POTUS 2016, part 3

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
Locked

Who would you like to see winning the presidency of the U.S.?

Hillary Clinton - (Dem.)
38
47%
Donald Trump - Mike Pence (Rep.)
21
26%
Gary Johnson - Bill Weld (Libertarian)
8
10%
Jill Stein (Green)
14
17%
 
Total votes: 81

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15230
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:51 pm

Cittasanto wrote:
Buddha Vacana wrote:"That’s the perverse logic wrought by decades of dehumanizing rhetoric towards “liberals.”"
And how long have people been called racist, bigots... By liberals?
Far too long.
It that, perhaps, because racists and bigots have been around for a long time?

:reading:
Mike

Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Buddha Vacana » Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:53 pm

Cittasanto wrote:And how long have people been called racist, bigots... By liberals?
Far too long.
Some of them are. Quite a number, apparently. When you hang in Trump supporters group you can see shocking racist rants quite frequently. Should I go and fetch some? Those deserve to be called racists.
Same thing with bigotry. Would you say that the 'Muslim ban' would have nothing to do with bigotry?

So, in all intellectual honesty, what is worse? Calling racists 'racists', or being driven by anger, rage, hatred and voting against your own interests, and the interest of the rest of the world, apart from a few among the wealthiest?

Trump supporters are for the vast majority gullible people who fall for the propaganda orchestrated by the wealthiest against their own interest. People who benefit the most from gvt programs are those who want to see them cut. But only for others, not for themselves.
Last edited by Buddha Vacana on Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

binocular
Posts: 4068
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by binocular » Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:55 pm

Buddha Vacana wrote:So, in all intellectual honesty, what is worse? Calling racists 'racists', or being driven by anger, rage, hatred and voting against your own interests, and the interest of the rest of the world, apart from a few among the wealthiest?
In all intellectual honesty, it appears that people generally live for ego boosts -- and not for such things as clean drinking water, job security, or health care.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6547
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Dec 24, 2016 1:50 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
Buddha Vacana wrote:"That’s the perverse logic wrought by decades of dehumanizing rhetoric towards “liberals.”"
And how long have people been called racist, bigots... By liberals?
Far too long.
It that, perhaps, because racists and bigots have been around for a long time?

:reading:
Mike
There being and anyone who disagrees or supports republicans... Being such... Are not the same thing.

All the post was, was decrying exactly what they themselves do. Look at my last post on the fake news thread.

Kind regards
Cittasanto
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6547
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Dec 24, 2016 1:58 pm

Buddha Vacana wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:And how long have people been called racist, bigots... By liberals?
Far too long.
Some of them are. Quite a number, apparently. When you hang in Trump supporters group you can see shocking racist rants quite frequently. Should I go and fetch some? Those deserve to be called racists.
Same thing with bigotry. Would you say that the 'Muslim ban' would have nothing to do with bigotry?
Look at the context of it being said... And you will see it is more to do with home grown terrorists so fear rather than bigotry is at play.
So, in all intellectual honesty, what is worse? Calling racists 'racists', or being driven by anger, rage, hatred and voting against your own interests, and the interest of the rest of the world, apart from a few among the wealthiest?
Calling all Trump supporters or people who disagree that hillary was the better choice... As bigots, sextist, racist... I find any generalisation intellectually dishonest.
Trump supporters are for the vast majority gullible people who fall for the propaganda orchestrated by the wealthiest against their own interest. People who benefit the most from gvt programs are those who want to see them cut. But only for others, not for themselves.
Seriously
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6547
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:25 pm

Liberal media has spent years teaching its audience that nonliberals are stupid, racist, sexist... if you can not see how that is hypocritical then look at Professor Jordan Patterson who has been called racist, bigoted, a nazi because he won't be dictated to as to what he must say.
The very thing your article decries is exactly what they do.
Kind regards
Cittasanto
Last edited by Cittasanto on Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6547
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:27 pm

Cittasanto wrote:Liberal media has spent years teaching its audience that nonliberals are stupid, racist, sexist... if you can not see how that is hypocritical then look at Professor Jordan Patterson who has been called racist, bigoted, a nazi because he won't be dictated to as to what he must say.
The very thing your article decries is exactly what they do.
Kind regards
Cittasanto
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Buddha Vacana » Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:28 pm

Cittasanto wrote:Calling all Trump supporters or people who disagree that hillary was the better choice... As bigots, sextist, racist...
That's not what people say, for what I have seen. People mostly say that for Trump supporters those things are not deal breakers, which they find very strange. Many Trump supporters keep bashing Michelle Obama for being a shameful human being and praise Melania Trump , who posed naked, as a really classy woman who will bring back elegance to the White House (if she ever goes there). A number of those may still think of themselves as not racists and get outraged that that's what they are called.
I find any generalisation intellectually dishonest.
Isn't that a generalization?

