[rmnka447]

Quote

Terrorists. Hate-mongers. Whatever. But the only reason ever to include religion in the description is if the religion is a cause of the action. For example, it should be almost impossible to describe the terrorists killings of The Inquisition without using the word Christian because forcing compliance to Christian beliefs was the basis for the torture and killing by the Church; however, we rightfully do not lump all Christians together because to do otherwise is to castigate all for the actions of a minority. We should show at least equal restraint for the vast majority of Muslims who are not terrorists.

The Inquisition is not a good example for you to use. ISIS which is at present the strongest of the radical Islamic groups has been engaged in an equivalent genocide against Christians and other groups. If you're not Muslim, they execute you. Even the current administration has officially condemned what ISIS is doing as genocide. But they only did so when forced to because the Knights of Columbus were releasing a report thoroughly documenting the extent of this genocide. So, if it's right to use Christian with the Inquisition, it's right to use "radical Islam" as a basis of the genocide and terrorist attacks.

Quote

Now you are just whining. Anyone who compares peer pressure for word choices to the very real threat of jail for contempt of Congress and job loss from blackballing during the Joseph McCarthy witch hunt is to be pitied for using retard logic. (Apologies to the mentally challenged.)

Academics with conservative views are clearly being discriminated against on college campuses. That's how college campuses have become virtually conservative faculty free. Back in the '60s when I went to school college faculties were a fairly even mix of liberals and conservatives.

You might check out hypeline.com/university-of-Rochester-faculty-member-fired-over-trump-support . Although his comments may have been in poor taste, they are well within the bounds of free speech. The funny thing is the faculty member has claimed that he is not a Trump supporter.

Within the past couple of days, the CEO of an publicly traded internet firm told employees that anyone who voted for Trump ought to resign because they have no future at the firm.

The president of the University of Virginia was criticized by students for quoting Thomas Jefferson because he had been a slaveholder. Thomas Jefferson was, of course, the founder of the University of Virginia. They demanded that she not quote him again. Fortunately, the president didn't cave, she said that Jefferson was a person of his times and should not be judged by modern standards. She further said that some of the things he said were so universal that they transcend who he was and the times he lived in.

During the primaries, students at Emory University claimed that the word "Trump" chalked on a college sidewalk so traumatized them that it ought to be banned. The next day, the Emory University president chalked on the sidewalk "Emory University supports freedom of expression."

And the list could go on....

Quote

I understand what you are saying and freely admit I have held views that I later came to detest - but I have never in my life judged another human being based on the color of his or her skin. The only explanation I can find for racist bigotry is ignorance and superstition; it is impossible to hold a racist viewpoint if you are 1) intellectually honest and 2) have a rudimentary understanding of biology. And racism has nothing to do with anyone's politics other than birds of a feather...

I, for one, agree with your sentiment. Unfortunately, some members of the left apparently don't. They tried to brand Dr. Ben Carson an "Uncle Tom" which we know is a denial of his blackness.

Quote

Perhaps you can enlighten me but I don't know of any "liberal" sources that equate to right-wing sources such as Breitbart or Hannity, and that is because liberals recognize blather and bias and won't bother themselves with it.

A Hannity equivalent is easy -- Rachel Maddow.

Breitbart is more difficult. MotherJones.com and the Huffington Post can get pretty alt-left at times.

Conservatives recognize blather and bias as well as liberals. And conservatives have had a lot more to recognize.

Quote

We crave facts. Like this: Last Tuesday, Clinton received more votes than Trump. I don't know which voters were liberal or conservative, myself, as I wasn't in the booth with them, asking personal questions.

Now, you're whining.

At this point, the popular vote is irrelevant because the rules of the election were based on the electoral college. Both campaigns attuned their campaigns to winning the electoral college and Trump won. The popular vote favored Hillary Clinton, but there's no assurance that the same result would have occurred if the election had been based solely on the popular vote.

At both ends of the spectrum of how to pick a President would be deciding the election solely on the popular vote or giving each state 1 vote and letting the President be the candidate who won a majority of states. The problem with the popular vote is that skewed results in a few large states would ensure one party would dominate the presidency. The problem with 1 vote a state would be that Rhode Island and California would have equal say in the election.

When this country was formed, it was as a compact between the 13 colonies/states. When the constitution was written, the Founding Fathers recognized that a very touchy sticking point between the states was how much influence they would have in the government. So in their wisdom, the Founding Fathers, and especially James Madison, came up with a brilliant solution. They would have a bicameral legislature with a House of Representatives and a Senate. The House was apportioned by population and the Senate had equal representation for each state. In the House, the large states would have more say. In the Senate, the small states would have equal say as the large states. Since laws would have to pass both chambers, each state would have a stake in the laws that were passed.

The electoral college is an outgrowth of the legislative solution. It is a compromise between letting a few large states decide every Presidential election and letting small states have too much say in the election. In the process, it has practically worked to get as many states as possible to be stakeholders in the election. It's as good a way as any to decide the election.

As currently constituted, deciding the election by popular vote would put the election solely in the hands of coastal states. "Fly over" America would have little stake in the result. Then there would be the issue of why they should accept the result if they had no real say in the result.

If you're so passionate about making the popular vote the way to decide Presidential elections, then work to amend the constitution to do so.

[Kaitlyn S]

 rmnka447, on 2016-November-16, 22:30, said:

If you're so passionate about making the popular vote the way to decide Presidential elections, then work to amend the constitution to do so.

The easier way is to get enough states to agree to send their delegates based on the popular vote. If states totaling 270 or more electoral votes do this, future elections will be based on popular vote.

