BBO Discussion Forums: How could I vote for such a vulgar disgusting man? - BBO Discussion Forums

Vampyr, on 2017-August-17, 01:22, said:

What exactly would make you think that? My experience suggests to me that ignorance is not as nuanced as we'd like. HILLARY'S EMAILS and BENGHAZI and SETH RICH are still effective talking points among the especially stupid, including Trump himself.

I suspect it's equally likely that OP is emboldened by the weekend's events as she is sickened. Trump has, against all odds, facilitated and harbored such sentiment. Are you prepared to accept some empty statement as reform?

jjbrr, on 2017-August-17, 02:15, said:

The OP is ignorant, most probably uneducated, delusional and lacking in compassion, but not all such people are white supremacists, and I should like to give the OP the benefit of a doubt on the matter.

Vampyr, on 2017-August-17, 02:42, said:

I'm not accusing anyone of being a white supremacist; I happen to think some people are unable to process information in a manner that the rest of us can. That is not a crime, but it is worth being able to distinguish.

Vampyr, on 2017-August-17, 02:42, said:

To be fair, lots of the people who agree with Trump's latest take on Charlottesville are not white supremacists, they're just ordinary, blue collar, white guys who are scared that the world is changing in a way that isn't favorable to them. That's why they voted for Trump in the first place.

You don't have to be a neo-nazi to think that Black Lives Matter is in the same moral footing (but opposite sides) as the KKK, but it helps.

KKK: Cleanse America of all non-whites, even if it requires force and violence to achieve purity.
BLM: Please don't shoot us
Centrist Media: We can't tell the difference between these extremists

barmar, on 2017-August-17, 08:35, said:

True: you can just be stupid. I don't see a third option.

I want to return, at least sort of, to the title question "How could I vote for such a vulgar disgusting man?". Presumably Kaitlyn knows how she could vote for such a vulgar and disgusting man, so she is not really pondering the question and asking us for help in figuring this out, she is making a statement. If there is any doubt on this score, the rest of her post makes it clear that she is making a statement. So we can, accurately I think, rephrase this as "Ok, he is vulgar and disgusting, big deal, so what?"

I think we are seeing "so what". Maybe Kaitlyn will stand by her man but in real life Tammy Wynette got a divorce, and in further real life more and more people are finding it impossible to work productively with our president. Who in his/her right mind would now want to tie his/her future to Donald Trump's? Maybe a CEO resigns from a board for high-minded reasons, maybe he does it as a calculated move for his own best interests, either way he resigns. Every time Trump opens his mouth an army of explainers is needed to explain he was joking, or explain what he really meant, or explain that of course we stand by what he said, whatever it was and whatever it meant, or some such. Anyone can mis-phrase a position on occasion and we should all be open to "I didn't mean that the way it sounded". But it has become a daily event, and the way that he doesn't mean it is that he hasn't really thought anything through enough so that his words actually mean anything at all.


Our president is in serious trouble of his own making. When a man's explanation for everything is "fake news", he is in trouble. And so are we.

Winstonm, on 2017-August-16, 19:47, said:

So, it appears that somewhere between November 2016 and August 2017, the political calculus behind the need for the investigation changed. That is, the price of "investigating the truth" moved from cost prohibitive to profitable (or worthy of investigation); thus, The New Yorker spent the money to shed some light on an otherwise dark and hidden matter.

This reinforces how much of a long shot folks thought Trump was since companies like The New Yorker didn't want to waste precious time, human resources, and working capital conducting an investigation on a Presidential candidate who might not secure the Republican nomination.

kenberg, on 2017-August-17, 12:08, said:

It is also extremely troubling that he appears to accept urban legends as facts and to urge policy based on those beliefs - just today in response to the Barcelona attack he tweeted along an urban legend about General Pershing having Muslims executed and how that solved the violence problem for years.

At this point, anyone who continues to support this disaster of a human being can only be assumed to be as deranged and as out of touch with reality as he is.

Winstonm, on 2017-August-17, 14:22, said:

Well, there is David Duke.

The fact that an American President would be thanked by such a man for his remarks is a real tragedy. If I recall correctly, Trump initially accepted Duke's endorsement during his campain.

If Trump had let things be after his through-gritted-teeth remarks on Monday, people would have been disappointed but finally moved on. Instead Trump decided to let a racist rant become the defining moment of his Presidency. Well, until he starts WWIII.

Let's be honest, WWIII is a pretty gross exaggeration. A skirmish with NK is certainly terrifying in context, but is there any reason to believe it would escalate beyond that to a global scale (even if every human on the planet would suffer the effects)?

It's sort of interesting that ethics in video game journalism might be the origin of the paradigm shift we're experiencing.

jjbrr, on 2017-August-18, 08:53, said:

Sorry but your viewpoint neither increases newspaper circulation nor internet traffic to your website.

WWIII with NK is intellectually dishonest but it is provocative and good for ratings.

"And now a word from our sponsors. . ."

RedSpawn, on 2017-August-17, 13:20, said:

I don't read The New Yorker, but I'll bet there were plenty of stories about him during the campaign, probably mostly focused on all his improbable primary wins, whether he was a viable candidate, etc. They just didn't do a big investigative piece like this.

With today's pardon of Joe Arpaio, Trump has shown his total disdain for the U.S. judicial system and his willingness to place his own personal interests above the justice system.

Not to mention his cowardice to make the pardon on the wake of a crisis situation, which, I understand, he will command from the luxury of the golf course. This is a huge middle finger to America unless you're one of the 34% who still supports him.

What a sheriff.

https://twitter.com/...263384087334914

Vampyr, on 2017-August-17, 02:42, said:

Damning with faint praise,
I'm disappointed in this view from a former victim of such speculation.

IMO, we should condemn what we perceive to be wrongs and injustices but if we hope to prevent more of the same, we should try to stick to the truth; and avoid fomenting violent confrontation, which seems to polarise an already dangerous situation

cherdano, on 2017-August-26, 00:18, said:

This narrative writes itself for Fox & Friends: "Why didn't Obama stop these illegals before this became necessary?"

jjbrr, on 2017-August-26, 08:25, said:

Ummm, because on both Blue & Red sides of the aisles -- illegal immigration is good for Big Business as it suppresses wage rates in various industries and thereby boosts profits of small and big businesses. Illegal immigrants who must buy goods and services are also a temporary boost to the economy (with the exclusion of any benefits they receive and even still ---> benefits such as food stamps are issued and are still spent and captured in the local economy through purchases. Finally, illegal immigrants will eventually become part of the voting populace when and if they are legalized, so politicians are very wary of destroying or pissing off a potential voting base.

So it's in a politician's best interest to let the immigration problem fester and marinate, since American prosperity has always been built on the backs of some underclass segment of the population.