3 ms·

Where I am it's getting quite late, so I'll continue this a bit tomorrow. >> Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"? > Unfortunatel

Where I am it's getting quite late, so I'll continue this a bit tomorrow. >> Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"? > Unfortunately, yes. Confused about that. I haven't discussed it at all. > That's a silly question. If we're going to have a conversation, that kind of thing is right out. Deal? You still haven't really answered the question I've been asking repeatedly. A little bit, but not to the depth you're asking of me.

pstuart 4y ago
First and foremost, I appreciate the civil dialog and will do my best to maintain it; I'm doing this because of a desperate desire to find some commonality, not to score points. >> That's a silly question. You asked for numbers of a population that has no census, I stated that it was significant, which is the point in question. I can prove that those people exist and then it's a matter of threshold. E.g, "how many atoms in that falling piano" -- "enough to kill you if it hits you". > You still haven't really answered the question I've been asking repeatedly I don't follow, will review the thread(s) again to see what that is (would have helped to reiterate btw). The irony is that I'm feeling the same way (do you care about the corruption of the Trump administration as well?) Let's return when time allows? My intentions are honorable and maybe something positive could come of it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rendall 4y ago
  > You asked for numbers of a population that has no census, I stated that it was significant, which is the point in question. I can prove that those people exist and then it's a matter of threshold. E.g, "how many atoms in that falling piano" -- "enough to kill you if it hits you". You could have stated all of that without insult. I probably travel in different circles than you do, but Americans voting from the motivation of "hate" is not in my experience. Short-sighted self-interest, definitely. Way too influenced by partisan propaganda, absolutely. Hate per se, not so much. Whether your experience is truer than mine, dunno. But asking what you meant isn't silly, and if you do it again, I'll end the conversation. What is in my experience, though, the accusation of hate is often used in one-word partisan dismissal of valid concerns. For instance, rural voters have suffered economic devastation from government policies. They tend to perceive coastal elites as ignoring their concerns. True or not, coastal voters, including nearly all journalists and pundits, all agree with each other that this is definitely not actually true. And let's just say the quiet part out loud: rural people are Jesus obsessed, homophobic, uneducated, gullible, AM-radio-addicted racists. Their voting for Trump is therefore entirely due to white fragility and other irrationality, and there is zero - absolutely zero - valid reason to vote for him. Clinton was clearly the better choice, and any concerns about her were entirely due to sexism and lies. This is all so clear, that any disagreement at all is silly, am I right?
  - pstuart 4y ago
    I said silly, not stupid. No insult implied -- we all sometimes ask "wrong" questions. Clinton actually was the better choice; in fact, technically one of the most qualified candidates in history (trained lawyer, 8 years in the white house next to the president, a stint as US senator and then as secretary of state). Versus a reality teevee "billionaire" with a long track record of (likely) criminal behavior and clear narcissistic tendencies. It was a popularity contest and Mrs. Clinton, whilst intelligent and experienced, lacks the charisma of her husband and has had decades of coordinated conditioning of hate. Hell, I voted for her and resented her for being the only choice (but could safely assume she'd at least hold to the status quo). I felt like she thought she was entitled to the office.... > rural voters have suffered economic devastation from government policies I challenge that -- re: the government. They have been decimated but by big business that moved their jobs offshore. Anything the government did to allow that was influenced by same big business that effectively controls the government. And that quiet part out loud? I see plenty of evidence to support that as a theme (and why I asked about your faith). We are not rational actors, we are emotional responders (yes, there are exceptions but it still holds). Gods, Guns, and Gays are mainstays of political messaging to instill fear and anger. Just look at the anti-trans stuff happening now: fear baiting. The party of small government wants to pass laws against people having control over their own bodies. As a nod to the concerns in that realm, I recognize and agree that athletic competition should be able to decide if/how they want to allow competition with transitioned people. One last thought for this pass: I encountered a Trump supporter who declared she hoped Trump would "burn Washington to the ground". I assume she's not alone in that, and that frustration is understandable. But.... then you're left with nothing and need to rebuild and no thought is given to what should rise up to replace it. Hating government is stupid, as "government" is inevitable in society and as bad as it is today there's plenty of ways to make it worse (e.g., a Kleptocratic Mafia State like Russia (whose head Mr. Trump appears to be unduly devoted to)).
    - rendall 4y ago
      > Clinton actually was the better choice; in fact, technically one of the most qualified candidates in history Personally speaking, I did not like how she and her colluders ran down the Sanders campaign. Their characterization of his supporters as sexists and racist was fundamentally, profoundly dishonest. They could have addressed his policy proposals, but went the other way. This led me to understand that this would be what we could expect from her Presidency. Before that, I was open to Clinton. After her loss, I had been hoping for a Democratic party introspection about the way they had run this campaign and a house cleaning. Instead, we got enablers, diversion and outright lies. A shuffling of the worst actors, but no purge. Extremely disappointing. We still have never had an honest accounting for that debacle, and I remember and distrust every news outlet and commentator that repeated those lies. I want to be clear that I did not vote for Trump, either. But he was not the worst President in my living memory. That honor goes to the President who lied to the public in order to get us into two (2) ruinous, useless wars and did not adequately prepare successfully for the occupation. Honestly, not having tentacles throughout government is a bonus, to my mind.

