Community >> View Post
Post By
MysteryMan

Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 642
In Reply To
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,108
Subj: Re: Mixed feelings...
Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 at 11:07:20 am EDT (Viewed 43 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Mixed feelings...
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 at 11:57:27 am EDT (Viewed 47 times)



    Quote:
    I gave a pretty long reply and deleted it after thinking about it. I made a mistake and did not want to reach the same level of nastiness, but I will make a few points.

Had to re-write mine 3 or 4 times with the issues we keep having on the site myself.But go ahead and be nasty...already feel you did so with 1st reply.

    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:

                Quote:
                Just wondering about everyone's position here.

                Quote:

                  Quote:
                  While I sympathize with (Kaepernick's) initial reasoning, I'm not sure I agree with kneeling. Whatever social niggles the US has, the flag and National Anthem are as much to honor those who fought and/or died for the country.

                  Quote:

                    Quote:
                    That said, my opinion shifted once Trump weighed in. A President suggesting people be fired (i.e. punished) for kneeling during the National Anthem makes it a direct case of government interfering with freedom of speech, something those same soldiers fought and died defending.

              Quote:

                Quote:
                I find it hard to feel for these rich millionaires and their complaints that THEY are mistreated. The same guys who are basically paid to play a game all through college while the rest of us have to actually work for our grades.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              I am confused as to why this has a barring on if they have been mistreated in the past or know people who are. They have a platform where they can be noticed and they chose to. That is their right.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            I am questioning their motives and "lack" of standing up for the injustices THEY have benefitted from.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Such as? But you are willing to accept the hypocrisy for the side condemning them? Trump for instance does not have legs to stand on with anything regarding the troops.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Straw man argument. Where did I say I accepted such hypocrisy?



    Quote:
    Your overall arguments and responses never discuss them, but attack the players. Even your criticism of Trump is only after you go after the media and say what he should have said. Not that you disagree that he said something or that those agreeing with him are bad too.
No if anything I implied he should have kept his mouth shut. MY statement was directed at "IF" he was going to reply he should have replied with something less childish and gave an example. I think BOTH sides are idiots...if you look at the title of my reply it was "Mixed Feelings". I think both sides are being ridiculous. The only leaning I might have is that spoiled brat millionaires started it first by complaining about how unfair their life is when its faaaaaarrrrr better than most. And Trump and certain fans increased the overall poop-fest by being no better. It's not hypocrisy to say both sides are full of it. And its a simple fact that the players protest started it all...they are the instigators but it takes 2 idiots to keep a fight going.I'll clarify since you seem to take almost all my comments and say they support Trumps and/or "conservative right:...fans that lose interest in FBall are not automatically included...as always it depends on HOW or WHY they lose interest/protest or not.


    Quote:
    Given your focus and the clarification to the comments it seems fairly clear that you put more blame on the players. Meaning you find one sides hypocrisy more acceptible.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Straw man argument 2. Where did I say anything remotely like he hada leg to stand on?



    Quote:
    You did not, but I take a bit of an issue here. This whole strawman thing that you are doing in this post is very confrontational. Particularly in light of you calling on a few questionable strawmen that could be misstatements or needing clarification. You also make a few of your own later.
No my comments on the straw man cases you made are accurate.The definition of staw man - A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.


    Quote:
    This is more an example of my poor wording and phrasing. You did not say it, but I brought it up intended to make a point. Trump and those with this view are commonly wrapping themselves in the flag.
You brought it up and throughout your post claim I support Trump...so you were telling me he had no leg to stand on. Trump is two-faced. He spouts military support one day and insults them the next. I already know he has no leg to stand on, you don't have to sway me because I never said he did. And re-iterated right here he does not.


    Quote:
    Which is ironic for a guy like Trump, given that he uses veterans and rips them off as needed.
I'd add shady and manipulative and a lot of other not so positive descriptive words.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:
            They could be fired for it too, but they are within their rights. I just think you are mixing loads of issues that have no barring here.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            I pretty flatly stated it was within their rights. Not mixing anything.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Yes you are, you are bringing up money and other things that have no barring on the matter.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Money/power plays a part in everything sadly.