[mikeh]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-16, 20:20, said:

It would be wonderful if I thought of myself as a despicable human being? No thank you.

I almost got out a couple of days ago but I got sucked back in. For an evening it was a fair discussion. Then back to the normal sh*t where everybody thinks the worst of me, and it matters not what I say, it's all going to be taken in the worst possible light.

I'm not going to change anyone's mind. You will all think of me as a despicable human being. There really seems to be no reason to engage here anymore for the chance of an honest discussion seems somewhat hopeless when it is assumed that everything I say is said with the most evil intent in mind.

You are not a despicable human being merely because you have unconscious traits and patterns of thinking that are racist. My parents were unthinking racists, as were virtually everyone they knew. It was natural: 'everyone' knew that whites were an advanced race, and other races were ranked in comparison with blacks at the bottom. Everyone, that is, who was white:) Even the abolitionists who fought against slavery (far earlier in the UK than in the US) didn't do so out of any sense that all races were truly of equal value.

I very much doubt that you are a despicable person. I am sure you do lots of good things, and truly believe that you are not racist. What I would like is to see your consciousness raised, so that you became aware of why so many here see you as racist....because I am as certain as I can be, never having met you, that you would make an effort to change of you could metaphorically open your eyes. You see no reason to change. So be it.

Continued bigotry, in the face of concerted efforts by people who mean you well, is truly unfortunate but maybe that is who you are. Btw, I do mean you well. Were that not the case, I would simply put you on ignore, or go back to not posting, as I did for over a year. However, you seem articulate and willing to engage, so I have made an attempt, perhaps using language that offended you. I don't apologize. I see you as profoundly ignorant, but not profoundly stupid. Ignorance can be cured by knowledge, stupidity cannot be cured. We are all ignorant of far more than that of which we know, and there is no shame in admitting to ignorance. Indeed, the world would be a far better place were the ignorant not so often convinced that they are not.

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2016-November-16, 22:30, said:

The Inquisition is not a good example for you to use. ISIS which is at present the strongest of the radical Islamic groups has been engaged in an equivalent genocide against Christians and other groups. If you're not Muslim, they execute you. Even the current administration has officially condemned what ISIS is doing as genocide. But they only did so when forced to because the Knights of Columbus were releasing a report thoroughly documenting the extent of this genocide. So, if it's right to use Christian with the Inquisition, it's right to use "radical Islam" as a basis of the genocide and terrorist attacks.



Academics with conservative views are clearly being discriminated against on college campuses. That's how college campuses have become virtually conservative faculty free. Back in the '60s when I went to school college faculties were a fairly even mix of liberals and conservatives.

You might check out hypeline.com/university-of-Rochester-faculty-member-fired-over-trump-support . Although his comments may have been in poor taste, they are well within the bounds of free speech. The funny thing is the faculty member has claimed that he is not a Trump supporter.

Within the past couple of days, the CEO of an publicly traded internet firm told employees that anyone who voted for Trump ought to resign because they have no future at the firm.

The president of the University of Virginia was criticized by students for quoting Thomas Jefferson because he had been a slaveholder. Thomas Jefferson was, of course, the founder of the University of Virginia. They demanded that she not quote him again. Fortunately, the president didn't cave, she said that Jefferson was a person of his times and should not be judged by modern standards. She further said that some of the things he said were so universal that they transcend who he was and the times he lived in.

During the primaries, students at Emory University claimed that the word "Trump" chalked on a college sidewalk so traumatized them that it ought to be banned. The next day, the Emory University president chalked on the sidewalk "Emory University supports freedom of expression."

And the list could go on....



I, for one, agree with your sentiment. Unfortunately, some members of the left apparently don't. They tried to brand Dr. Ben Carson an "Uncle Tom" which we know is a denial of his blackness.



A Hannity equivalent is easy -- Rachel Maddow.

Breitbart is more difficult. MotherJones.com and the Huffington Post can get pretty alt-left at times.

Conservatives recognize blather and bias as well as liberals. And conservatives have had a lot more to recognize.



Now, you're whining.

At this point, the popular vote is irrelevant because the rules of the election were based on the electoral college. Both campaigns attuned their campaigns to winning the electoral college and Trump won. The popular vote favored Hillary Clinton, but there's no assurance that the same result would have occurred if the election had been based solely on the popular vote.

At both ends of the spectrum of how to pick a President would be deciding the election solely on the popular vote or giving each state 1 vote and letting the President be the candidate who won a majority of states. The problem with the popular vote is that skewed results in a few large states would ensure one party would dominate the presidency. The problem with 1 vote a state would be that Rhode Island and California would have equal say in the election.

When this country was formed, it was as a compact between the 13 colonies/states. When the constitution was written, the Founding Fathers recognized that a very touchy sticking point between the states was how much influence they would have in the government. So in their wisdom, the Founding Fathers, and especially James Madison, came up with a brilliant solution. They would have a bicameral legislature with a House of Representatives and a Senate. The House was apportioned by population and the Senate had equal representation for each state. In the House, the large states would have more say. In the Senate, the small states would have equal say as the large states. Since laws would have to pass both chambers, each state would have a stake in the laws that were passed.

The electoral college is an outgrowth of the legislative solution. It is a compromise between letting a few large states decide every Presidential election and letting small states have too much say in the election. In the process, it has practically worked to get as many states as possible to be stakeholders in the election. It's as good a way as any to decide the election.

As currently constituted, deciding the election by popular vote would put the election solely in the hands of coastal states. "Fly over" America would have little stake in the result. Then there would be the issue of why they should accept the result if they had no real say in the result.

If you're so passionate about making the popular vote the way to decide Presidential elections, then work to amend the constitution to do so.

How closed minded are you? I stated two facts: 1) Clinton won the popular vote and 2) I was not in the voting booths with each voter.
How can that be construed as whining? It is you who made subjective claims. All I did was point out that the facts do not support your claims.

I understand. Facts are troublesome if they don't fit the narrative of your political religion.

As far as terrorists labeling is concerned, you might want to take a look at this from the BBC which explains that as many as 60% of deaths from terrorism for a 10 year period were most likely Muslims, as the vast majority of attacks occurred in Muslim countries.

[diana_eva]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-16, 19:44, said:

I have seen a series of posts that try to portray me and what I have said in the worst possible light, and to assume the worst possible motives in each case. You're right, Diana, people bring their evil twin here.

Am I being racist because I state what I think a business owner might do? Am I being racist by pointing out that a person has a lower economic expectation by hiring a black person under the current law than a white person, because there is some chance of a disastrous lawsuit due to racial discrimination?

Try a thought exercise. Let's say I could by insurance to cover discrimination lawsuits.

How much would I have to pay for that insurance if I hired a white person?

How much would I have to pay for that insurance if I hired a black person?

Is there an economic difference?

Why am I being a racist for pointing out the obvious? It is because the politically correct people refuse to point out the obvious that some problems will never be solved.

I'm not saying he is so afraid, just that there is some negative expectation, and if as a business owner you take a lot of negative expectations, you won't be in business very long. But by all means assume I am thinking the worst.

Plus, a black person who is laid off (even due to seniority) may think the reason he was the one let go is because he is black, even though it might have been a random choice. It is unbased, but to the black it seems like he has a legitimate gripe.

As I pointed out, the employer may be acting fairly but the black might have a right to feel slighted. He doesn't know the employer's motive and might believe it is racist. After all, if I was the employer, every one of you would think I did it for a racist reason. However, I might have used seniority, drawn straws, or used some measure of merit. However, every one of you would think that the black had a valid lawsuit against me because I am so obviously and incredibly racist. So it wouldn't matter if I was fair or not.

Plus, a lot of lawyers will take on the suit for a percentage of damages and it won't cost the person who files suit anything.

I don't think you are a despicable human being. I think you are a good person, you are thoughtful and you've put a lot of time and effort into these forums. You seem like a kind, caring person.

Back to your fear of litigation example. If a woman comes apply for a job, would you think that she will have kids and it'll cost you to cover expenses for her time off while giving birth or raising kids? That's a real cost, and you have a business to run. It's something that happens and you have to point it out, right, even if it's not politically correct. Do you think that she won't be as good at the job as a guy bec she might be called away for emergencies with her kids more often than a guy and you wouldn't be able to deny her that, but it'll cost your business? Do you think that if she's laid off she will sue for sexual harassment or discrimination, even if she wasn't harassed or discriminated - but because there are laws protecting women against harassment/ discrimination she will take advantage of that?

Do you find all those arguments absurd? Then why would you assume such things when a black person applies for the job? Why the blacks and not women, or homosexuals, or muslims, or disabled - like mike pointed out?

[Vampyr]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-16, 22:49, said:

The easier way is to get enough states to agree to send their delegates based on the popular vote. If states totaling 270 or more electoral votes do this, future elections will be based on popular vote.

There are online petitions to sign, but I don't know how one would get this on the ballot. Ten states and the D of C have signed up for this so far.

[Kaitlyn S]

 diana_eva, on 2016-November-17, 00:15, said:

I don't think you are a despicable human being. I think you are a good person, you are thoughtful and you've put a lot of time and effort into these forums. You seem like a kind, caring person.

Thank you! (and thank you too mikeh) I was starting to worry there.

 diana_eva, on 2016-November-17, 00:15, said:

Back to your fear of litigation example. If a woman comes apply for a job, would you think that she will have kids and it'll cost you to cover expenses for her time off while giving birth or raising kids? That's a real cost, and you have a business to run. It's something that happens and you have to point it out, right, even if it's not politically correct. Do you think that she won't be as good at the job as a guy bec she might be called away for emergencies with her kids more often than a guy and you wouldn't be able to deny her that, but it'll cost your business? Do you think that if she's laid off she will sue for sexual harassment or discrimination, even if she wasn't harassed or discriminated - but because there are laws protecting women against harassment/ discrimination she will take advantage of that?

Yes, the same thing is true for women as for blacks. The same thing is true for anybody that might successfully win a discrimination lawsuit.

I don't think that a woman will take advantage when she wasn't discriminated against any more than I think a black would. However, just like the black, the woman might think she didn't get promoted because she's a woman, when in reality there was some other reason. It's not likely but it's possible. Of course, if a man sues for discrimination based on gender, he will probably be laughed out of the courtroom.

 diana_eva, on 2016-November-17, 00:15, said:

Do you find all those arguments absurd?

Clearly I don't.

That's not to say that the difference in expectation is going to cause people not to hire any women or blacks or gays or...

Sometimes the black or the woman or whoever is more qualified and will get hired anyway.

Sometimes they'll be equally qualified but the black or woman or whoever will do better in the interview.

Sometimes all the "safe" qualified white men will already be hired.

Sometimes the interviewer won't consider the small chance of getting sued. That seems quite likely as almost all of you seem to think the idea is ridiculous.

 diana_eva, on 2016-November-17, 00:15, said:

Then why would you assume such things when a black person applies for the job? Why the blacks and not women, or homosexuals, or muslims, or disabled - like mike pointed out?

Because the initial comment that started the post (by someone else) was about blacks being not called back for a job. If it was about gays not being called back, this entire discussion would have been about gay anti-discrimination lawsuits and you would be calling me homophobic, and wondering why I hate gays and not mentioning blacks. I don't hate any of them. I am strictly talking about a business's bottom line.

