What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Kepler said:
As if on cue, a great example of what Rover et al. were discussing earlier about Trump's ability to wound GOP candidates. The call is coming from inside the house.

If the Donald were a deliberate saboteur he could not be more damaging to Republicans either individually or as a group.
Click to expand...

Lets call it as we see it. Jebbers! is a candy @ ss pretty boy who's never had to slug it out with anybody or anything in his whole life. I like to stand up for myself but I don't go around picking fights with NFL defensive linemen because it probably wouldn't end well for me. Likewise, Jebbers! needs to stay on the shallow end of the pool on this one. In a war of the words he's going to get killed, especially when Trump asks him if he's ever accomplished anything that didn't involve using family connections. I'm guessing the answer is NO.
 
Rover said:
I don't recall joe saying he wanted to deny them rights. I'm not sure if he supports calling SSM something else (civil unions) with the same rights or not but I'll let him answer for himself. What I'm saying is that we can give people some time to get on board with where we are right now. I'm as arrogant as the day is long and I'm proud of it. However, even I realize not everybody is going to get to the same place as I am at the same time. But, if these people are going to get there in short order, I'm not sure public shaming is the best way to go in the meantime.
Click to expand...

The whole starting point for this conversation was him asking if one could support gay people without being in favor of gay marriage. The board responded with a resounding "no." He said he'll disagree with the board until the cows come home. It's clear where his stance is.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Rover said:
Lets call it as we see it. Jebbers! is a candy @ ss pretty boy who's never had to slug it out with anybody or anything in his whole life.
Click to expand...

The personal characteristics of the candidate matter very little. Dubya was a cowardly lout; Reagan was an actor who couldn't do anything without spending three hours in Hair & Makeup. Yet both had images managed with expert care by advisers and technicians twenty times more competent than they. Jeb! has enough money to buy a crafted image and then inundate the public with it 24/7 until it sticks. Optically, he'll be packaged beautifully.

But he can't change his history of positions and Trump has all the ammo he needs. He's going to do a lot of damage to Jeb! before he fades or flounces off.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Kepler said:
If you love somebody but would deny them a basic right and dignity... you're still denying them a basic right and dignity.

Nobody's hating you "just to hate," whatever that means, so don't play that martyr card. They're hating hate. Obviously you don't understand your belief is hateful because as a good person you wouldn't consciously hold a hateful belief, but regardless of whether it comes from Bentham, the Bible or the Brady Bunch the consequences of your belief are destructive to the happiness of otherwise innocent people, and that is A Bad Thing by any standard of ethics.

You can use the Man in the Sky to justify any behavior and then claim "but it's my sincere belief." That in itself has no meaning ethically -- what matters is whether the enshrinement of your belief in practical ways like the legal code would hurt people. It would.

tl; dr: Ethics > Scripture.
Click to expand...

Bob Gray said:
You're right. Haters are gonna hate. And they'll keep hating until we think and act as they wish us to.
Click to expand...

Clearly, I must not have typed my thoughts well as both of you misconstrued them.

I think that is where a lot of Christians will end up. Unfortunately, there will always be those people who hate just to hate.
Click to expand...

The hating part was in reference to people hating gays just because they want to hate. Not people hating me and me somehow being offended by it.

My question was more focused on my thoughts of people who are gay as sinners and wrong (just like I am for my many other reasons) and if that makes me a bigot even if I don't want to deny gays the same basic rights that I have. People seem to lump all Christians into this big hateful group when from my perspective, most of my Christian friends and those I interact with are more along the "it's not my job to judge you" view. We are undoubtedly less vocal than other Christians that unfortunately are the ones who hate just to hate.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

An interesting hypothetical about how Trump could get to the convention with a plurality, but it doesn't go where I assumed it was leading. The thesis is that Trump could wind up with 30% of the delegates and a plurality at the convention simply by not imploding before NH, sweeping the lead in the proportional states, and then winning enough of the winner take all states on the strength of his lead in the national polls.

Well, and good, but what then? The writer notes there is a huge (40% or more) number of GOP voters who will never back Trump no matter what. So the inevitable conclusion is at a brokered convention Trump cannot win. Somebody (hint: Rubio or I suppose maybe Walker) would emerge as a compromise candidate between the Know Nothings, theocons and corporatecons.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

cF[Authentic] said:
The hating part was in reference to people hating gays just because they want to hate.
Click to expand...