    Quote:
    How are they making money out of these protests? When many advertisers or sponsors are nervous and could cut some of their money?
They are getting free publicity...and LOTS of it. It could go either way depending on public opinion, forget who said it but the quote is something like this though..."Any publicity...even bad publicity is good publicity". The media LOVESSSS to attack Trump. So why wouldn't they expect a positive response? They just didn't get as much of one as they would have liked.


    Quote:
    For that matter, advantages or no leading to the NFL for being athletes does not diminish the right of expression. Which you seem to bring up as two counter balancing forces in your original argument.
Not sure I understand your comment here...so I will re-iterate mine...Iwas 100% behind their right to do this, stupid as I think it was. My exact statement was..."That said...this kind of protest is a very peaceful one and they have every right to do so (and if they suffer commercial contract losses they should not complain). And they have every right to continue to do so. I am curious where this requirement of a national anthem at all sporting events even comes from in the first place. The Olympics? If so is a bunch of millionaires playing for a bunch of billionaires something we should even play the anthem at?"If you notice part of me is even wondering if they should even play Anthems at these games.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:
              No this isn't a conspiracy theory a large percentage of athletes are given many special "privileges" etc...

            Quote:

              Quote:
              Yes, but what does that have to do with what is happening here?

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Their motives as I said above...they are self-motivated. They are hypocrites benefitting from the system and using this for self-promotion. But they sure wouldn't stand up against their own unfair advantageous treatment.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          This is a fair bit of accusation. We know that this happens, but we do not know to the level you are implying here.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        It's rampant and has been going on for decades. The news reports on just such things from time to time.



    Quote:
    Cool, what evidence do you have for that?
Many years of personal experience in different colleges...years of working with professors having friends and co-workers who work with professors, college sports athletes admitting their advantages to my face, as well as all the news reports about how so many of these college players were paid to come play at "University-X".


    Quote:
    I just do not really understand the premise that because they are rich and have enjoyed advantages in the past (of varying natures) that this is a counter point to the ability to do this sort of thing.
That's because I stated very bluntly they have every right to do so. And they have every right to be called on it when they are hypocrites. I know you don't like that word (it seems like you argue against its use or normalize it by saying everyone does it...and correct me if I am wrong) but if we can call Trump on his "no leg to stand on" comments, I am pretty sure we can call the players on this as well.


    Quote:
    I just recall many up in arms now happily defending groups seeking to usurp the idea of the flag and what the US is. But now they turn with venom on those using the right and not really expressing anything bad.



    Quote:
    It goes to my points in my response to the main thread here. I am not sure at what point we only define patriotism by those serving in the armed forces either. As many of these people would be happy to fire government workers or see them fired. Despite the fact they are doing a patriotic duty too.
I don't know who is defining patriotism that way. It really wasn't part of the question posed by this thread so not sure why you are brining it up here. It might make for a good "new topic" though if there are a lot of people defining it this way.


    Quote:
    Not saying you are saying that, but I find that to be more of a hypocritical action in this case than anything the players have done so far.
If they are doing it for that reason they are indeed hypocritical.

    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        What are they getting out of this? They are getting hammered by people and so on. Originally it was just a few guys. They were gripped at but largely ignored. Trump made a comment and they all did it out of unity.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        So you think they are getting nothing out of it? Truly?
        For every person ripping on them is another like you defending them.



    Quote:
    I asked you that question. You have not really given a great answer yet. I look forward to one though.
Free publicity. Perhaps thinking the public would back them up and misjudging, and so on.


    Quote:
    The last point is a bit amusing. Because both sides are doing something it means that it is all ok then?
You asked what do they get from this. And implied they only suffer risk by doing so. I pointed out they have defenders as well. Not sure its funny though.Huh? Wha? Trump voters past PC culture? This comment seems to come from out of the blue.


