|
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. |
Let the man rule. Life is more FUN with Trump on DC.
|
United States44203 Posts
On May 13 2017 01:42 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 01:39 hunts wrote:On May 13 2017 01:38 biology]major wrote:On May 13 2017 01:34 hunts wrote:On May 13 2017 01:29 prplhz wrote:On May 12 2017 23:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Is there a legitimate cause for impeachment proceedings to begin yet? Or are we waiting for something bigger than what has surfaced thus far? You don't actually need a legitimate cause (whatever that means), impeachment is a purely political question. If you can get the votes, you don't need to prove anything. It's constitutional to successfully impeach a president for no reason at all. Impeachment shouldn't be done lightly though. First of all it can backfire (Clinton got a popularity surge through his impeachment, Andrew Johnson not so much but there wasn't a second attempt at him) and second of all it does damage not only to the president but to the office and the nation itself. I really hope this talk of impeachment just kind of stops for now because for the moment it's unrealistic and it shouldn't be rushed. I think the talk of impeachment needs to continue until either donnie dipshit is impeached, or until republicans lose all public support for failing to impeach him. I don't think there is any reason to stop talking about his russia ties or his conflicts of interest or his other crimes, and certainly no reason to stop talking about removing him. This type of overreaction will seriously hurt the democrats. Why do you think that? Or do you just wish for it to be true because you voted for this mess? Because we aren't there yet, he didn't break any laws. He's just being dumb and disrupting american institutions but he was basically voted in to shake things up. By overreacting like you say, democrats will lose their credibility and appear partisan. They need to appear calm and rational, while trump continues his charades.
He's broken numerous laws. Sexual assault, illegal campaign donations, double dealing charitable foundations, fraudulent businesses and so forth.
|
On May 13 2017 01:44 TMG26 wrote:
Let the man rule. Life is more FUN with Trump on DC.
Tell that to North Carolina and the 1% of the hurricane relief that they received.
|
Navy officials were “blindsided” on Thursday, a spokesman told me, by President Donald Trump’s suggestion that he has convinced the Navy to abandon a long-planned digital launching system in favor of steam on its newest aircraft carrier.
In a wide-ranging interview with Time magazine, Trump described his disgust with the catapult system known as Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System, nicknamed EMALS, aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford. (Time has published only excerpts from the interview, not a full transcript.) The president described wanting to scrap EMALS, a key technological upgrade at the center of the multibillion-dollar carrier project, and return to steam.
I said, “You don’t use steam anymore for catapult?” “No sir.” I said, “Ah, how is it working?” “Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air.”
It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said—and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said, “What system are you going to be—” “Sir, we’re staying with digital.” I said, “No you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.”
What is digital? To answer the president’s question without getting into too many 0s and 1s, “digital” means using a computer to make something happen. You know, the same sort of machine that connects us all to the cyber. Are you still with me, or should we get Einstein over here? (I mean, Einstein has done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more.) EMALS isn’t just computer-based but uses a linear induction motor. That motor—which uses electric currents to activate a magnetic core—propels a carriage down a track to launch an aircraft, rather than using a steam piston drive to pull the aircraft.
Despite Trump’s technological leanings—he’s TV obsessed, he was a semi-early adopter of the web, and he has a preternatural sense for Twitter drama—his question about “digital” calls to mind his apparent cluelessness about cyber security.
It’s not that EMALS has been a smashing success. Cost and schedule overruns have given the Navy carrier project a reputation for being "one of the most spectacular acquisition debacles in recent memory,” as Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, put it in 2015. “And that is saying something.” The construction of three Ford-class aircraft carriers has swelled from $27 billion to $36 billion in the last 10 years.
But the problems with the Ford-class carrier program are more organizational than technological—a common theme among infrastructural megaprojects. McCain blamed “misalignment of accountability and responsibility in our defense acquisition system” and the vast bureaucracy of defense acquisition systems, which span multiple offices and program managers.
Trump seems to have seized on the project’s bad reputation without appreciating—or at least without clearly articulating—the complexities of moving from steam to digital.
The steam-powered catapult systems that are being replaced have been used to launch airplanes from U.S. carriers for some six decades now. Not only are steam systems harder to maintain than electrical ones; they have a lower upper-limit during combat—meaning electrical systems can launch more aircraft in a shorter amount of time. Electrical systems can also better handle smaller aircrafts and drones compared with steam. Steam systems also put more stress on airframes, and make them more prone to corrosion. Not only that, but carriers themselves are exceedingly vulnerable to attack—meaning outfitting them with the modern defense systems is a priority.
The goal for the upgraded system is to use carriers to create “an operational honeycomb of interconnected forces with reach, range and lethality against air, sea, space, and land-based targets,” as Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake wrote for the website Breaking Defense in 2015.
Despite some high-profile failures in early testing, EMALS is now nearly complete and ready for sea trials. It represents one of three major initiatives in the Navy’s push to go upgrade its weapons systems for the digita
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/trump-wants-goddamned-steam-not-digital-catapults-on-aircraft-carriers/526386/
|
On May 13 2017 01:37 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:On May 13 2017 00:33 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 13 2017 00:27 Mohdoo wrote:On May 13 2017 00:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think we've seen this a lot in this thread, most notably from Danglars and xDaunt. Both of them had this slow, bizarre adoption of Trump. If you look at their posts before Trump was dominant, its like some kinda split personality disorder. People who are already susceptible to this kind of thinking by a life of participation in religious institutions are particularly vulnerable, since appeals to authority and faith play a big role in unconditional support of your leader or the person fighting against "the bad guys". Its sometimes easy to forget just what kind of mental gymnastics is required to think stuff in the bible is actually true. I think those of us who don't participate in organized religion have already worked through "yeah, its weird, believe just kind of actually think that's true" when we were younger, but it is worth looking at. When someone says they think the bible has a shred of credibility or what have you, there are some interesting mental processes taking place. Its probably more about confirmation bias, loyalty, and pride than any of the brainwashing or other stuff that you mentioned. No one likes to admit they are wrong or picked the wrong person and no one wants to look like a fair-weather fan. EDIT: its the same thing for democrats and republicans alike, so i dont think the distinction is fair. The difference is that we aren't seeing people hope Trump gets ejected so that Pence or Ryan or someone can take over. People are identifying with the leader, Trump. They are defending *trump*, not just the party. That's the crucial distinction. What I am saying is that people with a history of religion are more likely to put leaders and authorities on a pedestal. The adoption of the Trump agenda and believing what he says is what is different here. I think both sides prefer Trump over Pence / Ryan tbh
Would someone who dislikes Trump like to chime in with how they think Pence could possibly be any worse than this mess?
|
On May 13 2017 01:44 TMG26 wrote:
Let the man rule. Life is more FUN with Trump on DC.
I wouldn't be opposed to this except for the part where he does stuff like ram through legislation that eliminates healthcare for millions of Americans.
On May 13 2017 01:45 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 01:37 ragz_gt wrote:On May 13 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:On May 13 2017 00:33 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 13 2017 00:27 Mohdoo wrote:I think we've seen this a lot in this thread, most notably from Danglars and xDaunt. Both of them had this slow, bizarre adoption of Trump. If you look at their posts before Trump was dominant, its like some kinda split personality disorder. People who are already susceptible to this kind of thinking by a life of participation in religious institutions are particularly vulnerable, since appeals to authority and faith play a big role in unconditional support of your leader or the person fighting against "the bad guys". Its sometimes easy to forget just what kind of mental gymnastics is required to think stuff in the bible is actually true. I think those of us who don't participate in organized religion have already worked through "yeah, its weird, believe just kind of actually think that's true" when we were younger, but it is worth looking at. When someone says they think the bible has a shred of credibility or what have you, there are some interesting mental processes taking place. Its probably more about confirmation bias, loyalty, and pride than any of the brainwashing or other stuff that you mentioned. No one likes to admit they are wrong or picked the wrong person and no one wants to look like a fair-weather fan. EDIT: its the same thing for democrats and republicans alike, so i dont think the distinction is fair. The difference is that we aren't seeing people hope Trump gets ejected so that Pence or Ryan or someone can take over. People are identifying with the leader, Trump. They are defending *trump*, not just the party. That's the crucial distinction. What I am saying is that people with a history of religion are more likely to put leaders and authorities on a pedestal. The adoption of the Trump agenda and believing what he says is what is different here. I think both sides prefer Trump over Pence / Ryan tbh Would someone who dislikes Trump like to chime in with how they think Pence could possibly be any worse than this mess?
He'd roughly have the same agenda as Trump (repeal Obamacare, cut taxes on the wealthy etc.), only he'd be competent at trying to get it done.
|
On May 13 2017 01:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 01:42 biology]major wrote:On May 13 2017 01:39 hunts wrote:On May 13 2017 01:38 biology]major wrote:On May 13 2017 01:34 hunts wrote:On May 13 2017 01:29 prplhz wrote:On May 12 2017 23:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Is there a legitimate cause for impeachment proceedings to begin yet? Or are we waiting for something bigger than what has surfaced thus far? You don't actually need a legitimate cause (whatever that means), impeachment is a purely political question. If you can get the votes, you don't need to prove anything. It's constitutional to successfully impeach a president for no reason at all. Impeachment shouldn't be done lightly though. First of all it can backfire (Clinton got a popularity surge through his impeachment, Andrew Johnson not so much but there wasn't a second attempt at him) and second of all it does damage not only to the president but to the office and the nation itself. I really hope this talk of impeachment just kind of stops for now because for the moment it's unrealistic and it shouldn't be rushed. I think the talk of impeachment needs to continue until either donnie dipshit is impeached, or until republicans lose all public support for failing to impeach him. I don't think there is any reason to stop talking about his russia ties or his conflicts of interest or his other crimes, and certainly no reason to stop talking about removing him. This type of overreaction will seriously hurt the democrats. Why do you think that? Or do you just wish for it to be true because you voted for this mess? Because we aren't there yet, he didn't break any laws. He's just being dumb and disrupting american institutions but he was basically voted in to shake things up. By overreacting like you say, democrats will lose their credibility and appear partisan. They need to appear calm and rational, while trump continues his charades. He's broken numerous laws. Sexual assault, illegal campaign donations, double dealing charitable foundations, fraudulent businesses and so forth.
With his tax returns, it wouldn't be hard that his family is violating the emoluments clause too. As NPR reporter Ron Elving said: "None of this matters until it all matters. If the tide turns, all of these topics will come up again."
|
On May 13 2017 01:45 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 01:37 ragz_gt wrote:On May 13 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:On May 13 2017 00:33 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 13 2017 00:27 Mohdoo wrote:I think we've seen this a lot in this thread, most notably from Danglars and xDaunt. Both of them had this slow, bizarre adoption of Trump. If you look at their posts before Trump was dominant, its like some kinda split personality disorder. People who are already susceptible to this kind of thinking by a life of participation in religious institutions are particularly vulnerable, since appeals to authority and faith play a big role in unconditional support of your leader or the person fighting against "the bad guys". Its sometimes easy to forget just what kind of mental gymnastics is required to think stuff in the bible is actually true. I think those of us who don't participate in organized religion have already worked through "yeah, its weird, believe just kind of actually think that's true" when we were younger, but it is worth looking at. When someone says they think the bible has a shred of credibility or what have you, there are some interesting mental processes taking place. Its probably more about confirmation bias, loyalty, and pride than any of the brainwashing or other stuff that you mentioned. No one likes to admit they are wrong or picked the wrong person and no one wants to look like a fair-weather fan. EDIT: its the same thing for democrats and republicans alike, so i dont think the distinction is fair. The difference is that we aren't seeing people hope Trump gets ejected so that Pence or Ryan or someone can take over. People are identifying with the leader, Trump. They are defending *trump*, not just the party. That's the crucial distinction. What I am saying is that people with a history of religion are more likely to put leaders and authorities on a pedestal. The adoption of the Trump agenda and believing what he says is what is different here. I think both sides prefer Trump over Pence / Ryan tbh Would someone who dislikes Trump like to chime in with how they think Pence could possibly be any worse than this mess?
He's religious convictions seem much stronger and much more loopey than anything trump has, Pence is why so many people were worried about republicans coming into power, he's a religious homophobic lunatic. At the same time he'll still have similar policy's like health care etc as trump has.
|
On May 13 2017 01:45 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +Navy officials were “blindsided” on Thursday, a spokesman told me, by President Donald Trump’s suggestion that he has convinced the Navy to abandon a long-planned digital launching system in favor of steam on its newest aircraft carrier.