Is it a cruel and heartless fact I am pointing out? Yes, of course. I think it's absolutely deplorable that we need anti-discrimination laws. But apparently we do need them.

I actually did some hiring at one point. I was thrust into interim manager when our manager quit and we needed more programmers. Human Resources sent me several "extremely qualified" candidates and I gave each and every one of them a piece of paper with some pseudo code. The first line was LET N=0 and the value of N never changed and at some point I had a line PRINT N. I asked each applicant what the code did and out of maybe 20 applicants, only one person did not say that the program printed a number larger than zero. I hired him. If that person had have been black or Muslim or gay or a pregnant woman, I would have hired him or her because to me it would have been the only person I would have hired.

We needed about three people. If the first three applicants had been black and they all got it right I would have called HR and said "I have my three people, hire them, I don't need to see any more" and gone back to work.

Of course, I wasn't going to be the one that got sued

[helene_t]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-16, 22:49, said:

The easier way is to get enough states to agree to send their delegates based on the popular vote. If states totaling 270 or more electoral votes do this, future elections will be based on popular vote.

Yes. This will, however, be a bit tricky if nobody wins an outright majority so that the EC will have to negotiate a compromise. But OK, I suppose the sates could then have the rule that they support the PV winner if he gets 50+% and otherwise they support whoever won in their own state.

[Cyberyeti]

There is an issue in the UK. Anti-discrimination legislation means you can't ask a woman whether she has any plans to start a family. This means employers (particularly small employers where somebody not being there is a much bigger deal) are a little reticent in hiring women of childbearing age.

[hrothgar]

 helene_t, on 2016-November-17, 05:08, said:

Yes. This will, however, be a bit tricky if nobody wins an outright majority so that the EC will have to negotiate a compromise. But OK, I suppose the sates could then have the rule that they support the PV winner if he gets 50+% and otherwise they support whoever won in their own state.

While I am all for getting rid of the Electoral College, I think that this would be a very bad idea.

Its unclear to me how this compact would be legally binding on a state or how one could enforce matters if a state chose to go rogue

[hrothgar]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-16, 19:44, said:

You were the one who posted that silly "nigg*r nigg*r nigg*r" quote. I was just pointing out that this isn't who I am.
No, I presented the race of the individuals to show that they were not trying to be racist bigots, but just ignorant jerks who didn't know that they were being hurtful. But of course, you assumed the worst about me. I did have a motive for saying it, but it was not a bad motive.

Of course you don't go around saying "nigger, nigger, nigger". That's the entire meaning behind the quote...

(And before you go dismissing this quote as silly, you might want to do some basic research on who Lee Atwater was and why his opinion about these sorts of matters might be relevant to these sorts of discussions)

As for your comment about Asians

1. There was no need to mention the race of the individuals involved
2. There was most certain no reason to include cultural stereotypes like labeling the individuals as high IQ with poor social skills

We all understand that the the internet is littered with idiots.
Telling this little fable has no bearing on your own behaviour.

[hrothgar]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-17, 01:26, said:

I actually did some hiring at one point. I was thrust into interim manager when our manager quit and we needed more programmers. Human Resources sent me several "extremely qualified" candidates and I gave each and every one of them a piece of paper with some pseudo code. The first line was LET N=0 and the value of N never changed and at some point I had a line PRINT N. I asked each applicant what the code did and out of maybe 20 applicants, only one person did not say that the program printed a number larger than zero. I hired him. If that person had have been black or Muslim or gay or a pregnant woman, I would have hired him or her because to me it would have been the only person I would have hired.

I think that you make a lot of things up.

[Zelandakh]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-16, 16:39, said:

I really had no clue that racism was still as bad as it was. It was really hard for me to see because the liberals were calling me a deplorable racist when I don't see myself that way, so I just assumed that when they claimed there were still millions of racists, that they were calling a whole bunch of people like me racist and they were basically full of s***. But reading about companies not hiring blacks because it would make their businesses less attractive to customers (a totally disgusting thought to me, and TBH I couldn't have imagined this was the case) was an eye-opener.

It is a start. Seeing the racism and sexism around us is the first stage to addressing it. The truth is that the vast majority of racism and sexism does go unnoticed. If we simply mirror the language and attitudes of our parents and social groups then the chances are very high that some racism or sexism will creep in. English itself is sexist, for example there is no word for a male nymphomaniac and I am sure you can think of many more words for a promiscuous female than a male and the majority of the words you come up with will be negative for women and positive for men.

Racism also comes in both direct and more subtle forms. As a child I lived with a man who openly said he and the other men in the village had a pact that "if any black person moves in we will drive them away". I daresay everyone will recognise this as racism but do you notice, for example, the bias that comes from Hollywood? Parts for minorities are often just that - the "black role" rather than a character who also happens to be black - and, aside from a few specific directors, the parts are often in a supporting role. Closer to home, some classical examples of "covert" racism are sticking to a social group from your own race, ignoring members of other races except for servile acts, portraying victims and aggressors as equals, reacting differently to the same situation depending on the race of someone else involved, picking out specific racial features to be unattractive (wide nose, large lips, "kinky" hair) and generally denying the need for anti-discrimination laws.

The list of such points is almost endless. I daresay you will recognise some of them immediately and can probably find examples of all of them if you think about it hard enough. Indeed, you might be shocked just how much racism you yourself see on a daily basis if you really open your eyes to it. Rest assured that women and those from minority groups see such actions all of the time and the vast majority go unmentioned. Studies shows that this noticeably increases stress levels and can easily lead to isolation and withdrawal with the potential for health issues to come up. It is a very real problem, not only for the United States but for most cultures.

I hope you are able to become more aware of what is going on around you now that your eyes have been opened a little. What you do with the knowledge should you choose to pursue it is another question entirely. At the very least, I hope you gain a little understanding for just how rigged against women and minorities the system is at present (despite the anti-discrimination laws) and why that sometimes spills over into frustration and even violence.

[billw55]

Of course the electoral college is a bad idea and should be abolished. However, this is not going to happen in the forseeable future. It would require a constitutional amendment, and the 2/3 majorities just aren't going to happen. Also the EC benefits red states, so no red state is going to change over to proportional electors.

It's a bad system but we're stuck with it.

[PassedOut]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-November-17, 06:34, said:

Racism also comes in both direct and more subtle forms. As a child I lived with a man who openly said he and the other men in the village had a pact that "if any black person moves in we will drive them away". I daresay everyone will recognise this as racism but do you notice, for example, the bias that comes from Hollywood? Parts for minorities are often just that - the "black role" rather than a character who also happens to be black - and, aside from a few specific directors, the parts are often in a supporting role. Closer to home, some classical examples of "covert" racism are sticking to a social group from your own race, ignoring members of other races except for servile acts, portraying victims and aggressors as equals, reacting differently to the same situation depending on the race of someone else involved, picking out specific racial features to be unattractive (wide nose, large lips, "kinky" hair) and generally denying the need for anti-discrimination laws.

I graduated from college in May of 1969. When we moved to the city, my wife and I lived in a small apartment quite a distance from the university. She had a friend of many years, Barbara, who lived an all-black area close to the university, so we had gotten to know that area and had met some of Barbara's friends and neighbors. When a house a couple of doors from Barbara's became available for rent, Barbara called to let us know about it and we snapped it up. We lived there from June of 1967 until after I graduated in 1969.

It was a vibrant and very sociable neighborhood. For example, one young lady who lived across the street was appalled by my dancing and took it upon herself to teach me how to "dance black." We made some life-long friendships there.

While living there and socializing with our neighbors, we learned a lot of things that they faced constantly that I had never been aware of. It wasn't just the frequent stops driving while black. It's little stuff like being in a department store considering buying a hat, and the clerk says, "If you try it on, you have to buy it," while white women around you are trying on hats and putting them back. Day after day of things like that take a toll.

One day in April, 1968, I came home from a late class to find my wife and Barbara hugging and crying. They sobbed that Dr. King had been shot. Not long afterward, a large group gathered on a commercial corner a few blocks from our home. Police were on the scene and the crowd was peaceful but angry. That changed when a car full of white men pulled in and fired a shotgun into the crowd. The police chased the car immediately but, for some reason not believed in the neighborhood, were unable to catch it. Then some buildings started to burn and the National Guard was called in to close off our entire area.

One of my most vivid memories is of all the streetlights being turned off, and the Guard putting up high towers with searchlights that kept sweeping around and around. Our yard would be pitch black until the beam came back around and then it would be as bright as day.

We and our neighbors had to exit and enter through checkpoints. On exiting, the guards would wave us on through while we watched our neighbors being searched with their hands on their cars. On returning, we (and especially my wife) heard some nasty comments. In the rest of the city and at school, things went on as usual.

After those interesting and very educational years, I really, really do not want to see folks dumped on for reasons that they cannot control. And I certainly don't want to contribute to that myself.

[jonottawa]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-16, 20:20, said:

It would be wonderful if I thought of myself as a despicable human being? No thank you.

I almost got out a couple of days ago but I got sucked back in. For an evening it was a fair discussion. Then back to the normal sh*t where everybody thinks the worst of me, and it matters not what I say, it's all going to be taken in the worst possible light.

I'm not going to change anyone's mind. You will all think of me as a despicable human being. There really seems to be no reason to engage here anymore for the chance of an honest discussion seems somewhat hopeless when it is assumed that everything I say is said with the most evil intent in mind.

I'm glad you're not letting bullying get to you, Kaitlyn. I don't engage here to change the minds of the people I'm talking to, because they're completely closed-minded. They accept their ideology as an article of faith. But maybe some lurkers learn a thing or two.

Just remember the definition of bigotry, and then you'll know in your heart who the real bigots are:

Search Results
big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries

intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

...................................

Pay attention to which side is advancing logical arguments and which side is doing little more than throwing out ad hominems and bringing up anecdotes from 50 years ago. Be happy knowing that most Americans agree with you, even though most denizens of an Internet bridge forum don't.

[barmar]

 mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 18:18, said:

You do write racist things. You are a racist. Your inability to see that may make you more comfortable, especially as you can now claim to be a victim. Too bad. Reducing racism even by one individual at a time is a good thing, and it would be wonderful if you were to see yourself as we, here, see you.

Maybe we should all get together and buy Kaitlyn a box set of "All in the Family" for Chanukah. Archie didn't think he was a racist, the problem was with all the chinks, dagos, niggers, kikes, etc. ruining the country.

[Zelandakh]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-17, 10:46, said:

I'm glad you're not letting bullying get to you, Kaitlyn. I don't engage here to change the minds of the people I'm talking to, because they're completely closed-minded. They accept their ideology as an article of faith. But maybe some lurkers learn a thing or two.

I thought you came here to troll based on what I have seen over the last weeks. It would be reasonable to assume the lurkers have learnt this too and thereby treat your posts with the laughable disdain they deserve.

[barmar]

 rmnka447, on 2016-November-16, 22:30, said:

The electoral college is an outgrowth of the legislative solution. It is a compromise between letting a few large states decide every Presidential election and letting small states have too much say in the election. In the process, it has practically worked to get as many states as possible to be stakeholders in the election. It's as good a way as any to decide the election.

Except that it hasn't really. According to one commentator I heard last week, about 35 states were totally irrelevant, because their results were foregone conclusions. The unintended consequence of the electoral college was "swing states", and the candidates spent almost all their time on this small handful of states.

The electoral college as it currently exists is nothing like what the founders intended. They came up with it as a compromise between having Congress choose the President and having a direct election. The original idea was that the electoral college would be a deliberative body that the people would elect, like Congress but independent of it. They were supposed to be smart representatives who would get together to choose who to cast the state's votes for. But these days the electors are just rubber-stamping that vote. It's still possible for them to vote against the vote of the people, but such "faithless electors" are extremely rare (the last one was in 2004, but Wikipedia claims that it was probably an accident).

[jonottawa]

 mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 12:59, said:

Why do you make a sensible post and then ruin it by inserting such a stupid image?

I tend to post images/videos that are on-topic & that I find either funny or clever, preferably both. They often convey a point that I wish to make or highlight in a concise, humorous & effective way.

 mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 12:59, said:

Nobody that I am aware of has suggested killing Trump even tho his policies, and his apparent intentions in terms of governance, will surely result in many, many deaths that would likely not have occurred with HRC as President.

Your awareness seems rather limited, then. Make like Kaitlyn & do a little research, perhaps? (I got you started. You're welcome.)

 mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 12:59, said:

He and Ryan, who is likely to be the de facto President, since Trump apparently has no attention span and can't comprehend, let alone deal with, detail, are almost surely going to deprive 20 million people of health care. That cannot help but cause an increase in preventable death and disability, as well as plunge more people into poverty as they lose their health insurance.

De facto President Ryan? Really Mike? THAT'S what you think?

Trump LOATHES Ryan (because Ryan was as disloyal/countersignaling as he could get away with being (as Speaker) throughout the campaign. Remember Romney/Ryan & Ryan's close buddy Romney was #NeverTrump & got Egg McMuffin to run to try to throw it to Hillary if it was close.) Trump LOVES Pence (without Pence BTFO'ing Kaine, BTFO'ing the press & rocking the rallies, there'd be no President Trump.) So if, in some bizarre parallel universe, Trump gets bored of being president (one of the most inane theories floated by the MSM in a year of inane theories about Trump (Don't they ever tire of being wrong? Remember when they said he was going to drop out? Or that he didn't really want to win the election? Or that Hillary would win the mother of all landslides?)) he will make like Dubya & give more authority/responsibility to Pence. Anything Ryan gets will only be because he gave Trump something that he wants in exchange.

Are you a billionaire (or multi hundred millionaire, depending on your sources) Manhattan real estate magnate? Do you realize how preposterous you sound when you suggest that a man who has succeeded in one of the most cutthroat industries in the world, LADEN with detail, is a bumbling idiot with ADD? Was it one of his advisors who said that he often gets confused? Oh wait, no, that was one of Hillary's advisors (Huma) talking about her.

As for healthcare, Obamacare is a disaster. (In no small part because Republicans refused to cooperate on a better bill.) It was a huge gift to Big Pharma and the AMA and did almost nothing to contain costs. The 'you can keep your doctor and your plan' bit was a lie, and plenty of smart folks said it at the time. I think the latest massive premium spike probably cost Hillary Pennsylvania. (And if she had won Pennsylvania, I think there would have been a huge push to steal the election by hook or by crook. But Trump's win was bigger than EITHER of Dubya's 'wins'.) Healthcare in the US has been a disaster for a long time. Basically doctors and drug companies have lobbies that are way too powerful. Luckily Trump isn't beholden to those lobbies because he took almost no money from lobbyists. Unfortunately, Congress still is.

Am I sure that Trump will come up with a great plan that gets through Congress when EVERY president before him has tried and failed? No, but I'm hopeful. (I don't think Congress has the guts to defund Obamacare without replacing it with SOMETHING. And Trump would almost certainly veto a budget like that if they did.) And I won't heap scorn on him if he fails, because in this selfish & unhealthy culture healthcare is a disaster almost everywhere, including Canada where they've 'solved' the problem by letting people die while they wait for healthcare.

On the bright side, if he deports the majority of the non-citizens who are living illegally in the US, the healthcare prognosis is far brighter for American Citizens than if Hillary had been elected and amnestied them all (& given Obamacare to the rest,) which would have drastically increased the demand for healthcare with almost no corresponding increase in funds (or medical facilities/professionals.)

 mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 12:59, said:

He seems extremely likely to prevent federal civil rights investigations and prosecutions, thus reversing what seems to have been at least a modest increase in law enforcement perception of the dangers of simply shooting unarmed black people. This suggests, at a minimum, more shootings, more riots, and more resulting injury and death. Ironically, this will probably lead to more shootings of police as tensions increase and poor black communities see that their federal government has become their adversary.