    Quote:
    Aren't Trump voters supposed to be beyond PC culture? Seems they are being awfully easily offended then?



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I just fail to see the crux of your argument at all. As everything you are saying can be turned easily on those criticizing them. I mean the people gripping at them are not saying much most of the time about that sort of thing anyway, they watch them play. Help pay their salaries and so on.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        And they have a lot of people backing them. Heck its pretty safe to badmouth the president...get some great press and people talking about you and look like a hero to those who hate Trump. There is a lot to be gained...and yes they will lose from his supporters.



    Quote:
    So...I don't know how to tell you this but big NFL players already are very popular and have quite a bit of press on their own. Most NFL players are not known too much other than fans and will not last long in the league.
It seems like you did know how to tell me this. Oh wait attempted sarcasm! They are known by die-hard and their team fans quite well. They don't need to last long in the league to permanently benefit from it...unfortunately they often make bad economic decisions that can hurt them down the road. But we are not discussing all the MANY different ways many  pro sports stars make mistakes.


    Quote:
    So, everybody kneeling at once is not going to bring much attention on any one player. Just so we are clear there. Be it popular or not. I would argue it is potentially more detrimental. As I figure more die hard sports fans have conservative leanings. Not all, but I would imagine it edges that way. Seems true from most sports radio I have heard. But I have not listened for a while. Maybe I am wrong now.


    Quote:
    They also lose from people that do not want politics in their escapism. Does not matter if they are backing Trump or not. Just seems like more negatives than not. As people are not really discussing why they are doing it either. Or why they did this action. Just how offended they are by it.
They did not know this before they did it. They clearly didn't expect the negative response...as was reported on ESPN and other sports news networks.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I don't see what's so hard to understand though, my argument is simply they are motivated by self interest not some altruistic motives.



    Quote:
    And you have not been very clear on what self-interest is at play here. What you have elaborated so far does not make much logical sense. Unless maybe they are going to run for liberal office.
So you think its pure altruism? And I have mentioned selfish reasons earlier in the thread. There are more...but you seem to think they are altruistic here since you cannot think of any selfish reasons they would do this yes?


    Quote:
    Many owners, mostly conservative, either kneeled with them or were supportive. You are not commenting on them, or the ones that did. And many of them had more advantages than the players. From wealth since birth in many cases.
Those are the "billionaires" I mentioned in my original post. So yes I did. And they were born with so many silver spoons they should have died from metal toxicity.


    Quote:
    Nor for that matter why it has barring on free speech.
What are you talking about here? This also seems out of the blue. I was very clear I supported their rights to do what they did. I also support the rights of people to call them on it. Both sides have the same right. No matter how wrong both sides are...in their own different ways.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Again, you are mixing various issues together. I am not sure why you do not see that. That they may have had advantageous treatment is not an issue with this. Unless you want to turn it on everything else too. In which case most people and individuals are hypocrites. Flat out.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Sometimes issues are intertwined...news flash. The world is not black and white. \:\)



    Quote:
    They can be, these two are not at all. At least not the two you are forcing in.
Maybe you don't see it.


    Quote:
    It is sports culture vs free speech. That makes zero since to me.
Ok sure...its also free speech in response to free speech. It's also freedom of choice from sports fans in response to players free speech.I'll say it again...both sides have the right and both sides have more than a few people acting the fool.


    Quote:
    Sports culture is bad and has been bad. Not just with what you are talking about either. How about player treatment in some programs and so on. Even in that it is more complicated. One could argue in college particular many players are exploited.
Sure...but they also get many advantages regular students don't. Protections regular students don't. And indirectly they exploit the regular students because the money to perpetuate this system has to come from someone/somewhere.


    Quote:
    Still no bearing on their right to have an opinion that is free from government criticism. As you said, people can tare into them. I get the disrespecting the flag. I do not get your point.
Again. Where did I say that government should have said anything?


    Quote:
    As, if they are being hypocrites for things, those attacking them are being fairly big ones as well. I am really just trying to get you to see that. And you are fighting very hard. And being fairly nasty.
It is not nasty to point out that many of your replies were strong man arguments. You often insert words that were not spoken. Your tone comes across as accusatory. Maybe it is not meant that way but in many threads with those you debate they also have to point out they did not say something you claim/or imply they did. If your simply misunderstanding comments then I apologize. The internet and typed word often fails to fully convey context that can be very important.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      They have had massive advantageous treatment...this is extremely prevalent starting at least at college if not well before.



    Quote:
    So, this is only a problem for the players? You are fine with owners backing the protest. They had more advantages than any of the players we see growing up, or at least many owners are from money.
Sigh...the owners are the BILLIONAIRES I was referring too. In most cases the owners are even worse when it comes to being two-faced.


    Quote:
    I just really fail to see how this matters for this argument. Or is a valid analysis of the issues with sports culture. As the focus is more on what they got that I didn't. Are you mad at the kid that got a scholarship for being poor? Or the kid that had amazing grades. Granted, those do not happen as much as they should.
Not at all. College is for education yes? Or it used to be.


    Quote:
    However, in big time football the players are potentially bringing the university all sorts of money. Money that most players will see nothing of. You can argue they are getting a free ride but most of these guys will not go the NFL, but did contribute to the college teams success, but the university made more on their efforts than the scholarship was worth.
This is a completely different issue. And its a huge problem as Universities become more about being in business than being about education. The Universities benefit from the players and the players benefit from the regular students. So really...its the regular students paying/supporting everything and the players and University exploiting them...the Universities are just on a more massive scale then the Players. Also part of my original comment of the Billionaires and Millionaires playing their games.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:
              That said...this kind of protest is a very peaceful one and they have every right to do so (and if they suffer commercial contract losses they should not complain). And they have every right to continue to do so. I am curious where this requirement of a national anthem at all sporting events even comes from in the first place. The Olympics? If so is a bunch of millionaires playing for a bunch of billionaires something we should even play the anthem at?

              Quote:

                Quote:
                As for Trump...as sick as I am of the media attacking him like rabid dogs over every single thing he does...he's an idiot and his statements here prove it. If he had just said something along the lines of..."They have the right to do this. I feel it is wrong and diminishes those who fight for their very right to protest like this...but it is their right nonetheless." I think he would have a lot more agreement...instead we get a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              I am more sick of those up in arms about this but not as up in arms about other crimes in the NFL. Ray Rice was on video knocking his girlfriend/wife out cold and draggin her out of the elevator. Where were these Patriotic Defense Warriors then?

          Quote:

            Quote:
            I agree 100%. But this also includes these players...where were they when this happened? They like pointing the finger but never at themselves.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Yet you give a pass to the holier than thou viewer who jumps at a chance like this to boycot but not over rape, assault, dog fighting and so on? Isn't that hypocritical of those throwing criticism and starting the whole thing? Trump in particular is the biggest of all and leading this holier than all charge.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Straw man argument 3. Where is the pass I gave? Please show me where I said..."I give a pass to the holier than thou viewer "insert viewer"?

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Straw man argument 4. Where did I say it's ok to "rape, assault, dog fighting and so on?" Did you miss the part (which you even alluded to earlier) where I accuse them of getting unfair advantages?



    Quote:
    You split these two up, my sentence, for some reason. It needs to be read in full.



    Quote:
    The whole thing I say is that you are giving them a pass and then that they (the ones mad about the flag) really did not backlash to the other issues as much as they are this. Thus they are hypocrites.
I don't give them a pass. People have every right to be upset at what the players did and respond in kind. Some of the "counter-protestors" are clearly hypocrites (yes Trump is a good example).


