In The News Today...

Quote: Mission146

Know thine enemy.

Besides, how is knowing more than zero about someone, "Infatuated?"

It is not about knowing more than zero. It is about the supposed Trump haters on here posting all kinds of little details that no regular person would see in their regular news watching. Almost as if they have some kind of man-crush on the guy.

I dislike Obama and Hillary. Thus I sometimes see them in mention in news articles. Depending on the headline I may or may not read about them. But to notice who Trump's son is dating and her political past and then make a post? Talking secret man-crush.

Quote: Mission146

He'd have probably done only slightly better than Bloomberg had he run as a Democrat. Democrats aren't generally going to go for people who they perceive as rich business tycoons. Also, they'd have started digging into Trump's personal and business history and find a great many things that they would perceive as unacceptable in a nominee.

So, what do you do? You become a Republican and virtue signal to the white racist wing of the party---BOOM! Instant base. Arguably sizable enough to give you a chance in the Primaries by themselves, if you have a vast majority of them.

Brilliant marketer and self-promoter, you have to give him that. He identified his target market and successfully appealed to them, to perhaps greater effect than even he intended. I'd think it possible that he's secretly a little creeped out by some of them and he definitely regards a large percentage of them as stupid.

As far as becoming Republican as you mature argument, I don't buy that embracing someone as shady as Trump shows any maturity at all. It shows something, but that would be maligning the word maturity to describe it as such.

Sure there is no one perfect among politicians or anyone else, but there are degrees that are too far.

Quote: rxwine

As far as becoming Republican as you mature argument, I don't buy that embracing someone as shady as Trump shows any maturity at all. It shows something, but that would be maligning the word maturity to describe it as such.

Sure there is no one perfect among politicians or anyone else, but there are degrees that are too far.

I'm not sure why you quoted me in this response; I certainly do not maintain that becoming a Republican reflects that a person has become more mature.

I don't even think that I became more economically conservative as a result of maturity. Simply, I devoted further study into the questions and determined that the most Liberal ideas aren't feasible at the Federal level given our current starting point. I've also decided that I don't think the Federal Government should have as much power as it does, in general terms, but I just look at that as a change in my political-philosophical outlook.

Granted, reevaluating one's beliefs is a sign of intellectual maturity, but the maturity comes in the willingness to reevaluate itself, not in whether or not a person's views actually change. My social views have certainly never changed, or if they have, certainly not in a general way.

Quote: AZDuffman

It is not about knowing more than zero. It is about the supposed Trump haters on here posting all kinds of little details that no regular person would see in their regular news watching. Almost as if they have some kind of man-crush on the guy.

I dislike Obama and Hillary. Thus I sometimes see them in mention in news articles. Depending on the headline I may or may not read about them. But to notice who Trump's son is dating and her political past and then make a post? Talking secret man-crush.

I tend to think that, "Regular people," would do well not to pay the news too much attention whatsoever; unless they prefer walking around on intellectual leashes, of course.

As far as the last bit, my tendency is just to look at that as the equivalent of paying attention to celebrity gossip. Anyway, I have no idea who she is, but that's because I don't tend to follow celebrity gossip.

Quote: Mission146

I tend to think that, "Regular people," would do well not to pay the news too much attention whatsoever; unless they prefer walking around on intellectual leashes, of course.

As far as the last bit, my tendency is just to look at that as the equivalent of paying attention to celebrity gossip. Anyway, I have no idea who she is, but that's because I don't tend to follow celebrity gossip.

When I was a kid the news was 30 minutes and unless something big was breaking there was no need for more. The Iran Hostage Crisis caused the invention of "Nightline" to cover the breaking event. Thing is there are not usually breaking events. I find life better since I got over being a news junkie. I scan more headlines when I am bored at work, otherwise a few minutes a day is all that is needed.

Following who Trump's son dates and her history is to be fascinated with "People" magazine. I have never met a serious person who reads that.

Quote: AZDuffman

I dislike Obama and Hillary. Thus I sometimes see them in mention in news articles. Depending on the headline I may or may not read about them. But to notice who Trump's son is dating and her political past and then make a post? Talking secret man-crush.

Sounds like the righties and Hunter Biden.

Of course, Duffman could never bring himself to criticize the people on his side with the man-crush on the current president’s son.

Quote: ams288

Sounds like the righties and Hunter Biden.

Of course, Duffman could never bring himself to criticize the people on his side with the man-crush on the current president’s son.

It is weird
Righties can never criticize Trump or his family
I have no problem criticizing Biden
Biden's view of MJ sucks.
I call them like I see them
I have no problem throwing a leftie under the bus if they deserve it
I'll throw anybody under the bus if they deserve it regardless of politics
Most righties hear of a person breaking the law, they cannot condemn until they hear the politics of the offender. If on the right, make excuses. If on the left, prosecute

https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-could-shield-whites-discomfort-214413002.html
Talk about a nanny state
A law against making white people uncomfortable
WTF

Quote: terapined

https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-could-shield-whites-discomfort-214413002.html
Talk about a nanny state
A law against making white people uncomfortable
WTF

Both sides are hilarious on this; I especially like this quote, bold added:

Quote:

“This bill's not for Blacks, this bill was not for any other race. This was directed to make whites not feel bad about what happened years ago,” said state Sen. Shevrin Jones, who is Black. “At no point did anyone say white people should be held responsible for what happened, but what I would ask my white counterparts is, are you an enabler of what happened or are you going to say we must talk about history?”

Obviously, we should talk about history---even though CRT is arguably not that. The part of the quote I find funny is how can a person, 'Enable,' the past? My understanding of the past may be wrong, but as I understand the concept, those are events that have already happened which precludes anyone in the present from enabling them as they have already taken place. As I understand the concept of enabling, you can only enable things that are presently taking place or will take place.

That's also not to say that there is no place for CRT as a sociological theory; it just isn't history. History told from the perspective of others can be history, but CRT is more in the realm of sociology than anything else. I mean, it literally has, 'Theory,' in the name.

Here's another quote:

Quote:

It centers on the idea that racism is systemic in the nation’s institutions and that they function to maintain the dominance of white people in society.

As with anything else, I think the question is largely about framing. If someone were to say, "The makeup of our nation's current institutions is such that minorities remain disadvantaged," then a person is opening up a dialogue with a proposition that at least merits examination. If someone says, "Our current institutions in America exist so that white people can continue to dominate," then that's obviously even more divisive than what is quoted above.

Go ask someone working in the coal mines in rural West Virginia, who spends up to half of the year laid off, if he feels as though white people are at any great advantage in this society.

I'm not saying it's a good bill; I'm saying that we're so far removed, at this point, from actually addressing any problems that may actually exist that it's laughable that such a bill would exist at all. I also find it ironic, with all of the crap about, "Trigger warnings," "Body positivity," and related things that the Left should have any problem with anyone on the right wanting to eliminate something because they perceive it as insensitive. I thought for nobody's feelings to be hurt was priority #1 in this country?

What?

Are you claiming that Trump is an insincere phony who'd use the constitution for toilet paper if it suited his needs?

Good point.