It's funny, when I posted stuff in here several years ago about police misconduct, I was excoriated because that wasn't the 'cause du jour.' Now we're all virtue signaling for BLM. The fact is, as a Harvard study has shown, that unjustified police shootings have no racial basis. Unarmed blacks who interact with police are no more likely to be shot than unarmed whites who interact with police. If Soros weren't funding the riots, there wouldn't be riots. And if all Americans were taught to respect the police & to not resist arrest, there would be almost no shootings by police. The real CRISIS is the number of blacks killed by blacks. THOSE are the 'black lives' we SHOULD be focused on. Not the handful of people of all races wrongfully killed by police each year. Do I favor the prosecution of officers (like that idiot in Toronto) who murder (virtually) unarmed civilians? Of course, and so does President Trump, but cases like that are INCREDIBLY rare. If they WEREN'T incredibly rare, we'd have lots of clear-cut cases to choose from, rather than glorifying cases where an armed criminal who resisted arrest was shot.

 mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 12:59, said:

And then there is the world at large. He has fired Christie as head of the transition team, apparently under pressure from his son-in-law, whose father was successfully prosecuted by Christie, before Christie lost his moral centre, for various offences including jury tampering. Nice guy...and it appears that his son has inherited his sense of values. Trump is enshrining a misogynistic, anti-Semite white nationalist as his main counselor, and is apparently considering a climate change denialist as head of his environmental protection agency, which is Orwellian is nothing else....tho I suspect that Trump, who apparently literally doesn't read books, probably never heard of George Orwell. He has promised to 'blow out of the water' any vessel seen as harassing US naval ships, even tho such 'harassment' is not illegal under international law.

You think Christie ever had a moral center? He's a bully and a thug. But he derailed Rubio & endorsed Trump VERY early. Trump would probably not be president if Christie hadn't done either of those things. So a slimy character does you a YUGE service. You feel like you owe him. But you know he's slimy. It's a dilemma with no obvious solution.

You and your ad hominems. Gee whiz. Bannon did a brilliant job as campaign strategist and is the obvious choice for WH strategist/advisor. (Navigating this corrupt Congress in this media environment will require some serious 4-dimensional chess.) Breitbart is an excellent source of news. Compared to Turd Blossom, or Bill Clinton, or Hillary's mentor Byrd, Bannon is a saint.

Go watch 'An Inconvenient Truth' again and tell me how accurate its predictions were. Then tell me how environmentally friendly China is. I hate pollution & I think carbon taxes should be much higher (but ONLY if coupled by a corresponding reduction in other taxes) but as I mentioned before the NUMBER ONE (and Number 2 and Number 3) driver of climate change (and poverty & pollution & hunger & disease & war & mass extinction & virtually every other serious problem under the sun) is … THIRD WORLD OVERPOPULATION. An issue that Hillary Clinton has actively CENSORED the mention of! So tell me what Trudeau & Merkel & Bill Gates & the UN are doing about THAT issue and then I'll hear you out about whether a few extra US coal-fired power plants mean the end of the world is nigh. And remind me about how Obama's EPA poisoned a river if we're comparing EPAs.

Other countries didn't used to harass American ships because they had a healthy respect for & fear of America. Trump will restore that. Good for him. China's building islands & claiming sovereignty in the South China sea. That's not legal, either. Invading Crimea wasn't legal. But a successful nation with balls pursues its national interest. That's the way the world has always worked. Realpolitik. Trump will put America FIRST again.

 mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 12:59, said:

He has suggested bringing back torture as a tool of foreign policy, and murdering relatives of terrorists. He openly espouses being at least as vicious to terrorists as they are to the US, which will be a huge propaganda victory for terrorists. His attitude will engender far more terrorism.

I hated Dubya for torture. But I see what some of these sick animals have done & they're just not human to me anymore. If you behead innocents on video, if you burn people alive on video, and we catch you, and you're unmistakably the guy from the video, I'm not going to lose much sleep about what Trump does or doesn't do to such 'people.' I used to think America is better than that. America doesn't do that. But then America started putting up with spoiled & 'privileged' millionaire athletes kneeling while the Star Spangled Banner played. And putting up with non-citizens violently rioting in her streets. And letting an organization urge the murder of police officers with impunity. And rewarding 10's of millions of non-citizens living here illegally with hundreds of billions of dollars in cash, services & in-state tuition. So I really don't know what America does or doesn't do anymore. But I know that torturing a few evil people in order to extract information that might save American lives or help destroy ISIS wouldn't be the worst thing America has done lately.

Obama's launched lots of drone strikes and there's always collateral damage. It's a mess. Israel's (wrongfully imo) punished the families of those who perpetrate violence against Israel for years. The obvious reasoning is that you might deter people from carrying out a violent act if they think or know that their family will be held accountable for their actions. Bottom line is that Trump wants to preserve his options & not let the enemy know what he is or isn't willing to do to them. And that bottom line I fully support. Keep the enemy guessing. If we capture someone from ISIS and they don't know if they'll be tortured or not, I think they'll be far more 'cooperative' than if they know ahead of time that they won't be tortured, even if we weren't going to torture them.

 mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 12:59, said:

In the meantime, he continues, even post election, to claim that he clearly understands war and military matters better than the generals!

This is a man who has openly wondered why, given that the US has a nuclear arsenal, the US hasn't used nukes on ISIS or Iran. And he wants to put into cabinet men who have been open proponents of unprovoked war with Iran.

He wants to avoid foreign entanglements. He wants peace with Russia (but a peace based on mutual respect, not based on Putin running roughshod over the US & her allies.) And he wants to crush ISIS. He has a great respect for the military that Obama lacks. He will make the US military great again. He will have good advisors & I trust him as CiC. All this histrionic 'he claims this, blah, bloo, blee' c'mon now. Hillary would have brought with her a much greater risk of WWIII than Trump does.

 mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 12:59, said:

Despite all of this, and despite the incredible and logical fears that this man engenders, no public figure has spoken out, let alone acted out, to suggest that he is an illegitimate President or that violent opposition is acceptable. Meanwhile, white nationalists have increased the already historic rate of bigoted acts against the minorities he has attacked. He has offered, in the campaign, to pay the legal fees of supporters who physically assault protesters, so just what stance do you think law enforcement will take now?