    Quote:
    So, strawman 4 was not even directed at you, much like strawman 1. However with strawman 3. You do not have to really make the statement. Your whole point is fairly critical of the players outside of being supportive of free speech but skeptical because they are hypocrites. You then go after the media and a quote of what Trump should have said.
If Trump was going to say anything...what I put there was quite a bit better I think. As for should he have said anything...no he should have kept his fat mouth shut...but we KNOW he CANNOT.

    Quote:
    You never once bring up those attacking the players. So, I fail to see that the fact you omitted or where not clear reflects on it being a straw man. Even in our back and forths it is clear that you place majority of the blame on the players and will only put anything towards those after them if I prod pretty hard. Or at least that is what it seems.
I thought it was obvious. Some of those attacking the players have a good reason and some of them don't. People have a right to be offended by what the payers did and expressing this needs no defense. And others are complete hypocrites. I am not a mind reader so its hard to tell who is who by anything other than HOW they counter protested.


    Quote:
    A strawman would mean I am making my own argument against what you are saying. You never commented either way on them but given the tennor and what general side you seem to be more leaning towards it is not unreasonable to make a claim that your point is on the same general side. Taken as a whole your message is at the least very unclear, but seems probably that you were not pointing them out for a reason.
A straw man means you say I made an argument for something that I clearly do not support. Example...trump commenting in the first place. Or that I don't protest players harming animals etc...then you argue against this statement I "supposedly made".


    Quote:
    Instead of this straw man thing you could just say I understood you wrong and clarify a bit.
Once again maybe its the artifact of the internet...but I our discussions it seems you always misunderstand me in a particular way. Such as giving trump a pass on all his horse puckie.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Trump is an petulant child. They often have a holier than though attitude...it seems you missed that part too.



    Quote:
    Still a comment about Trump and not those siding with him over the criticism. Trump is not in this alone.
It should be implied if they are siding with Trump solely because of what HE said that they are included. This should not have to be explicitly stated. Now if some people are not happy with what the players did...not based on jumping on Trumps wagon, those people may or may not have a valid point/complaint.This comment at least seems to imply that if you agree with ANYTHING Trump ever says you are in it with Trump alllllllll they way.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Some players have, maybe not enough. However, you are focusing soley on the blame in these issues on one side. The whole thing would not be happening at all if our president just stayed the crap out of things that do not concern him.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Thank you for saying what I already said and then acting like you said it first.



    Quote:
    You never said Trump should stay out of it. You called him a child. Given the sentence before it is unclear if you agree with the premise but just against how he said it.
Well he should stay out of it. A child throwing a temper tantrum shouldn't make comments to the nation.


    Quote:
    The other stuff I said there, you did not say. Or at least not clearly.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        A few players were doing it, most of them did it as unity against what he said. Remember, the guy who said there were good people at a white supremacists rally but called kneeling NFL players SOBs.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Well technically he didn't say all football players were SOB's which would be an equivalent statement, but why do you keep acting like you are pointing out to me that what Trump said was moronic when I said this in my initial post? This is rather bad form in a discussion adding to the 4 straw man arguments you have made so far.



    Quote:
    My quote



    Quote:
    "Remember, the guy who said there were good people at a white supremacists rally but called kneeling NFL players SOBs."



    Quote:
    Never said all. He was clearly referencing kneeling players. So, I was not wrong.



    Quote:
    You never said what he said was terrible. You said he was throwing a temper tantrum. It is not clear in your post if you agree with him and are just against how he said it. Which is fine if you do, but it is not at all clear.
To be extra clear. I think he should have kept his mouth shut. If he had to say something he should clarify he says this as a citizen and not the President, and said something more like I posted. But I think he should have kept his mouth shut.


    Quote:
    I would revisit straw man arguments too. As a few of those are pretty weak.
Not by the definitions I posted.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:
            IMO, Trump should be attacked all of the time. His administration is basically, with or without the media, changing US politics for the worst. Just keep telling lies and expecting everybody to believe you. His base and supporters will believe and defend every lie anyway.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              The toxicity is probably beyond recovery at this point.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            All the time? Really? That's...rather single minded. He should just be attacked regardless of what he says? That's why he will stay in power. Attacking EVERYTHING all the time...will at the very least portray you as even less rational than he is.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          You have the uncanny ability to only hear/read what you want to. He deserves to be attacked all of the time because he is always and doing something worthy of it. He and his administration are constantly lying and hurting people.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        You accuse me of not getting your point (uncanny ability to only hear/read what you want to)...then restate exactly what I understood yet again..."He deserves to be attacked all of the time". Can you see the problem with this?



    Quote:
    This may be my poor ability to phrase things. But I was attempting to clarify my statement to you.



    Quote:
    You are of the mind that most of it should not be reported on because reasons. Which is normalization.
No. I think they ignore the big issues and jump on every little thing. Some of which are not really things.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      No one is ALWAYS doing something worthy of being attacked. He is a buffoon and a moron in many ways, but he is not wrong about every single thing.



    Quote:
    Never said he was always wrong, but he and his administration are always doing or saying something that is pretty bad. Either contradicting each other, refusing to admitt faults and varying degrees of lying. Or just constant bragging about how awesome they are.
Sorry seems like you are self contradicting again. Once again you say "always doing or saying something that is pretty bad".So either he is always wrong....or he can also be right but saying it is a bad thing? Huh? And this still doesn't explain your comment that 100% of what he does should always be attacked. Your quote..."IMO, Trump should be attacked all of the time. ". This is a pretty straight forward statement that he should be attacked ALL the time.


    Quote:
    For years I was led to believe things with the executive have their buck stop with the president. Guess not?
You will need to clarify this statement further. Because I don't think you apply this equally to every President that gets discussed on this board.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      If you believe he is always 100% wrong about every single thing...that is by at least close approximation of the definition of Fanaticism.



    Quote:
    Never said that. Very close a straw man yourself. I said always doing or saying something worthy of attack. They are different.
Ok. So he sometimes says or does things that are correct and should be attacked for it?


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        That you seem to want to gloss over most of it for only the big stuff is just enabling and saying that the other stuff is not a big deal.

      Quote:

        Quote:

        I could say you gloss over the things he sometimes does that are actually positive. Whereas I see he does BOTH. Far far far too much negativity and wrong. But I am sure in your reply you will "gloss" over this.
If I am saying he is more negative than positive how is that glossing things over? I am saying he is not 100% negative. You have stated he should always be attacked on everything he says or does.


    Quote:
    Please, point them out to me. You yourself are saying he is more negative than positive. If one takes the step and includes administrations actions and how they do it. It is not hard to jump to the conclusion that I stated.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        As I have told you many times in other threads, a few down. Those that voted for Trump are the only ones responsible here. They made their choice knowing full well what sort of monster he was and believing his lies.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        You can tell me as many times as you like and you will be wrong that many more times. They are a large PART of the reason of course. The other is the opposing party put a terrible candidate forward, that they have turned deaf ears on the needs of large segments of the people who actually VOTE whereas Trump pandered to them.



    Quote:
    Instead of going into this too much I want to point out the logical inconsistency.



    Quote:
    "You can tell me as many times as you like and you will be wrong that many more times."



    Quote:
    Ok.



    Quote:
    "They are a large PART of the reason of course."



    Quote:
    I am either right or wrong. If you agree with me, even in part, than I am not wrong as you are stating. At least not without you being PARTly wrong too.
Your statement is WRONG. Your quote..."Those that voted for Trump are the only ones responsible here". There are so many other factors..."Those that did not vote for Hillary"..."Hillary's focus on special interest groups and other mistakes"..."DNC shenanigans...Re-districting by the Republican party...Popular vote vs. representative govt...etc...Some of these are the Democrats failures. So they are part of the problem. I have pointed this out in other threads and those supporting a liberal view are in trouble if they don't see their own failures and learn from them and do better. Why is it wrong that I want the Democratic Party to be better than it is? Honestly the reason I don't ask this of the republican Party because I don't think them even capable of it. Which is rather horrifying to me.