Ah, I get it. You're right, I completely misunderstood. :)

Your points on the earnest Christian attempt to separate the sin and the sinner and love the latter as a brother are also well taken, as that idea has cropped up in every culture regardless of creed as a way of both honoring one's personal beliefs but also living together without killing one another. More of that, please.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Kepler said:
An interesting hypothetical about how Trump could get to the convention with a plurality, but it doesn't go where I assumed it was leading. The thesis is that Trump could wind up with 30% of the delegates and a plurality at the convention simply by not imploding before NH, sweeping the lead in the proportional states, and then winning enough of the winner take all states on the strength of his lead in the national polls.

Well, and good, but what then? The writer notes there is a huge (40% or more) number of GOP voters who will never back Trump no matter what. So the inevitable conclusion is at a brokered convention Trump cannot win. Somebody (hint: Rubio or I suppose maybe Walker) would emerge as a compromise candidate between the Know Nothings, theocons and corporatecons.
Click to expand...

I'm curious how people don't consider what Trump has done already as "Imploding." Somehow, his numbers keep going up and I don't want to be associated with the loons who think his viewpoints are helpful at all.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

French Rage said:
Yeah, but those other things only make up the non-aborition 10% of what they do.*

* Source: Jon Kyl

Seriously, who believes this ****?
Click to expand...

People who get their news from right wing sources. I would guess the vast majority of my co-workers honestly think PP does 90% abortions, because that's what Hannity and O'Reilly tell them. How could they possibly know any different, when any fact that is juxtaposed to their indoctrination is "liberal bias," and when any independent academic or scientific analysis is "secular humanism!"? It's a perfect, hermetically sealed biosphere. Ailes & Co. managed to create their own alternate reality and lock their voters inside it, just like they planned.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

unofan said:
The whole starting point for this conversation was him asking if one could support gay people without being in favor of gay marriage. The board responded with a resounding "no." He said he'll disagree with the board until the cows come home. It's clear where his stance is.
Click to expand...
Technically, I think Joe asked if it was possible to be against gay marriage but still be "friendly/neutral" to gay people. I think you clearly can. I'm sure that you as a lawyer find yourself in a spot where you are 100% against someone else or the position that they are taking, but you still interact with them in a friendly/neutral manner.
 
SJHovey said:
Technically, I think Joe asked if it was possible to be against gay marriage but still be "friendly/neutral" to gay people. I think you clearly can. I'm sure that you as a lawyer find yourself in a spot where you are 100% against someone else or the position that they are taking, but you still interact with them in a friendly/neutral manner.
Click to expand...

He said "friendly/neutral to the gay crowd."

The rational inference is that he was talking about the group as a whole, not individual interactions. I, and apparently everyone else on the board, read it that way.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

I don't think Kasich and Fiorina's so called rise is sustainable. They've both been getting gold-plated coverage lately from the media which is no doubt fueling their rise. In general though I'm kinda curious if the likely voters they're polling now are the same people who will show up in the primary, because I doubt 10% of the NH electorate knows who the F Kasich is.
 
Rover said:
I don't think Kasich and Fiorina's so called rise is sustainable. They've both been getting gold-plated coverage lately from the media which is no doubt fueling their rise. In general though I'm kinda curious if the likely voters they're polling now are the same people who will show up in the primary, because I doubt 10% of the NH electorate knows who the F Kasich is.
Click to expand...

NH has been getting smarter since the MASS exodus of taxpaying Former MA residents has been going on the past decade.

You should give them more credit :D
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Rover said:
I don't think Kasich and Fiorina's so called rise is sustainable. They've both been getting gold-plated coverage lately from the media which is no doubt fueling their rise. In general though I'm kinda curious if the likely voters they're polling now are the same people who will show up in the primary, because I doubt 10% of the NH electorate knows who the F Kasich is.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on Fiorina, who only got positive coverage because she was unique in not drooling into her sleeve during the short(er) bus debate. Kasich I dunno -- he's showing a lot more campaigning chops than anybody figured, and playing the moderate card is not a bad idea for NH. I would think it would kill him in IA and SC, though. He has thumped exactly zero bibles so far, and that won't endear him to the FRC imams.

He threw out the "teachers lounge" crack, though, so he's not above derping to the herpa-derps as needed.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Kepler said:
What a maroon.
Click to expand...

Everyone in that party is an idiot. Everyone. It's not even close anymore. They can't help themselves.

Foxton said:
Research into possible legit voter fraud, republicans should be all over supporting this.... well except that the fraud is widespread and would be in their favor so they are trying to block it.

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article17139890.html
http://ksn.com/2015/08/24/kansas-seeks-to-block-release-of-voting-machine-paper-tapes/
Click to expand...

Standard hypocrisy of the party. It never leaves them. They never deviate.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top