://www.quora.com/Did-Donald-Trump-inherit-a-lot-of-money-and-then-increase-his-net-worth-at-an-unremarkable-rate
|
On September 22 2015 08:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2015 08:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2015 08:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 22 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2015 05:30 farvacola wrote:
Scott Walker is out. Here's an article on it.
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin has concluded he no longer has a path to the Republican presidential nomination and plans to drop out of the 2016 campaign, according to three Republicans familiar with his decision, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Mr. Walker called a news conference in Madison at 6 p.m. Eastern time.
“The short answer is money,” said a supporter of Mr. Walker’s who was briefed on the decision. “He’s made a decision not to limp into Iowa.”
The supporter said Mr. Walker’s fund-raising had dried up after his decline in the polls and that campaign officials did not feel they could risk going into debt with the race so uncertain. The governor, who was scheduled to be in New York and Washington this week, partly to raise money, had built up an expansive staff, bringing on aides and consultants detailed to everything from Christian conservative outreach to Super Tuesday states. But his fund-raising did not keep pace with the money needed to sustain such an infrastructure.
Mr. Walker’s intended withdrawal is a humiliating climb down for a Republican governor once seen as all but politically invincible. He started the year at the top of the polls but has seen his position gradually deteriorate, amid the rise of Donald J. Trump’s populist campaign and repeated missteps by Mr. Walker himself.
In the most recent CNN survey, Mr. Walker drew support nationally from less than one-half of one percent of Republican primary voters. He faced growing pressure to shake up his campaign staff, a step he was loath to take, according to Republicans briefed on his deliberations.
I find this absolutely hilarious. On January 31 2015 01:13 xDaunt wrote:On January 31 2015 01:08 Mohdoo wrote:On January 31 2015 01:01 xDaunt wrote:On January 31 2015 00:59 RCMDVA wrote:
Mitt - officially not running.
Good riddance. He's given it a go twice already. I think we've seen enough. Who are you hoping to win the Republican ticket? Same person you expect to? As of now, Scott Walker and Scott Walker. Of course, this is subject to change as the campaign evolves. I don't really understand the Carson-hype (such as it is). Frankly, the Tea Party already has their damn-near-perfect candidate in Scott Walker. He's pretty much everything they could want and without the baggage. Most importantly, he's actually electable. Eventually the big money republican donors are going to figure out that no one wants Jeb and will start sending more funds Walker's way. So xDaunt, with your your analysis so wrong and your favorite out months before the first primary, who's your new preferred candidate? Who exactly correctly predicted that the republican race would be where it is now or would have anything resembling its current trajectory? With Jeb's continued popular marginalization, so far I'm looking fairly correct on that point. It's just going to be another candidate that finishes him off. Trump sucking up all of the air aside, Walker didn't do himself any favors after getting into the race. Specifically, he failed to bone up on issues beyond those that he dealt with in Wisconsin. His debate performances were not good. He didn't really make a good case for himself after he announced. For the record, I don't have anyone that I support at this stage and have kept an open mind to just about everyone. The only candidates whom I know that I don't like are Jeb, Jindal, Huckabee, and Carson. Do you think Trump would make a good president? Do you think Obama has made a good president? What exactly did Obama have to show for himself back in 2007-2008 beyond the ability to give a really good speech? From the perspective of skillsets and experience, Trump is infinitely more qualified to be president than Obama was back then. People don't get to where to Trump is unless they are incredibly impressive on a multitude of levels. In short, I can't say that I know that Trump would make a good president. But I don't see anything that immediately disqualifies him from that possibility.
IT'S OFFICIAL GUYS, TRUMP IS OUT.
xDaunt has spoken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