What I personally can't understand is how one may think that reactivating nuclear proliferation is not a major problem and concern for the entire human species. And someone who hasn't even been trusted by his own team to be able to handle his twitter account for only a few hours before the election day is going to have his finger on the red button any time he pleases. Someone who has said about nuclear weapons: 'if we have them, why can't we use them?' Someone who doesn't rule out nuking the Islamic State, apparently without a single thought for innocent civilians. Someone who would be perfectly comfortable with the idea of becoming a mass murderer.
Trump supporters are for the vast majority gullible people who fall for the propaganda orchestrated by the wealthiest against their own interest. People who benefit the most from gvt programs are those who want to see them cut. But only for others, not for themselves.
Seriously
Well, if your point is that they are not people who massively fall for fake news, that they are not supporting someone who wanted to take away their access to affordable care, then we don't live in the same reality. People in red states on average receive more gvt benefits than they pay taxes. Just look it up. Open your eyes.

Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Buddha Vacana » Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:32 pm

Cittasanto wrote:Liberal media has spent years teaching its audience that nonliberals are stupid, racist, sexist... if you can not see how that is hypocritical then look at Professor Jordan Patterson who has been called racist, bigoted, a nazi because he won't be dictated to as to what he must say.
Kind regards
Cittasanto
It's not difficult to find a lot of undue bashing on "nonliberal" media. It goes both ways, and focusing only on one part doesn't give you a fair vision of the whole. But yeah. I see you won't change your mind no matter what, so keep having fun.

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6547
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Dec 24, 2016 8:24 pm

Buddha Vacana wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Calling all Trump supporters or people who disagree that hillary was the better choice... As bigots, sextist, racist...
That's not what people say, for what I have seen. People mostly say that for Trump supporters those things are not deal breakers, which they find very strange. Many Trump supporters keep bashing Michelle Obama for being a shameful human being and praise Melania Trump , who posed naked, as a really classy woman who will bring back elegance to the White House (if she ever goes there). A number of those may still think of themselves as not racists and get outraged that that's what they are called.
it most certainly is what people have said.
Although I have heard people have been critical of Michelle Obama recently I do not know exactly what this has been about. However, you have essentially mirrored those who have called Melania Trump a whore. Don't you see the hypocrisy there? and this is what I profusely laughed at you posting that ridiculous article making claims when that is exactly what liberals have been doing for years also. I am not saying others have not been critical of liberals, there certainly has been valid and invalid criticism, However making out it is not done by liberals makes the article ridiculous as does what you are saying.
If someone doesn't think Michelle has elegance compared to Melania has nothing to do with race, someone can be criticised without their skin colour being relevant.
I find any generalisation intellectually dishonest.
Isn't that a generalization?
no.
What I personally can't understand is how one may think that reactivating nuclear proliferation is not a major problem and concern for the entire human species. And someone who hasn't even been trusted by his own team to be able to handle his twitter account for only a few hours before the election day is going to have his finger on the red button any time he pleases. Someone who has said about nuclear weapons: 'if we have them, why can't we use them?' Someone who doesn't rule out nuking the Islamic State, apparently without a single thought for innocent civilians. Someone who would be perfectly comfortable with the idea of becoming a mass murderer.
Hillary was saying she would start a war with Russia and Syria, and why would trump rule out anything at his disposal if it became necessary, or is he saying these things as a warning and deterant? but that is irrelevant to the double standards of pointing the finger at everyone and acting like your innocent.
Trump supporters are for the vast majority gullible people who fall for the propaganda orchestrated by the wealthiest against their own interest. People who benefit the most from gvt programs are those who want to see them cut. But only for others, not for themselves.
Seriously
Well, if your point is that they are not people who massively fall for fake news, that they are not supporting someone who wanted to take away their access to affordable care, then we don't live in the same reality. People in red states on average receive more gvt benefits than they pay taxes. Just look it up. Open your eyes.
no, my point is your double standards posting an article about people doing what ones own side is doing.
Last edited by Cittasanto on Sat Dec 24, 2016 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6547
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Dec 24, 2016 8:26 pm

Buddha Vacana wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Liberal media has spent years teaching its audience that nonliberals are stupid, racist, sexist... if you can not see how that is hypocritical then look at Professor Jordan Patterson who has been called racist, bigoted, a nazi because he won't be dictated to as to what he must say.
Kind regards
Cittasanto
It's not difficult to find a lot of undue bashing on "nonliberal" media. It goes both ways, and focusing only on one part doesn't give you a fair vision of the whole. But yeah. I see you won't change your mind no matter what, so keep having fun.
and you have demonstrated both ways perfectly. I wasn't arguing what you think, I was laughing at the double standards.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15230
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Dec 24, 2016 8:43 pm

Cittasanto wrote: And how long have people been called racist, bigots... By liberals?
Far too long.
mikenz66 wrote: Is that, perhaps, because racists and bigots have been around for a long time?
Cittasanto wrote: There being and anyone who disagrees or supports republicans... Being such... Are not the same thing.

All the post was, was decrying exactly what they themselves do. Look at my last post on the fake news thread.

Kind regards
Cittasanto

Well, of course it would be silly to lump whole groups together. I don't think anyone is advocating that. "Republican" encompasses a large range of views, and many long term Republicans are appalled by Trump and his methods and attitudes (recall that he's not life-long Republican).

Progress has been made over the past 150 years by calling out racist and sexist laws and attitudes. Clearly there is still some progress to be made.


:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6547
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Dec 24, 2016 9:36 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: And how long have people been called racist, bigots... By liberals?
Far too long.
mikenz66 wrote: Is that, perhaps, because racists and bigots have been around for a long time?
Cittasanto wrote: There being and anyone who disagrees or supports republicans... Being such... Are not the same thing.

All the post was, was decrying exactly what they themselves do. Look at my last post on the fake news thread.

Kind regards
Cittasanto

Well, of course it would be silly to lump whole groups together. I don't think anyone is advocating that. "Republican" encompasses a large range of views, and many long term Republicans are appalled by Trump and his methods and attitudes (recall that he's not life-long Republican).

Progress has been made over the past 150 years by calling out racist and sexist laws and attitudes. Clearly there is still some progress to be made.


:anjali:
Mike
certainly when something is bigoted in some way it should be called out and argued against. However, that is the go-to accusation, without any other explanation needed. Obama can not be criticised without it being racist, Hilary can not be criticised without it being sexist...
When everything is bigoted simply because the person it is aimed at is black, female... then it loses all effect. The problem for progress is the people who use the accusation to shut dissent down, and as the first explanation to something. People aren't bigoted simply because they disagree or dislike someone.

I believe it is quite obvious that trump supporters (for whatever their reason) are being lumped together. even on this page of this thead, "the vast majority of trump supporters are gullable..." is just one of the generalisation made regarding them.

Kind Regards
Cittasanto
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15230
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Dec 24, 2016 9:49 pm

I agree. One should concentrate on the issues, not on trying to discredit whole groups.

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6547
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto » Sat Dec 24, 2016 10:35 pm

mikenz66 wrote:I agree. One should concentrate on the issues, not on trying to discredit whole groups.

:anjali:
Mike
Yes, but there is also other points regarding speakers that need to be considered,such as the way someone speaks. It is quite obvious to me that this is quite often missed regarding Trump, and others. I am sure I shared a video a few pages ago by a youtuber called justicar. He is vry good with how the media and trumps opponents fail to analyse what trump says. Without watching them (again) it is one of these two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPxOodFSEKE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Xf0DbtwHg

Addendum
The reason I share these is so people can actually see how Trump could be understood. People seem to forget Trump is used to the media and he knows how to play the media game. Politicians are good at the media but they also have concerns with the media trump hasn't needed to have.
Last edited by Cittasanto on Sun Dec 25, 2016 12:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15230
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Dec 24, 2016 11:34 pm

Sorry, why should I waste my time with random videos like this one? It's just another example of someone making sweeping generalisations about other groups, which I thought you were against...

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6547
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto » Sun Dec 25, 2016 12:26 am

mikenz66 wrote:Sorry, why should I waste my time with random videos like this one? It's just another example of someone making sweeping generalisations about other groups, which I thought you were against...

:anjali:
Mike
Sorry, I had added an addendum which took a while as I had to leave my computer and I can not remember which video is most relevant. I belive it is the one with leftist fear mongering in the title
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15230
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by mikenz66 » Sun Dec 25, 2016 12:35 am

Yes, he's smart at manipulation of the media. That's obvious. But I thought you were talking about making sweeping generalisations, which all kinds of people of all political persuasions do, including many who support Trump.

It's never much of an argument to find some person, or some article, making sweeping generalisations, and using that to argue that anyone who agrees with some of their ideas is wrong. But that's the level of discourse we often see, here and elsewhere. Luckily it's usually rather easy to spot, and therefore ignore.

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6547
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by Cittasanto » Sun Dec 25, 2016 1:22 am

mikenz66 wrote:Yes, he's smart at manipulation of the media. That's obvious. But I thought you were talking about making sweeping generalisations, which all kinds of people of all political persuasions do, including many who support Trump.

It's never much of an argument to find some person, or some article, making sweeping generalisations, and using that to argue that anyone who agrees with some of their ideas is wrong. But that's the level of discourse we often see, here and elsewhere. Luckily it's usually rather easy to spot, and therefore ignore.

:anjali:
Mike
No, but generalities can be useful, crime statistics and local knowledge can help. knowing violent crime doesn't mean only armed crime or that unarmed doesn't mean non-violent can help law enforcement. or interviewers understanding the need to ask questions some say are victim blaming helps. None of that goes beyond the logical end. And I don't believe the first video (after rewatching) goes further with its generalities than necessary as not everyone in the media or left is doing this so only those who are can be understood to be meant.

Another example is trump supporters themselves. it is obvious only trump supporters voted for trump. but not all trump supporters believed he was going to build a wall. A-it is financially restrictive, and B-it is security restrictive (you can not see them coming). plus some actually saw Trump as the least of two evils. A war with Russia is a bad idea and everything Hilary said indicated a war with Russia, yet Trump can be understood to be either war mongering or puffing his chest out not meant to be taken 100% literally.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15230
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: POTUS 2016, part 3

Post by mikenz66 » Sun Dec 25, 2016 2:16 am

OK, then. Have a great Christmas!

Best Wishes
:anjali:
Mike

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chownah and 20 guests