In a wide-ranging interview with Time magazine, Trump described his disgust with the catapult system known as Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System, nicknamed EMALS, aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford. (Time has published only excerpts from the interview, not a full transcript.) The president described wanting to scrap EMALS, a key technological upgrade at the center of the multibillion-dollar carrier project, and return to steam.
I said, “You don’t use steam anymore for catapult?” “No sir.” I said, “Ah, how is it working?” “Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air.”
It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said—and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said, “What system are you going to be—” “Sir, we’re staying with digital.” I said, “No you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.”
What is digital? To answer the president’s question without getting into too many 0s and 1s, “digital” means using a computer to make something happen. You know, the same sort of machine that connects us all to the cyber. Are you still with me, or should we get Einstein over here? (I mean, Einstein has done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more.) EMALS isn’t just computer-based but uses a linear induction motor. That motor—which uses electric currents to activate a magnetic core—propels a carriage down a track to launch an aircraft, rather than using a steam piston drive to pull the aircraft.
Despite Trump’s technological leanings—he’s TV obsessed, he was a semi-early adopter of the web, and he has a preternatural sense for Twitter drama—his question about “digital” calls to mind his apparent cluelessness about cyber security.
It’s not that EMALS has been a smashing success. Cost and schedule overruns have given the Navy carrier project a reputation for being "one of the most spectacular acquisition debacles in recent memory,” as Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, put it in 2015. “And that is saying something.” The construction of three Ford-class aircraft carriers has swelled from $27 billion to $36 billion in the last 10 years.
But the problems with the Ford-class carrier program are more organizational than technological—a common theme among infrastructural megaprojects. McCain blamed “misalignment of accountability and responsibility in our defense acquisition system” and the vast bureaucracy of defense acquisition systems, which span multiple offices and program managers.
Trump seems to have seized on the project’s bad reputation without appreciating—or at least without clearly articulating—the complexities of moving from steam to digital.
The steam-powered catapult systems that are being replaced have been used to launch airplanes from U.S. carriers for some six decades now. Not only are steam systems harder to maintain than electrical ones; they have a lower upper-limit during combat—meaning electrical systems can launch more aircraft in a shorter amount of time. Electrical systems can also better handle smaller aircrafts and drones compared with steam. Steam systems also put more stress on airframes, and make them more prone to corrosion. Not only that, but carriers themselves are exceedingly vulnerable to attack—meaning outfitting them with the modern defense systems is a priority.
The goal for the upgraded system is to use carriers to create “an operational honeycomb of interconnected forces with reach, range and lethality against air, sea, space, and land-based targets,” as Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake wrote for the website Breaking Defense in 2015.
Despite some high-profile failures in early testing, EMALS is now nearly complete and ready for sea trials. It represents one of three major initiatives in the Navy’s push to go upgrade its weapons systems for the digita https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/trump-wants-goddamned-steam-not-digital-catapults-on-aircraft-carriers/526386/
I said, “You don’t use steam anymore for catapult?” “No sir.” I said, “Ah, how is it working?” “Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air.”
It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said—and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said, “What system are you going to be—” “Sir, we’re staying with digital.” I said, “No you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.”
Honestly this quote is a true work of art
I mean he admits he doesn't understand one bit of it but then follows it up with demanding the design is changed. And then the language usage. It's brilliant.