pstuart 4y ago

First and foremost, I appreciate the civil dialog and will do my best to maintain it; I'm doing this because of a desperate desire to find some commonality, not to score points. >> That's a silly question. You asked for numbers of a population that has no census, I stated that it was significant, which is the point in question. I can prove that those people exist and then it's a matter of threshold. E.g, "how many atoms in that falling piano" -- "enough to kill you if it hits you". > You still haven't really answered the question I've been asking repeatedly I don't follow, will review the thread(s) again to see what that is (would have helped to reiterate btw). The irony is that I'm feeling the same way (do you care about the corruption of the Trump administration as well?) Let's return when time allows? My intentions are honorable and maybe something positive could come of it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rendall 4y ago
> You asked for numbers of a population that has no census, I stated that it was significant, which is the point in question. I can prove that those people exist and then it's a matter of threshold. E.g, "how many atoms in that falling piano" -- "enough to kill you if it hits you". You could have stated all of that without insult. I probably travel in different circles than you do, but Americans voting from the motivation of "hate" is not in my experience. Short-sighted self-interest, definitely. Way too influenced by partisan propaganda, absolutely. Hate per se, not so much. Whether your experience is truer than mine, dunno. But asking what you meant isn't silly, and if you do it again, I'll end the conversation. What is in my experience, though, the accusation of hate is often used in one-word partisan dismissal of valid concerns. For instance, rural voters have suffered economic devastation from government policies. They tend to perceive coastal elites as ignoring their concerns. True or not, coastal voters, including nearly all journalists and pundits, all agree with each other that this is definitely not actually true. And let's just say the quiet part out loud: rural people are Jesus obsessed, homophobic, uneducated, gullible, AM-radio-addicted racists. Their voting for Trump is therefore entirely due to white fragility and other irrationality, and there is zero - absolutely zero - valid reason to vote for him. Clinton was clearly the better choice, and any concerns about her were entirely due to sexism and lies. This is all so clear, that any disagreement at all is silly, am I right?
- pstuart 4y ago
  I said silly, not stupid. No insult implied -- we all sometimes ask "wrong" questions. Clinton actually was the better choice; in fact, technically one of the most qualified candidates in history (trained lawyer, 8 years in the white house next to the president, a stint as US senator and then as secretary of state). Versus a reality teevee "billionaire" with a long track record of (likely) criminal behavior and clear narcissistic tendencies. It was a popularity contest and Mrs. Clinton, whilst intelligent and experienced, lacks the charisma of her husband and has had decades of coordinated conditioning of hate. Hell, I voted for her and resented her for being the only choice (but could safely assume she'd at least hold to the status quo). I felt like she thought she was entitled to the office.... > rural voters have suffered economic devastation from government policies I challenge that -- re: the government. They have been decimated but by big business that moved their jobs offshore. Anything the government did to allow that was influenced by same big business that effectively controls the government. And that quiet part out loud? I see plenty of evidence to support that as a theme (and why I asked about your faith). We are not rational actors, we are emotional responders (yes, there are exceptions but it still holds). Gods, Guns, and Gays are mainstays of political messaging to instill fear and anger. Just look at the anti-trans stuff happening now: fear baiting. The party of small government wants to pass laws against people having control over their own bodies. As a nod to the concerns in that realm, I recognize and agree that athletic competition should be able to decide if/how they want to allow competition with transitioned people. One last thought for this pass: I encountered a Trump supporter who declared she hoped Trump would "burn Washington to the ground". I assume she's not alone in that, and that frustration is understandable. But.... then you're left with nothing and need to rebuild and no thought is given to what should rise up to replace it. Hating government is stupid, as "government" is inevitable in society and as bad as it is today there's plenty of ways to make it worse (e.g., a Kleptocratic Mafia State like Russia (whose head Mr. Trump appears to be unduly devoted to)).
  - rendall 4y ago
    > Clinton actually was the better choice; in fact, technically one of the most qualified candidates in history Personally speaking, I did not like how she and her colluders ran down the Sanders campaign. Their characterization of his supporters as sexists and racist was fundamentally, profoundly dishonest. They could have addressed his policy proposals, but went the other way. This led me to understand that this would be what we could expect from her Presidency. Before that, I was open to Clinton. After her loss, I had been hoping for a Democratic party introspection about the way they had run this campaign and a house cleaning. Instead, we got enablers, diversion and outright lies. A shuffling of the worst actors, but no purge. Extremely disappointing. We still have never had an honest accounting for that debacle, and I remember and distrust every news outlet and commentator that repeated those lies. I want to be clear that I did not vote for Trump, either. But he was not the worst President in my living memory. That honor goes to the President who lied to the public in order to get us into two (2) ruinous, useless wars and did not adequately prepare successfully for the occupation. Honestly, not having tentacles throughout government is a bonus, to my mind.