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 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
Wisko McBadgerton
Teaching you how to Bucky.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
I watched part of the speech as it was nearby and local channels all carried it. I don't know this to be true but it could possibly be referring to the power of the President under current US law to declare a US citizen an enemy combatant. President Obama has basically refused to do this in any case as far as I know. The main case that it was called for was in the Boston bombings. If a president were to do so, they can suspend Miranda rights and remand the prisoner to military custody almost indefinitely. (Until hostilities cease.) A court has to review the evidence against the prisoner but essentially has to assume the Government is telling the truth when it presents said evidence. IIRC Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain were the main proponents of doing so in that case.
I watched part of the speech as it was nearby and local channels all carried it. I don't know this to be true but it could possibly be referring to the power of the President under current US law to declare a US citizen an enemy combatant. President Obama has basically refused to do this in any case as far as I know. The main case that it was called for was in the Boston bombings. If a president were to do so, they can suspend Miranda rights and remand the prisoner to military custody almost indefinitely. (Until hostilities cease.) A court has to review the evidence against the prisoner but essentially has to assume the Government is telling the truth when it presents said evidence. IIRC Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain were the main proponents of doing so in that case.
Wisko McBadgerton
Teaching you how to Bucky.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
Pro tip:
Whatever John McCain (circa 2000+) and Lindsey Graham want to do, do the opposite.
Pro tip:
Whatever John McCain (circa 2000+) and Lindsey Graham want to do, do the opposite.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
He does love his 2nd amendment though...
He does love his 2nd amendment though...
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
That is a terrible idea...the fact that Lindsay and his Hetero Lifemate like it further proves it is horrid.
That is a terrible idea...the fact that Lindsay and his Hetero Lifemate like it further proves it is horrid.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
I finally had time to watch South Park Season 20 Episode 1. Who doesn't love a good reboot.
(Giant ****** v. Turd Sandwich) 2.0
I finally had time to watch South Park Season 20 Episode 1. Who doesn't love a good reboot.
(Giant ****** v. Turd Sandwich) 2.0
Twitch Boy
Defacing this tagline is a MAX foul
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
Which says nothing about a downturn due to the economic policies of Obama (nor Hillary/Dems by proxy) as another poster so painfully tried to assert. As for said paralysis toward the economy given how many economists have warned us about what Trump will do to it no one could logically put that more on the thought of Hillary winning than Trump. In fact reacting fearfully to her in this manner is patently absurd, but it's what the GOP has become these days. Narcissistic, full of hyperbole, scared and isolated. That's no way to run a country.
Which says nothing about a downturn due to the economic policies of Obama (nor Hillary/Dems by proxy) as another poster so painfully tried to assert. As for said paralysis toward the economy given how many economists have warned us about what Trump will do to it no one could logically put that more on the thought of Hillary winning than Trump. In fact reacting fearfully to her in this manner is patently absurd, but it's what the GOP has become these days. Narcissistic, full of hyperbole, scared and isolated. That's no way to run a country.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
I'm no happier about it than you are. Ten years ago on this site I opined (and believed) that there were two kinds of voters: independents and idiots. And now it's come to this.
The sight of the gallows sharpens the mind.
I'm no happier about it than you are. Ten years ago on this site I opined (and believed) that there were two kinds of voters: independents and idiots. And now it's come to this.
The sight of the gallows sharpens the mind.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
Bush I is Voting For Hillary
Not exactly shocking news but still...
Bush I is Voting For Hillary
Not exactly shocking news but still...
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
I do not think the two nominees are remotely comparable. Hillary is "bad" in the way that the other side's candidate is always "bad." Trump is actually, objectively, bad. Most major Republican figures boycotted their own convention because he was the nominee. The most respected members of prior Republican administrations are supporting the Democratic nominee. Many reasonable and experienced figures, some of them prior GOP cabinet members, dismiss him out of hand or even decry him as a danger.
Trump is unprecedented in each of at least three ways:
1. He lies with no compunction. (Even Nixon felt guilty, and even Bill and Hillary are careful to lawyer their points.)
2. He lacks any knowledge and is entirely intellectually incurious. (The only precedent is Palin, a Veep nominee.)
3. He has neither understanding of nor respect for American republican values. (Nixon's paranoia overwhelmed his respect for our values, be he shared those values.)
Trump is an actual narcissist, not a guy with narcissistic tendencies. Trump is actually morally empty, not a guy with tendencies to short cut or rationalize.
This is what an authoritarian cult of personality looks like as it is reaching for power. Again: how many red flags do you need?
First, I'm not so sure if given the Presidency I may not befall my lesser angels. I'll be a benevolent dictator, honest.
And I do believe in the system of governance, the Constitution, that got us here.
But when you say, " ... he shouldn't have the support of a major party and all their camp followers but he does, because of they are playing to their personal political advantage,"
Firstly, who are you to decide which candidate a major party should choose. I won't dare claim that for the Ds, Rs, Ls, et al. I know who I'd prefer, but I may not be in the majority.
Next, when, ever, in the history of mankind, has "personal political advantage" not been Rule 1 in politics.
Trump is nothing new; he's just the despicable response to the despicable system we've grown, an "outsider", writ large and on full display.
His primary opponent? She's the epic despicable insider of the despicable system.
What an awesome choice.
And yes, the system is despicable right now. But it's not irreparable. I do believe there are still a few good people out there ... somewhere.
I do not think the two nominees are remotely comparable. Hillary is "bad" in the way that the other side's candidate is always "bad." Trump is actually, objectively, bad. Most major Republican figures boycotted their own convention because he was the nominee. The most respected members of prior Republican administrations are supporting the Democratic nominee. Many reasonable and experienced figures, some of them prior GOP cabinet members, dismiss him out of hand or even decry him as a danger.
Trump is unprecedented in each of at least three ways:
1. He lies with no compunction. (Even Nixon felt guilty, and even Bill and Hillary are careful to lawyer their points.)
2. He lacks any knowledge and is entirely intellectually incurious. (The only precedent is Palin, a Veep nominee.)
3. He has neither understanding of nor respect for American republican values. (Nixon's paranoia overwhelmed his respect for our values, be he shared those values.)
Trump is an actual narcissist, not a guy with narcissistic tendencies. Trump is actually morally empty, not a guy with tendencies to short cut or rationalize.
This is what an authoritarian cult of personality looks like as it is reaching for power. Again: how many red flags do you need?
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
Wait, the backseat psychologist in me needs me to ask:
Isn't a psychopath someone who is morally empty and without feeling? Isn't a narcissist just someone who thinks they are the best. They still have morals, just misguided morals at times?
Other than that, it's a great summary of how I feel and why I made the post about respecting someone else's vote until this election.
Wait, the backseat psychologist in me needs me to ask:
Isn't a psychopath someone who is morally empty and without feeling? Isn't a narcissist just someone who thinks they are the best. They still have morals, just misguided morals at times?
Other than that, it's a great summary of how I feel and why I made the post about respecting someone else's vote until this election.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
My jaw dropped when I saw this. Quietly voting for someone across the aisle is one thing, but when you family is the standard-bearer of a party and you publicly announce you are supporting the Democratic nominee, that's a very big deal.
I know Laura Bush has intimated she's voting for Hillary. But this is a much bigger deal.
My jaw dropped when I saw this. Quietly voting for someone across the aisle is one thing, but when you family is the standard-bearer of a party and you publicly announce you are supporting the Democratic nominee, that's a very big deal.
I know Laura Bush has intimated she's voting for Hillary. But this is a much bigger deal.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
Here's a comparison between a sociopath and a narcissist. I'm not sure whether a "psychopath" is a real category (though it is mentioned in the piece as being synonymous with sociopath). I think of it as 'bloid bait in stories about brutal killings.
Based on the article, I agree with you that Trump displays far more the characteristics of a narcissist. His sociopathic-like behaviors I'd ascribe to the similarities noted.
Here's a comparison between a sociopath and a narcissist. I'm not sure whether a "psychopath" is a real category (though it is mentioned in the piece as being synonymous with sociopath). I think of it as 'bloid bait in stories about brutal killings.
Based on the article, I agree with you that Trump displays far more the characteristics of a narcissist. His sociopathic-like behaviors I'd ascribe to the similarities noted.
Last edited:
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
Interesting, you might be right:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
Though, it appears to be complicated.
Interesting, you might be right:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
Though, it appears to be complicated.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable
It's not a full public announcement -- his spokesman walked it back and said his vote is secret (though he said nothing to deny it) but yeah this has all the fingerprints of a deliberately leaked statement that then can be disavowed to avoid bad fallout.
It is striking how worried former senior decision makers (in this case, an actual president) are at the prospect. This suggests to me that a reliance on checks and balances is not sufficient: they only work when those branches are staffed by decisive people of good intent. Does that sound like Mitch McConnell or Chuck Schumer to anybody?
It's not a full public announcement -- his spokesman walked it back and said his vote is secret (though he said nothing to deny it) but yeah this has all the fingerprints of a deliberately leaked statement that then can be disavowed to avoid bad fallout.
It is striking how worried former senior decision makers (in this case, an actual president) are at the prospect. This suggests to me that a reliance on checks and balances is not sufficient: they only work when those branches are staffed by decisive people of good intent. Does that sound like Mitch McConnell or Chuck Schumer to anybody?
- Status