|
On May 13 2017 01:45 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 01:37 ragz_gt wrote:On May 13 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:On May 13 2017 00:33 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 13 2017 00:27 Mohdoo wrote:I think we've seen this a lot in this thread, most notably from Danglars and xDaunt. Both of them had this slow, bizarre adoption of Trump. If you look at their posts before Trump was dominant, its like some kinda split personality disorder. People who are already susceptible to this kind of thinking by a life of participation in religious institutions are particularly vulnerable, since appeals to authority and faith play a big role in unconditional support of your leader or the person fighting against "the bad guys". Its sometimes easy to forget just what kind of mental gymnastics is required to think stuff in the bible is actually true. I think those of us who don't participate in organized religion have already worked through "yeah, its weird, believe just kind of actually think that's true" when we were younger, but it is worth looking at. When someone says they think the bible has a shred of credibility or what have you, there are some interesting mental processes taking place. Its probably more about confirmation bias, loyalty, and pride than any of the brainwashing or other stuff that you mentioned. No one likes to admit they are wrong or picked the wrong person and no one wants to look like a fair-weather fan. EDIT: its the same thing for democrats and republicans alike, so i dont think the distinction is fair. The difference is that we aren't seeing people hope Trump gets ejected so that Pence or Ryan or someone can take over. People are identifying with the leader, Trump. They are defending *trump*, not just the party. That's the crucial distinction. What I am saying is that people with a history of religion are more likely to put leaders and authorities on a pedestal. The adoption of the Trump agenda and believing what he says is what is different here. I think both sides prefer Trump over Pence / Ryan tbh Would someone who dislikes Trump like to chime in with how they think Pence could possibly be any worse than this mess?
Pence is a crazy conservative that caused an HIV outbreak in his state by defunding planned parenthood and removing access to healthcare from poor people. He also supports conversion therapy, which an industry based on mentally and sometimes physically torturing gays in an effort to make them straight. He felt that would be a cool place for state funding.
|
United States44203 Posts
Trump genuinely seems to believe that if anything is too complicated for him to understand then it's too complicated for anyone to understand.
|
On May 13 2017 01:51 KwarK wrote:
Trump genuinely seems to believe that if anything is too complicated for him to understand then it's too complicated for anyone to understand.
Sounds like a lot of the small business owners I have worked with in law. If the law gets complicated, it is clearly to complicated and created to employ lawyers and keep real people out.
|
On May 13 2017 01:45 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +Navy officials were “blindsided” on Thursday, a spokesman told me, by President Donald Trump’s suggestion that he has convinced the Navy to abandon a long-planned digital launching system in favor of steam on its newest aircraft carrier.
In a wide-ranging interview with Time magazine, Trump described his disgust with the catapult system known as Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System, nicknamed EMALS, aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford. (Time has published only excerpts from the interview, not a full transcript.) The president described wanting to scrap EMALS, a key technological upgrade at the center of the multibillion-dollar carrier project, and return to steam.
I said, “You don’t use steam anymore for catapult?” “No sir.” I said, “Ah, how is it working?” “Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power. You know the steam is just brutal. You see that sucker going and steam’s going all over the place, there’s planes thrown in the air.”
It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said—and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said, “What system are you going to be—” “Sir, we’re staying with digital.” I said, “No you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good.”
What is digital? To answer the president’s question without getting into too many 0s and 1s, “digital” means using a computer to make something happen. You know, the same sort of machine that connects us all to the cyber. Are you still with me, or should we get Einstein over here? (I mean, Einstein has done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more.) EMALS isn’t just computer-based but uses a linear induction motor. That motor—which uses electric currents to activate a magnetic core—propels a carriage down a track to launch an aircraft, rather than using a steam piston drive to pull the aircraft.
Despite Trump’s technological leanings—he’s TV obsessed, he was a semi-early adopter of the web, and he has a preternatural sense for Twitter drama—his question about “digital” calls to mind his apparent cluelessness about cyber security.
It’s not that EMALS has been a smashing success. Cost and schedule overruns have given the Navy carrier project a reputation for being "one of the most spectacular acquisition debacles in recent memory,” as Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, put it in 2015. “And that is saying something.” The construction of three Ford-class aircraft carriers has swelled from $27 billion to $36 billion in the last 10 years.
But the problems with the Ford-class carrier program are more organizational than technological—a common theme among infrastructural megaprojects. McCain blamed “misalignment of accountability and responsibility in our defense acquisition system” and the vast bureaucracy of defense acquisition systems, which span multiple offices and program managers.
Trump seems to have seized on the project’s bad reputation without appreciating—or at least without clearly articulating—the complexities of moving from steam to digital.
The steam-powered catapult systems that are being replaced have been used to launch airplanes from U.S. carriers for some six decades now. Not only are steam systems harder to maintain than electrical ones; they have a lower upper-limit during combat—meaning electrical systems can launch more aircraft in a shorter amount of time. Electrical systems can also better handle smaller aircrafts and drones compared with steam. Steam systems also put more stress on airframes, and make them more prone to corrosion. Not only that, but carriers themselves are exceedingly vulnerable to attack—meaning outfitting them with the modern defense systems is a priority.
The goal for the upgraded system is to use carriers to create “an operational honeycomb of interconnected forces with reach, range and lethality against air, sea, space, and land-based targets,” as Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake wrote for the website Breaking Defense in 2015.
Despite some high-profile failures in early testing, EMALS is now nearly complete and ready for sea trials. It represents one of three major initiatives in the Navy’s push to go upgrade its weapons systems for the digita https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/trump-wants-goddamned-steam-not-digital-catapults-on-aircraft-carriers/526386/
In the middle of reading this I had to check the source to make sure it wasn't from The Onion.
|
On May 13 2017 01:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 01:45 Tachion wrote:On May 13 2017 01:37 ragz_gt wrote:On May 13 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:On May 13 2017 00:33 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 13 2017 00:27 Mohdoo wrote:I think we've seen this a lot in this thread, most notably from Danglars and xDaunt. Both of them had this slow, bizarre adoption of Trump. If you look at their posts before Trump was dominant, its like some kinda split personality disorder. People who are already susceptible to this kind of thinking by a life of participation in religious institutions are particularly vulnerable, since appeals to authority and faith play a big role in unconditional support of your leader or the person fighting against "the bad guys". Its sometimes easy to forget just what kind of mental gymnastics is required to think stuff in the bible is actually true. I think those of us who don't participate in organized religion have already worked through "yeah, its weird, believe just kind of actually think that's true" when we were younger, but it is worth looking at. When someone says they think the bible has a shred of credibility or what have you, there are some interesting mental processes taking place. Its probably more about confirmation bias, loyalty, and pride than any of the brainwashing or other stuff that you mentioned. No one likes to admit they are wrong or picked the wrong person and no one wants to look like a fair-weather fan. EDIT: its the same thing for democrats and republicans alike, so i dont think the distinction is fair. The difference is that we aren't seeing people hope Trump gets ejected so that Pence or Ryan or someone can take over. People are identifying with the leader, Trump. They are defending *trump*, not just the party. That's the crucial distinction. What I am saying is that people with a history of religion are more likely to put leaders and authorities on a pedestal. The adoption of the Trump agenda and believing what he says is what is different here. I think both sides prefer Trump over Pence / Ryan tbh Would someone who dislikes Trump like to chime in with how they think Pence could possibly be any worse than this mess? Pence is a crazy conservative that caused an HIV outbreak in his state by defunding planned parenthood and removing access to healthcare from poor people. He also supports conversion therapy, which an industry based on mentally and sometimes physically torturing gays in an effort to make them straight. He felt that would be a cool place for state funding.
Man half of congress is filled with religious homophobic conservatives who want to defund PP. Pence may be a level above the rest but what is he gonna do at this point? Anti-gay legislation is never gonna fly now that gay marriage is legal and sexual orientation is becoming a protected class. Probably why they left it out of that prayer day EO. At least he's a seasoned politician who knows how to behave himself in public and wouldn't destroy relationships with foreign allies and become an embarrassment to the country on a daily basis.
|
On May 13 2017 01:37 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:On May 13 2017 00:33 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 13 2017 00:27 Mohdoo wrote:I think we've seen this a lot in this thread, most notably from Danglars and xDaunt. Both of them had this slow, bizarre adoption of Trump. If you look at their posts before Trump was dominant, its like some kinda split personality disorder. People who are already susceptible to this kind of thinking by a life of participation in religious institutions are particularly vulnerable, since appeals to authority and faith play a big role in unconditional support of your leader or the person fighting against "the bad guys". Its sometimes easy to forget just what kind of mental gymnastics is required to think stuff in the bible is actually true. I think those of us who don't participate in organized religion have already worked through "yeah, its weird, believe just kind of actually think that's true" when we were younger, but it is worth looking at. When someone says they think the bible has a shred of credibility or what have you, there are some interesting mental processes taking place. Its probably more about confirmation bias, loyalty, and pride than any of the brainwashing or other stuff that you mentioned. No one likes to admit they are wrong or picked the wrong person and no one wants to look like a fair-weather fan. EDIT: its the same thing for democrats and republicans alike, so i dont think the distinction is fair. The difference is that we aren't seeing people hope Trump gets ejected so that Pence or Ryan or someone can take over. People are identifying with the leader, Trump. They are defending *trump*, not just the party. That's the crucial distinction. What I am saying is that people with a history of religion are more likely to put leaders and authorities on a pedestal. The adoption of the Trump agenda and believing what he says is what is different here. I think both sides prefer Trump over Pence / Ryan tbh
I disagree;
I've favored Pence or Ryan taking over since before Trump even took office iirc.
trump is unfit for office; pence, while kind of a jerk and not very good at his job, is at least fit for office.
|
Agenda wise Trump and Pence would have largely the same. Its a choice between someone so incompetent he might screw up implementing some of the bad stuff and someone who atleast knows how to behave properly.
|
So one interesting theory I saw on Reddit is that while Trump himself is probably not guilty of anything(that can be proven), they could be pursuing RICO charges as a result of manafort/Flynn.
Would be a rather spectacular way to go out.
|
On May 13 2017 02:00 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 01:49 Plansix wrote:On May 13 2017 01:45 Tachion wrote:On May 13 2017 01:37 ragz_gt wrote:On May 13 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:On May 13 2017 00:33 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 13 2017 00:27 Mohdoo wrote:I think we've seen this a lot in this thread, most notably from Danglars and xDaunt. Both of them had this slow, bizarre adoption of Trump. If you look at their posts before Trump was dominant, its like some kinda split personality disorder. People who are already susceptible to this kind of thinking by a life of participation in religious institutions are particularly vulnerable, since appeals to authority and faith play a big role in unconditional support of your leader or the person fighting against "the bad guys". Its sometimes easy to forget just what kind of mental gymnastics is required to think stuff in the bible is actually true. I think those of us who don't participate in organized religion have already worked through "yeah, its weird, believe just kind of actually think that's true" when we were younger, but it is worth looking at. When someone says they think the bible has a shred of credibility or what have you, there are some interesting mental processes taking place. Its probably more about confirmation bias, loyalty, and pride than any of the brainwashing or other stuff that you mentioned. No one likes to admit they are wrong or picked the wrong person and no one wants to look like a fair-weather fan. EDIT: its the same thing for democrats and republicans alike, so i dont think the distinction is fair. The difference is that we aren't seeing people hope Trump gets ejected so that Pence or Ryan or someone can take over. People are identifying with the leader, Trump. They are defending *trump*, not just the party. That's the crucial distinction. What I am saying is that people with a history of religion are more likely to put leaders and authorities on a pedestal. The adoption of the Trump agenda and believing what he says is what is different here. I think both sides prefer Trump over Pence / Ryan tbh Would someone who dislikes Trump like to chime in with how they think Pence could possibly be any worse than this mess? Pence is a crazy conservative that caused an HIV outbreak in his state by defunding planned parenthood and removing access to healthcare from poor people. He also supports conversion therapy, which an industry based on mentally and sometimes physically torturing gays in an effort to make them straight. He felt that would be a cool place for state funding. Man half of congress is filled with religious homophobic conservatives who want to defund PP. Pence may be a level above the rest but what is he gonna do at this point? Anti-gay legislation is never gonna fly now that gay marriage is legal and sexual orientation is becoming a protected class. Probably why they left it out of that prayer day EO. At least he's a seasoned politician who knows how to behave himself in public and wouldn't destroy relationships with foreign allies and become an embarrassment to the country on a daily basis.
Yes, but how many of them caused a state wide HIV outbreak that the state is still having to deal with and is slowly bankrupting them? And how many of them were voted out by their state for said outbreak and supported shocking the gay of out teenagers?
And you say legislation won't fly? North Carolina and other states are openly repressing the votes of minority citizens. they are not even being sneaky about it any more. Texas just set up a special immigration court inside a detention area because Sessions and ICE are doing through with large scale deportations. The President talked about walking away from NAFTA without a new trade deal, which would bankrupt several states. The White House just denied hurricane relief to a state for no reason.
We live in a time when anything is possible. Anything. Never doubt we live in the most interesting of times.
|
|
|
Considering he's a well respected FBI director, I didn't think he would be. He's no stranger to keeping his mouth shut, unlike a certain president.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