    Quote:
    The PART of the reason aspect is mistaken a bit. As you give a reason people voted for him. Somehow exonerating them from their vote. I am not discussing reasons yet. If they voted for him than they ARE the reason. Period.



    Quote:
    Reasons may vary.
And if that reason has anything to do with the failure of his opponent and their party...they SHARE in that blame. PERIOD.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I also find it funny...how you say people believed his lies but voted for him anyways...huh? what?



    Quote:
    Check out the studies on Trump voters where they believe he is lying but still like him just fine and think he is trustworthy. Is this all? No, but you act like I am pulling this out of the sky.
You extensively focus on people such as these. And rarely if ever admit that some of them might have good reasons. You have yet to state a single reason why someone might have had a good reason or at least think they did for voting for him.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      So which is it?

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Are they evil deplorables who voted for Trump the monster?
        or
        Were they duped?



    Quote:
    This is again near a straw man. I only said above that those that voted for him were responsible. I then made to simple a statement about believing his lies. To this you are making a black and white distinction after claiming the world is not.
No you said..."They made their choice knowing full well what sort of monster he was and believing his lies. "


    Quote:
    Anyway, it is a range. Some did it because they do not like illegal immigrants, some did not like Clinton more (for reasons that do not make loads of since in many cases), some were mad about trade, some are racist and saw a kindred spirit (hate groups like Trump), religious conservatives that can only forgive the sins of conservatives and all manor of things. Some were even the average Joe that believed his lies about making things better but having no strategy to do it, other than blaming others.
Ok...but I have to point out the clear slant you provide here. Example you minimize something like..." they do not like illegal immigrants"...brief and putting a purely emotional slant on their reason.Then a longer example of say..."religious conservatives that can only forgive the sins of conservatives and all manor of things".Your bias seems (correct me if I am wrong) VERY clear here in that you are dismissive of some of the "potentially" reasonable reasons and accentuate the negative ones only.


    Quote:
    So, it can and is a range. I recommend you looking into the election read outs instead of stating your opinion as facts and blaming liberals for everything. Both sides had poor candidates. Very poor. They were historically unpopular. And the election was unusual in the sense that it varied wildly from scandal to scandal. Trump had more, but Clinton's was something that was never dropped. Even after she was more or less exonerated.
I did not ONLY blame Liberals. You continually misrepresent what I say. I have said they share to some degree the blame...you have said they share NONE of the blame. I would suggest until you can see the flaws that are there, things will be more difficult to improve.


    Quote:
    Do people have to like her? No. Vote for her? Of course not. But every case against Clinton can be used similarly against Trump. Ironically he even said America does not deserve an administration/president always under investigation. Happening anyway.



    Quote:
    The last boot was the FBI jumping in last second that did seem to have an impact. Now, would Trump have won anyway? Hard to say, but given the data available it did have an impact. And given the unusual swings of the race it is impossible to ignore.



    Quote:
    Never once have I seen you much acknowledge the realities of the elections and the dynamics other than to blame Clinton, Dems or liberals. Maybe I missed it, but you are very happy to just say that Trump is everybodies fault. To some extent, sure. I guess. But those that voted for him have more to answer for than anybody else. You tend to claim the reverse. That they were victims of sorts.

Ok then we finally agree...it's a shared fault on both sides. Now we can get into percentages if you like...but I will state outright I have given up on fixing the Rep Party. They are completely lost to their ideologies.

    Quote:

      Quote:
      You seem to accuse them of both in the same breath but these 2 don't mix well.



    Quote:
    Yes they do, not sure if you pay much attention to voting circles or blocks. But many do not get along great in principle but will vote together. Quite common really.



    Quote:
    Religious conservatives and libertarians for instance.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Sad part is, more American's did not vote for him.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        It's because we are a representative Democracy and not a true Democracy.