There's nothing logical about the fear of Trump, a fear engendered NOT by Trump, but by the corporate media, which has been dedicated to attacking him (and to instilling fear in their more gullible viewers) for months.

Here are some logical reasons to have feared Hillary:

She's accepted tens of millions of dollars in bribes from Wall St., corporations, lobbyists & foreign governments. (And please don't waste my time and insult my intelligence by claiming that they're not bribes.)

She didn't give a single open press conference during all of 2016. That alone is DISQUALIFYING.

She pledged to amnesty virtually all of the 15 million + non-citizens illegally living in the US.

She seemed to welcome a return of the Cold War with Russia.

Her donor list was a who's who of the folks who've been running America into the ground for decades.

She jeopardized US national security by setting up an unsecure private server, which was probably hacked by several foreign governments, on which she did all her State Dept. email correspondence.

She deleted THOUSANDS of emails that were under subpoena & got away with it because she is (for the moment) ABOVE THE LAW.

She colluded with the DNC to rig the Democratic primary, which she otherwise would have lost to a 75 year old self-described socialist named Bernie.

The person who was FIRED by the DNC for rigging the primary was IMMEDIATELY HIRED BY HILLARY.

She acknowledges having conflicting public positions and private positions on the same issue. In other words, she lies to the public, so ultimately she can't be trusted.

She had shady operatives working on behalf of her campaign who were videotaped plotting election fraud.

She had the entire corporate mainstream media (including most commentators on the sole traditionally right-wing network) spewing propaganda for months in a desperate bid to ensure her election.

She had Google altering their search results to help her.

She had Twitter banning the accounts of her opponent's supporters & fudging trending hashtags to help her.

She had POTUS on television talking to a mostly-ESL audience & when asked if non-citizens should be afraid to vote for Hillary, he replied: Not true. Hopefully President Trump will investigate 2016 election fraud, expose the hundreds of thousands of non-citizens who voted & pass a national voter ID law. And get rid of those hackable paperless black boxes while he's at it.

The first two debates were rigged in that the tough questions invariably were about her opponent's controversies & not about hers. In spite of him crushing her in the 2nd debate, the MSM regurgitated the lie that she won all 3 debates, hoping people would forget their lying eyes and ears & what all the focus groups said.

She is uniquely in US history UNFIT to serve (and given our last 2 presidents, that's a pretty low bar. I'd say she was uniquely unfit to serve in the history of 20th/21st century Western Civilization, but then you'd bring up Justin Trudeau and I can't really argue with that.) Her possession of a vagina doesn't change that & in fact exacerbates it. Do we REALLY want the FIRST female president to be so fatally flawed? Thank goodness the American people voted a resounding No.

And here are some reasons to dislike her: She stayed with a husband who serially cheated on her throughout their marriage, while doing everything she could to silence the victims of his sexual aggression. She got the rapist of a 12-year old girl off the hook, in part by blaming the victim, & then later laughed multiple times while discussing the case.

Then there's my personal gut feeling: She's a nasty bully with a violent temper who treats those around her (below her pay grade) with contempt. I think she's bipolar (people say she's a sociopath, but she lacks the charm and social graces for that imo.) She was willing to do or say (literally) anything to become president. She's got serious undisclosed health issues (many stemming from her serious head injury.) She probably drinks too much & who knows what meds she's on. Trump proved his stamina down the stretch speaking at massive rally after massive rally while she passed out cold and got thrown in a van, then lied about having pneumonia. And I believe Danney Williams is Bill Clinton's son. (Whether Chelsea is Bill Clinton's biological daughter or not is also an interesting question.)

Maybe you weren't paying attention, but the victims of political violence this year have overwhelmingly been TRUMP supporters. And many, if not most, of these alleged 'bigoted acts' turn out to be hoaxes perpetrated by people trying to smear Trump supporters. You ignore acts of murder, attempted assassination & violence on the regressive left and focus solely on alleged 'bigoted acts' by a handful of Trump supporters. You have actual violence on one side incited by the media & by a globalist billionaire versus your neurotic fear of yet-to-be perpetrated violence on Trump's side. You have foreign citizens rioting in the streets, burning American flags, carrying signs that say 'Make America Mexico Again,' brandishing Mexican flags & funded by Soros. You have a domestic terrorist group funded by Soros that has already provoked the murder of several police officers in Dallas chanting 'What do we want? Dead pigs. When do we want it? Now!' You seem to have lost ALL sense of proportion & perspective.

What stance do I think law enforcement will take now? I think that the vast majority of law enforcement officers will CONTINUE to take the stance of behaving professionally & competently in the exercise of their duties. Perhaps even moreso now that they have a president who shows them the respect they have earned and deserve for putting their lives on the line every day. A president who will make America a Nation of Laws again.

 mikeh, on 2016-November-16, 12:59, said:

So...I go back to where I came in....your criticisms of his apparent selection of cabinet members suggests an element of rationality on your part, so why destroy that with those cartoon images?

Because we wouldn't be having this conversation that some lurkers or future academics might learn from if I had? Because I'm not here to conform to your (pathologically flawed imo) perception of what is or isn't rational? Obviously you'll agree with me most of the time when I criticize Trump. And you'll disagree with me when I post a clever image mocking the hypocrisy of Hillary supporters. But I'm here to express my perspective, and to shed a little light on the truth that's been hidden from people whose only source of news is the corrupt corporate pro-Hillary MSM, or their Facebook bubble, not to get you (or anyone else, for that matter) to agree with me. If I want to talk to people who agree with me I'll go post to my echo chamber on Twitter.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, you may return to bullying a woman on the Internet because you disagree with her political views.