As I told you before, Jesus came to die on the cross so that you could be saved. He didn't have a martyr complex, he had a job to do, his life for yours. But your cynicism is forgiven because you know not of what you speak. I am not here to die for you. I just post what I see. I see that you are lost like me because you can't forgive, and in your case, can't even see that's the only way back to the Garden. You wish to punish people who already punish themselves more unmercifully then you possible ever can. It's totally irrational. We are what we hate. What are we when we don't? I sell nothing. I ask you that question. All that is of any relevance to me is my answer to me. Your answer is for you alone.
Trump was right... "Make American Great Again..." ".... after I've completely ruined it"
Honestly I think you may well have depressive tendencies, which is caused in large part by genetics & brain chem. And people naturally see themselves in others, so the kind of (self)love you've found soothing is being projected to be similarly effective on others. Someone smart as you should be able to see they're not really like you at all, and likely will never be due to likewise afflictions of chemistry.
These people are IMO clearly just looking out for their own. They talk the good book while wantonly violating it without a second care, so it's not as if they've never been led to water. Trump'll reward them through the treasury, plus whatever else Bannon's looking to do, and they'll be happy for it. You can argue that it's not true scotsman happiness, but it's splitting hairs at that point.
cytg111
Lifer
- Mar 17, 2008
- 26,095
- 15,548
- 136
1prophet
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2005
- 5,313
- 534
- 126
That depends,
if you believe he got rewarded for his martyrdom with rising from the dead, defeating death and getting back all his god powers and dominion over the universe, you could say it didn't work out so bad. in all likelihood.
Good point, especially because he had to have done all that long before he went up there.
I would expect no less from you than knowledge that it is sinful, but, no exceptions allowed. The road is straight and narrow, they say. I created this thread to ask who enjoying it has seen iit bite them in the ass. Is it clear yet to you that Trump is a disaster and that instead of laughing at liberals you should be crying with them?
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
Ahhhhh someone is still in meltdown mode. And to think many thought that it would be LegendKiller and buckshot24.in meltdown mode right now.
buckshot24
Diamond Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 9,916
- 85
- 91
buckshot24
Diamond Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 9,916
- 85
- 91
Those extra votes Hillary got in California "counted" then she would be President-Elect. Nobody was trying to win the popular vote, only losers care about irrelevant moral victory stats. Michigan State had more passing yards than Ohio State today, they won the passing yard contest! The problem is, points is how you win games, not by passing yards advantages. Trump won the voters that decided the election, period. That is the case and none of your protestation matters.
Don't ever confuse facts with your opinion about those facts.
buckshot24
Diamond Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 9,916
- 85
- 91
We're talking about the national vote, Hillary is plus 3.4 million votes as of today in California. Take that margin away and Trump would be ahead. That was my point.
Sunburn74
Diamond Member
- Oct 5, 2009
- 5,076
- 2,635
- 136
That is a ridiculous argument. You could say well get rid of texas votes and she's be even more ahead. Or get rid of PA, MI, and OH and she'd have won the whole thing. Ultimately he won by the nature of the rules, but he can't claim that most people voted for him. The EC is stupid and archaic and I'm sure in the next decade it'll be gone.
buckshot24
Diamond Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 9,916
- 85
- 91
It isn't an argument, just an observation. The voters that Trump and Hillary contested the most, Trump won.
Commodus
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2004
- 9,215
- 6,820
- 136
My point was that the claim Clinton voters were in the "minority" (and thus that Trump had won the broadest public support) is false. Trump got the right votes; he didn't get the most votes. It doesn't change the results, but the notion that he has majority support is, well, unsupported.
Sunburn74
Diamond Member
- Oct 5, 2009
- 5,076
- 2,635
- 136
I find them absolutely revolting. Its almost like he is intentionally trying to
1) make the GOP contort awkwardly to defend these guys
2) piss off the half of the country that didn't vote for him
SP33Demon
Lifer
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,928
- 142
- 106
Pop quiz hotshot, what will it take to remove the EC? Enlighten us on the process which I'm sure is super easy peasy.
There's this-
http://www.fairvote.org/national_popular_vote#what_is_the_national_popular_vote_plan
No need to amend the Constitution.
buckshot24
Diamond Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 9,916
- 85
- 91
Well, at least you have that going for you. Should be comforting on January 20th.
Who cares. He made the point that Trump is off to a flying disaster. Are we there yet? Obviously, wouldn't you say? F you Trump is going to be the national anthem. America has dropped its pants and mooned a spanking machine. You should cover your nuts.
No no no no no, that's not relevant. The point is that it's a national disaster when the person with less votes wins. It invites the people to alter and abolish the Trump disaster and institute new government they like better. If the disaster is big enough that could happen. Probably not a good thing but we create what we fear. Your altered reality bubble won't last only in a turbulent medium.
BonzaiDuck
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2004
- 16,610
- 2,018
- 126
I've come to a conclusion that some part of the GOP wants to destroy the government painstakingly created over the last 100 years -- blood, sweat and literally -- tears. There is incrementalism, which is simply common sense. Then there is utopianism, based on a rigid ideology and one group's view of a future to construct around their closed-system precepts. And there is no doubt that the Founders had an objective to build a system that functions incrementally.
No two opposing opinions about anything can be simultaneously correct or valid. History only occurs one way, the facts can't be manufactured unless they've been covered up or literally constructed to create a myth about the Past.
But since one can only speculate about the Future and make assumptions and inferences about what will happen later if one path today is chosen, there are likely to be wide divergence of expectations for the future, long-run versus short-run benefits, and inferential logic which may be variously flawed among a public in a spectrum from information deficit, to "overly specialized," to "more or less experienced," to the widest amount of factual information connected by value-free and near-mathematical inference and deduction.
If the system were originally designed by people who couldn't have foreseen the Future of two centuries later, it should probably work to a certain degree of functionality based on the idea of compromise.
But these variations and uncertainties only offer up collective democratic decisions which include many mistakes, and the only value "democracy" has of any certainty is that it legitimates authority in the eyes of this or that losing faction for a temporary period of time.
That's why it's usually a 50-50 split in the popular vote. The wisdom of the choice can be as wrong as it could be right. And only an incremental approach to changes affecting that electorate is the wisest pace and direction. The problem with utopian change is that it will create the greatest cost to too many people, who either miscalculate the value of their opinion on one hand, or who are unnecessarily harmed.
Now it is my opinion, which is mythically no better than any other, that another great mistake has occurred. And the direction it has taken in recent days and weeks tells me a few things.
The other 50% doesn't much care whether this 50% is at least willing to endure their choice. They want to have it all their way. And they are not only willing to destroy our government through inaction and gridlock; they have subverted and corrupted the civil service, so that what you and I pay for gets back less value than it would if the day to day operations were simply pursued according to the statutes and regulations.
I concluded a long time ago that the Vietnam War was a mistake, but I had to pay for it, and others did so with their lives and limbs. I concluded even before March 2003 that the Iraq War was a mistake, I was outraged that I wasn't made to pay for it as previous wars were financed with tax increases, and that it was allowed to happen. But I would favor that we have the best soldiers with the best equipment with the most reasonable costs.
But if this toxic disaster moves on to more trouble, more catastrophe, more waste, more pain -- and if I have to go along for the ride, I am going to be very angry. I could leave or stay.
You had better be careful what you wish for. Especially if you're walking all over the other 50% whose loyalty or fellowship you blindly expect.
Because you're just going to cause yourself more trouble in the end.
Action? Reaction.
No two opposing opinions about anything can be simultaneously correct or valid. History only occurs one way, the facts can't be manufactured unless they've been covered up or literally constructed to create a myth about the Past.
But since one can only speculate about the Future and make assumptions and inferences about what will happen later if one path today is chosen, there are likely to be wide divergence of expectations for the future, long-run versus short-run benefits, and inferential logic which may be variously flawed among a public in a spectrum from information deficit, to "overly specialized," to "more or less experienced," to the widest amount of factual information connected by value-free and near-mathematical inference and deduction.
If the system were originally designed by people who couldn't have foreseen the Future of two centuries later, it should probably work to a certain degree of functionality based on the idea of compromise.
But these variations and uncertainties only offer up collective democratic decisions which include many mistakes, and the only value "democracy" has of any certainty is that it legitimates authority in the eyes of this or that losing faction for a temporary period of time.
That's why it's usually a 50-50 split in the popular vote. The wisdom of the choice can be as wrong as it could be right. And only an incremental approach to changes affecting that electorate is the wisest pace and direction. The problem with utopian change is that it will create the greatest cost to too many people, who either miscalculate the value of their opinion on one hand, or who are unnecessarily harmed.
Now it is my opinion, which is mythically no better than any other, that another great mistake has occurred. And the direction it has taken in recent days and weeks tells me a few things.
The other 50% doesn't much care whether this 50% is at least willing to endure their choice. They want to have it all their way. And they are not only willing to destroy our government through inaction and gridlock; they have subverted and corrupted the civil service, so that what you and I pay for gets back less value than it would if the day to day operations were simply pursued according to the statutes and regulations.
I concluded a long time ago that the Vietnam War was a mistake, but I had to pay for it, and others did so with their lives and limbs. I concluded even before March 2003 that the Iraq War was a mistake, I was outraged that I wasn't made to pay for it as previous wars were financed with tax increases, and that it was allowed to happen. But I would favor that we have the best soldiers with the best equipment with the most reasonable costs.
But if this toxic disaster moves on to more trouble, more catastrophe, more waste, more pain -- and if I have to go along for the ride, I am going to be very angry. I could leave or stay.
You had better be careful what you wish for. Especially if you're walking all over the other 50% whose loyalty or fellowship you blindly expect.
Because you're just going to cause yourself more trouble in the end.
Action? Reaction.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter