Michelle wolf, Sarah huckabee, and the WHCD

[fredtoast]

(05-04-2018, 04:36 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I thought I read this morning that a time and date for the meeting had been set.  Did it get cancelled?

Also saw that Rasmussen has Trump at 51% approval rate.

Well that makes perfect sense.  Any news source that would claim that there is an exact date and time for this meeting to fluff the Trump lovers would also use the notoriously inaccurate Rasmussen poll.

If you want some info from outside the echo chamber there is not set time and there is not 51% approval rating for Trump except is strictly red areas of the country.

[Dill]

(05-03-2018, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Ha ha, I don't think you can provide an example of me accusing you "being right wing" in some "underhanded, duplicitous and plausibly deniable way." Why would there be any need for such "underhandedness"?

You literally just did it in this post. "Ha ha"!

Vague gesture rejected. Pick out a line which I "plausibly deny" your right wing status. 

(05-03-2018, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Why would I want to "plausibly deny" that I said some one who consistently defends right wing positions and affect is right wing?  

That is an outstanding question, why would you?  Get back to me on those "right wing positions" I listed above will you?  

"Plausibly deny" where?  Answer: nowhere.    Just victim smoke.

[Dill]

(05-03-2018, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have asked what "right wing positions" you accuse me of "consistently defending".  Was it my arguments for marriage equality dating back well over fifteen years?  Was it my support of labor unions?  Was it my consistent defense of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion and the right to have access to birth control?  Is it my staunch advocacy for secularism?  You're such a blindly partisan person that you require rigid adherence to all tenants of your political ideology or you label the person as the opposite.  Spare me.  Again, no victim, just pointing out how blindly partisan you are.

I don't think anyone disputes you used to be sort of liberal.  None of that redeems your position on "cultural suicide" and Islam, though.

Only have time for one example right now. Recall these gems from almost exactly a year ago  --

Post # 5 in "Merkel's Foes in Disarry":

(05-03-2018, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sadly, Germany seems so haunted by its recent past that they are willingly engaging in cultural suicide.  Guilt is not a solid foundation for national decision making.

A sampling of right publications lamenting cultural suicide.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/23/europe-threatens-cultural-suicide/
https://www.weeklystandard.com/jean-kaufman/why-does-western-europe-seem-so-determined-to-commit-cultural-suicide
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/the_most_absurd_needless_cultural_suicide_in_history.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/the_most_absurd_needless_cultural_suicide_in_history.html

Trump makes a nice connection between the American and European right on this issue.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/07/07/why-trumps-western-civilization-isnt-a-white-supremacist-dogwhistle/

People who "defend Western Civilization" against "cultural suicide" are turning away from the premises of universal human rights upon which liberal democracies are currently based and turning towards something else, something very ILLIBERAL.

And there is more. When "leftists" don't turn away from the premises of universal human rights and refuse the wholesale denigration of a world religion with hundreds of millions of peaceful followers, the right then makes "the left" allies of Salafists and puzzles why they can't see what Muslims are "really" like. So easy to multiply examples. Frontpage mag: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261674/why-left-cant-understand-islam-daniel-greenfield. American thinker again: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/leftists_and_islamists_strange_bedfellows.html. Or "Leftists" DO see the evil of Islam but "ally" with it for other sinister purposes. See for example, Dinesh D'Souza's The Enemy at Home" The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 (2006).

Another talking point you have absorbed. Post #19

(04-24-2017, 05:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, I find it odd that the left has latched on to the most misogynistic, homophobic and theocratic organization on Earth.  Normally the left is against things like treating woman as third class citizens and executing homosexuals for the crime of being homosexual. I find it odd that you don't find that odd.

This quote is actually captured from my post #182.  Can't seem to find your original.  

(05-08-2017, 04:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:                                                                                                    (05-07-2017, 06:41 AM)
A phobia is an unreasonable fear.  As islam has quite adequately demonstrated that they are an ideology whose teaching should quite logically be feared by anyone who cherishes Western democratic and secular values then such fear cannot be considered unreasonable.

So, to spell this out.  It is the right--the far right especially--which worries about 1) "cultural suicide," 2) a supposed "leftist" alliance with Islam, and 3) a religion which is not really a religion but an "ideology" defined by minority sects which most violate Western norms (https://sites.google.com/site/islamicthreatsimplified/a-religion-or-political-ideology).   There are posters who share your views in this forum, certainly. But they are far from centrist or "non-partisan" as you imagine yourself.

(B-b-but Bill Maher. . . ?)  And it is the right which sees "leftism" everywhere.  Can we find any posts of yours in this forum vilifying "the left"?  What "centrist" does that?

LOL William Pierce, author of he Turner Diaries, was also a "staunch secularlist."  Why should that cancel your consistent defense of right wing talking points and attitudes?

Got to run to dinner. When I get back maybe we can talk gun control?

[SunsetBengal]

(05-04-2018, 06:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well that makes perfect sense.  Any news source that would claim that there is an exact date and time for this meeting to fluff the Trump lovers would also use the notoriously inaccurate Rasmussen poll.

If you want some info from outside the echo chamber there is not set time and there is not 51% approval rating for Trump except is strictly red areas of the country.

Actually, the details said 84% approval among those likely to vote Republican, and 37% among those likely to vote Democrat.  I believe the number was 52% approval among those not affiliated with either party.

Edit:  So, the mainstream media outlets refuse to report any good that the President does, yet you want to "source shame" because I find a piece from a source offering a positive outlook?  Btw, I don't even remember the source that said that a meeting time and place had been set. (was before I went to work)  No official terms of the meeting were announced, only that a place and time had been agreed upon.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-04-2018, 04:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Obama hated that he got the prize when he did and in his acceptance speech acknowledged how undeserving of the award he was. What do you think Trump's reaction would be to receiving it?

He should have had some integrity and refused the award. Too bad he chose to be selfish.

And I do think trump would boastful but he would have actually done something to earn his award.

As I have stated before idc if he gets one. Just pointing out that he is actually earning one.

Maybe obama can earn some credibility and hand his over to trump for doing what he couldn’t. Lol

[StLucieBengal]

(05-04-2018, 06:48 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Actually, the details said 84% approval among those likely to vote Republican, and 37% among those likely to vote Democrat.  I believe the number was 52% approval among those not affiliated with either party.

Edit:  So, the mainstream media outlets refuse to report any good that the President does, yet you want to "source shame" because I find a piece from a source offering a positive outlook?  Btw, I don't even remember the source that said that a meeting time and place had been set. (was before I went to work)  No official terms of the meeting were announced, only that a place and time had been agreed upon.

Rasmussen daily tracking pres poll is pretty accurate and has a history of accuracy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-04-2018, 06:25 PM)Dill Wrote: Vague gesture rejected. Pick out a line which I "plausibly deny" your right wing status. 


"Plausibly deny" where?  Answer: nowhere.    Just victim smoke.

If you're flat out just saying it, then cool.  Congrats on finally having the courage to be direct.  Again, no victim here, your endless repeating of the term won't change that fact.

(05-04-2018, 06:36 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think anyone disputes you used to be sort of liberal.  None of that redeems your position on "cultural suicide" and Islam, though.

Only have time for one example right now. Recall these gems from Merkel's foes in disarray"  --

Post # 5 in "Merkel's Foes in Disarry," almost exactly a year ago:

A sampling of right publications lamenting cultural suicide.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/23/europe-threatens-cultural-suicide/
https://www.weeklystandard.com/jean-kaufman/why-does-western-europe-seem-so-determined-to-commit-cultural-suicide
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/the_most_absurd_needless_cultural_suicide_in_history.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/the_most_absurd_needless_cultural_suicide_in_history.html

Trump makes a nice connection between the American and European right on this issue.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/07/07/why-trumps-western-civilization-isnt-a-white-supremacist-dogwhistle/

People who "defend Western Civilization" are turning liberal premises/politics based upon natural rights/universal rights for something else.

Odd that you left out my response to Hollodero when he pointed out that "cultural suicide" is a politically loaded term and my retraction of the term.  I absolutely stand by my central point though, that Germany's guilt about their past makes them unwilling to defend what is clearly their unique culture.  Taking in millions of refugees from a very foreign culture will unalterably change the culture of any country.  Not sure why this confuses you.

Quote:Post #19

This quote is actually captured from my post #182.  Can't seem to find the original.  

An absolutely correct point.  Fearing islam and what it brings is not irrational, especially if you're a woman.  A vast majority of muslim majority nations are very repressive to women, homosexuals and basically anyone who isn't the right type of muslim.  Care to dispute this?  Fine, but it'll be quite the uphill climb.

Quote:So, to spell this out.  It is the right--the far right especially--which worries about 1) "cultural suicide," 2) a supposed "leftist" alliance with Islam (see for example, Dinesh D'Souza's The Enemy at Home" The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 (2006)), and a religion which is not really a religion but an "ideology" defined by segments which most violate Western norms (https://sites.google.com/site/islamicthreatsimplified/a-religion-or-political-ideology).

  

Ahh, a tried and true tactic of people like yourself, point out an odious person who agrees with some of your positions.  I find D'Souza to be a cretin, I love the debate in which Hitchens (a brilliant man who you also probably consider a "right winger") tore him apart.  If you agree with the need for high speed motorways does that make you and Hitler ideological equals?  Straight out of the radicals handbook Dill, well done.

Quote:B-b-but Bill Maher. . . ?)  And it is the right which sees "leftism" everywhere.  Can we find any posts of yours which vilifying "the left"?  What "centrist" does that?

Sure you can, since they collectively lost their mind with the rise of Trump.  They, generally speaking, seem to have lost their minds and gotten just as ugly as the "tea party" types they used to revile.  Doesn't change my political stances though.

Quote:LOL William Pierce, author of he Turner Diaries, was also a "staunch secularlist."  Why should that separate you from the right?

Yes, you're right, secularism is commonly associated with the 'right wing".  Boy is my face red.  I do enjoy that you chose this one point from my left leaning views to try and pick at the corner hoping for a loose thread.

Quote:Got to run to dinner. When I get back maybe we can talk gun control?

Sure.  Just to summarize, my "right wing" views, per you, are an intolerance of the extreme practices of much of islam and my opposition to unconstitutional gun laws.  Outstanding, you've got a grand total of two and neglected to even try and refute my more numerous left wing leanings.


Like I said earlier, your type requires ideological purity.  You must be in lock step with every single view of "the left" or you are a right winger.  you must be perpetually outraged by the idea of a Trump presidency or you are a right winger.  I honestly feel bad for you, your rigid worldview must be a very unhappy place.

[Dill]

(05-04-2018, 08:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: He should have had some integrity and refused the award.  Too bad he chose to be selfish.  

And I do think trump would boastful but he would have actually done something to earn his award.  

As I have stated before idc if he gets one.  Just pointing out that he is actually earning one.

Maybe obama can earn some credibility and hand his over to trump for doing what he couldn’t. Lol

I don't think it's a good idea for a US president to turn down a Nobel prize. That's not the same as a private person getting one.  

And the president does not decide who gets the award. People who don't like it should blame the Nobel organization.

If Trump can put together something on the scale of the Iran Deal, I don't have a problem with giving him a Nobel.
But he shouldn't get one for accepting an invitation from a 3rd party to a deal others appear to be managing.

[Dill]

(05-04-2018, 10:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you're flat out just saying it, then cool.  Congrats on finally having the courage to be direct.  Again, no victim here, your endless repeating of the term won't change that fact.

Odd that you left out my response to Hollodero when he pointed out that "cultural suicide" is a politically loaded term and my retraction of the term.  I absolutely stand by my central point though, that Germany's guilt about their past makes them unwilling to defend what is clearly their unique culture.  Taking in millions of refugees from a very foreign culture will unalterably change the culture of any country.  Not sure why this confuses you.

Why the inability to support your accusations with examples? First the claim I "plausibly deny" you are a right winger. No examples. But you thank me for no longer behaving as you claimed I do. When? Where?  Now I am "direct." Courageous.  I have changed from when I . . . ? Still no examples.  Gaslighting fail here.

So Hollo straightens you out on a right wing term. And suddenly cultural suicide wasn't really your "central point" anyway. Now you'll "stand by" your lament about German guilt. So sad that is. lol And all this means I am somehow "confused" about . . . what?  I was not the one who muddled a lament of cultural suicide with the German guilt motif.  Germans aren't acting in an ethically commendable fashion by taking in Muslim refugees if it's REALLY all about guilt. (I wonder how many Germans you know.) That's why you get no pat on the head for claiming to retract an alt right term and then continuing the lament about cultural dilution.  But now you just mean culture will "change a little" in a country that takes in "repressive" Muslims.  Any culture will.  That's all.  Before moving on to reaffirm the necessity of fearing Islam.

And if you ever finally reject the German guilt/cultural dilution line then your position will align with my "confused" position.  Perhaps you'll even say that is what you really meant all along; my reading was the problem. 

(05-04-2018, 10:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: An absolutely correct point.  Fearing islam and what it brings is not irrational, especially if you're a woman.  A vast majority of muslim majority nations are very repressive to women, homosexuals and basically anyone who isn't the right type of muslim.  Care to dispute this?  Fine, but it'll be quite the uphill climb.

Ahh, Ahha tried and true tactic of people like yourself, point out an odious person who agrees with some of your positions.  I find D'Souza to be a cretin, I love the debate in which Hitchens (a brilliant man who you also probably consider a "right winger") tore him apart.  If you agree with the need for high speed motorways does that make you and Hitler ideological equals?  Straight out of the radicals handbook Dill, well done.

Actually, I pointed out a lot of "odious" people who agreed with the right-wing position you just reaffirmed--it's just that kind of postion.  So mine is the tried and true tactic of people who support points with examples.   (The "Radical's handbook" is different on the left.) Rather than call D'Souza a "cretin" and chatter on about how someone else destroyed him and what I might think of THAT guy, why not use the space to explain why your position on the alleged "leftist"-Islamic alliance dovetails with a cretin"s. Not to mention the 2nd Amendment http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/07/second-amendment-protects-against-government-tyranny-dinesh-dsouza. D'Souza thinks what about the "leftist" response to Trump's election? Maybe D'Souza is not a "secularist"? Perhaps that is where you differ from him?

Lots of non-Muslim nations are repressive of women and homosexuals. (e.g. Russia is increasingly homophobic;Indians have brought their homophobia to the US https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/lgbt-south-asian-americans-remain-hidden-post-supreme-court-ruling-n411016).  Such repression is as much (or more) a developmental as a religious problem. You speak of a "tactic" of using one odious person to rub off odium on another, while you would do exactly this at the international level by making some nations (like Saudi Arabia) and some sects stand in for the whole of Islam.

There is no "absolutely correct" reason for Americans--especially American women--to "fear Islam" because women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia.

And I would not mind at all if people pointed out that Hitler and I agreed on the need for good infrastructure. I'm pretty sure we would. But we are not talking about Autobahns.  We are talking about stoking fear of a religious minority.  

(PS what is the title of this thread? How many times of you popped up on  a thread to police me, or Dino or Fred, admonishing us to stick to the topic?)

[StLucieBengal]

(05-04-2018, 11:11 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think it's a good idea for a US president to turn down a Nobel prize. That's not the same as a private person getting one.  

And the president does not decide who gets the award. People who don't like it should blame the Nobel organization.

If Trump can put together something on the scale of the Iran Deal, I don't have a problem with giving him a Nobel.
But he shouldn't get one for accepting an invitation from a 3rd party to a deal others appear to be managing.

Obama didn’t get his for the Iran deal. He got it for winning an election.

If he didn’t do anything of relevance to earn the award then he should respectfully decline.

The part about obama giving his to trump was obviously a joke.

Trump has put pressure on rocketman and China to get us here, he needed to be the hammer to get them to the negotiation table. No one thinks trump is burning the midnight oil going over the details. He has people for this, and they can’t get to work unless these guys feel forced to come to the table.

I know it pains you guys but Trump did a good thing here.

Now on obama, I do think he missed his chance at doing something really special when he didn’t show support to the Iranians who tried to overthrow their leadership and bring them back to a more western friendly nation. Had he done that he would have no doubt earned his award. Ofc this had to do with his connections to Iran through valerie jarretts family and his desire to make Iran a Middle East strength and anti west. Obama just doesn’t believe in the western way of life.

[GMDino]

(05-05-2018, 12:09 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Obama didn’t get his for the Iran deal.  He got it for winning an election.  

If he didn’t do anything of relevance to earn the award then he should respectfully decline.  

The part about obama giving his to trump was obviously a joke.  

Trump has put pressure on rocketman and China to get us here, he needed to be the hammer to get them to the negotiation table.  No one thinks trump is burning the midnight oil going over the details.  He has people for this, and they can’t get to work unless these guys feel forced to come to the table.  

I know it pains you guys but Trump did a good thing here.  

Now on obama, I do think he missed his chance at doing something really special when he didn’t show support to the Iranians who tried to overthrow their leadership and bring them back to a more western friendly nation.  Had he done that he would have no doubt earned his award.   Ofc this had to do with his connections to Iran through valerie jarretts family and his desire to make Iran a Middle East strength and anti west.   Obama just doesn’t believe in the western way of life.

[Dill]

(05-05-2018, 12:09 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Obama didn’t get his for the Iran deal.  He got it for winning an election.  

If he didn’t do anything of relevance to earn the award then he should respectfully decline.  

The part about obama giving his to trump was obviously a joke.  

Trump has put pressure on rocketman and China to get us here, he needed to be the hammer to get them to the negotiation table.  No one thinks trump is burning the midnight oil going over the details.  He has people for this, and they can’t get to work unless these guys feel forced to come to the table.  

I know it pains you guys but Trump did a good thing here.  

Now on obama, I do think he missed his chance at doing something really special when he didn’t show support to the Iranians who tried to overthrow their leadership and bring them back to a more western friendly nation.  Had he done that he would have no doubt earned his award.   Ofc this had to do with his connections to Iran through valerie jarretts family and his desire to make Iran a Middle East strength and anti west.   Obama just doesn’t believe in the western way of life.

I know that Lucy. The Iran Deal was not finalized until 2015.

As far as Trump's "hammer."  What you say could be true. Maybe Trump did create more pressure and it tipped Kim into concessions. But it is too early to assume that. Right now, I don't see enough needed points in place for a good outcome.

The "right thing" is not yet "done" as you seem to think it is.

Obama was negotiating the Iran Deal during the Iranian protests. Rather than losing twice, he won once.

As far a your last two sentences, there is simply no rational ground or credible evidence for assuming Obama would like Iran to be "Anti-west" or that he doesn't believe in the "western way of life" he has lived all his life.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-05-2018, 12:14 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Ah that’s right, unless he does everything by himself, he gets no credit.

Gotcha.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-05-2018, 12:16 AM)Dill Wrote: I know that Lucy. The Iran Deal was not finalized until 2015.

As far as Trump's "hammer."  What you say could be true. Maybe Trump did create more pressure and it tipped Kim into concessions. But it is too early to assume that. Right now, I don't see enough needed points in place for a good outcome.

The "right thing" is not yet "done" as you seem to think it is.

Obama was negotiating the Iran Deal during the Iranian protests. Rather than losing twice, he won once.

Trumps hammer has been the only thing that’s been different than every other president. Now all of a sudden we are getting new results. We will find out more as time goes but as of now it’s fair to draw these conclusions until we see more information.

I’m cautiously optimistic. It’s nice to see legitimate movement over there. We need to draw down from over there and start dealing with our North Korea right here.

I know obama passed on helping the protestors. He wanted to try a sea change in the Middle East by strengthening the Iranians. Nice idea, and it was a new way of thinking which is admirable for the attempt. It was just foolish to think they could be trusted. But at least he tried.

[Dill]

(05-04-2018, 10:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure you can, since they collectively lost their mind with the rise of Trump.  They, generally speaking, seem to have lost their minds and gotten just as ugly as the "tea party" types they used to revile.  Doesn't change my political stances though.

Yes, you're right, secularism is commonly associated with the 'right wing".  Boy is my face red.  I do enjoy that you chose this one point from my left leaning views to try and pick at the corner hoping for a loose thread.

Sure.  Just to summarize, my "right wing" views, per you, are an intolerance of the extreme practices of much of islam and my opposition to unconstitutional gun laws.  Outstanding, you've got a grand total of two and neglected to even try and refute my more numerous left wing leanings.

Like I said earlier, your type requires ideological purity.  You must be in lock step with every single view of "the left" or you are a right winger.  you must be perpetually outraged by the idea of a Trump presidency or you are a right winger.  I honestly feel bad for you, your rigid worldview must be a very unhappy place.

My "type" requires arguments, evidence, supporting examples. Why doesn't yours? Can you provide some evidence of a collective "left" losing its mind?

Haven't had time to collect all your right wing views.  But I've done pretty well. And the forum is about to shut down. 

Lots of people who are not in "lock step with every single view of 'the left'" don't get called "right wingers."  That is because they don't promote fear of religious minorities and fight "the left" at every turn.  I.e., that is because they are not right wingers.  

People who stoke fear of Islam--e.g. as a religion of "extreme" practices-- and its "leftist allies" do get called "right wingers."  You are not a victim of mislabeling.  

A grand total to two is pretty good--if the two concern Islamophobia and defense of "unconstitutional gun laws." But we have a bit more than that. You still haven't noticed how your very framing of political issues positions you on the right and facing "ugly" leftists.  

Is anyone much interested in whether you feel bad? Your feelings don't effectively replace/constitute argument. Can you maybe replace some of the emoting with substance?  For example, explain how "Islam" and "the left" are currently allied or "latched" or whatever. Not how you feel about them, but whatever actually constitutes the latching.

[Dill]

(05-05-2018, 12:25 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Trumps hammer has been the only thing that’s been different than every other president.  Now all of a sudden we are getting new results.  We will find out more as time goes but as of now it’s fair to draw these conclusions until we see more information.  

I’m cautiously optimistic.  It’s nice to see legitimate movement over there.  We need to draw down from over there and start dealing with our North Korea right here.  

I know obama passed on helping the protestors.  He wanted to try a sea change in the Middle East by strengthening the Iranians.  Nice idea, and it was a new way of thinking which is admirable for the attempt.  It was just foolish to think they could be trusted.   But at least he tried.

What are the "new results"?

How did Obama "trust" the Iranians?

[Dill]

(05-03-2018, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If a mental health professional diagnoses someone they have never treated then they are engaging in activity directly opposed to the professional ethics of their profession.    Why would anyone take the opinions of such people seriously, especially as this conduct is being dictated by partisan politics?  You take is seriously because it fits your narrative, you want to believe it, therefore it is acceptable.  A mental health "professional" who diagnoses Charles Manson without  actually treating him is guilty of professional misconduct and I don't anyone but the most deranged partisan hack would put Trump in that category.

All the mental health officials in the book I cited would agree with the bolded statement above.

The question they raise is whether we are now living under extraordinary circumstances, such that it may in fact be unethical NOT to speak out about the correlation between Trump's behavior and the pathologies these experts deal with in their clinical practice.

One can hardly judge whether they are wrong about this, or whether their argument is simply "dictated by partisan politics," without reading their argument. That would certainly be like diagnosing a patient without treating him.  No sense nattering on about how I take their argument seriously because it fits my partosam narrative when not even looking at their argument fits your partisan narrative--and leaves you no basis at all to judge.

People who vote for a president and assess his performance thereafter are not opposing any professional ethics when they make their own judgments about that president's mental fitness. Since 1790 voters have "diagnosed" presidents without treating them. People who read what clinical psychologists and psychiatrists see in Trump's behavior might be greatly aided in that responsible endeavor. People who refuse to read the book are simply diagnosing Trump anyway, just without professional resources.

If there is a debate in the mental health community about whether they should "go public" with what their professional knowledge tells them about Trump, I want to know what the debate is about, what their knowledge tells them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-05-2018, 12:07 AM)Dill Wrote: Why the inability to support your accusations with examples? First the claim I "plausibly deny" you are a right winger. No examples. But you thank me for no longer behaving as you claimed I do. When? Where?  Now I am "direct." Courageous.  I have changed from when I . . . ? Still no examples.  Gaslighting fail here.

So Hollo straightens you out on a right wing term. And suddenly cultural suicide wasn't really your "central point" anyway. Now you'll "stand by" your lament about German guilt.  So sad that is.  lol  And all this means I am somehow "confused" about . . . what?  I was not the one who muddled a lament of cultural suicide with the German guilt motif.  Germans aren't acting in an ethically commendable fashion by taking in Muslim refugees if it's REALLY all about guilt. (I wonder how many Germans you know.) That's why you get no pat on the head for claiming to retract an alt right term and then continuing the lament about cultural dilution.  But now you just mean culture will "change a little" in a country that takes in "repressive" Muslims.  Any culture will.  That's all.  Before moving on to reaffirm the necessity of fearing Islam.

And if you ever finally reject the German guilt/cultural dilution line then your position will align with my "confused" position.  Perhaps you'll even say that is what you really meant all along; my reading was the problem. 


Actually, I pointed out a lot of "odious" people who agreed with the right-wing position you just reaffirmed--it's just that kind of postion.  So mine is the tried and true tactic of people who support points with examples.   (The "Radical's handbook" is different on the left.) Rather than call D'Souza a "cretin" and chatter on about how someone else destroyed him and what I might think of THAT guy, why not use the space to explain why your position on the alleged "leftist"-Islamic alliance dovetails with a cretin"s. Not to mention the 2nd Amendment http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/07/second-amendment-protects-against-government-tyranny-dinesh-dsouza. D'Souza thinks what about the "leftist" response to Trump's election? Maybe D'Souza is not a "secularist"? Perhaps that is where you differ from him?

Lots of non-Muslim nations are repressive of women and homosexuals. (e.g. Russia is increasingly homophobic;Indians have brought their homophobia to the US https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/lgbt-south-asian-americans-remain-hidden-post-supreme-court-ruling-n411016).  Such repression is as much (or more) a developmental as a religious problem. You speak of a "tactic" of using one odious person to rub off odium on another, while you would do exactly this at the international level by making some nations (like Saudi Arabia) and some sects stand in for the whole of Islam.

There is no "absolutely correct" reason for Americans--especially American women--to "fear Islam" because women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia.

And I would not mind at all if people pointed out that Hitler and I agreed on the need for good infrastructure. I'm pretty sure we would. But we are not talking about Autobahns.  We are talking about stoking fear of a religious minority.  

(PS what is the title of this thread? How many times of you popped up on  a thread to police me, or Dino or Fred, admonishing us to stick to the topic?)

Keep picking at that one thread, Dill.  No one but you and your little buddies are buying your story.  Fact, the vast majority of muslim countries are incredibly oppressive to women, homosexuals and anyone who isn't the right kind of muslim.  You know this is true, hence your complete dodge of the point at every turn.  Keep telling us anecdotal stories of a muslim kid returning your wallet.  It's heartwarming and it's also irrelevant.  Keep villainizing and attacking those that oppose your viewpoints instead of addressing their points, it only exposes how pathetically weak your position is.  You laughingly try and play this off with off the cuff references to women not being able to "drive in Saudi Arabia" while knowing damn well that the oppression of women in that country is hardly limited to that one act.  How dare you pretend to be a progressive liberal feminist while mitigating the extreme oppression of women in these societies.  You should be utterly ashamed of yourself for excusing the utter subjugation of half the human race for the mere purpose of appearing progressively virtuous.  However, I doubt you possess the capacity for such self examination, more's the pity.  

[Belsnickel]

(05-04-2018, 08:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Rasmussen daily tracking pres poll is pretty accurate and has a history of accuracy.

This is the second time you have made this claim without anything to back it up. Rasmussen is a conservatively biased pollster which is especially evident in their approval tracking. There is a reason that their results are outliers among all of the other approval polls. This is the reason I look at meta-analyses rather than individual pollsters.

[GMDino]

(05-05-2018, 12:25 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Trumps hammer has been the only thing that’s been different than every other president.  Now all of a sudden we are getting new results.  We will find out more as time goes but as of now it’s fair to draw these conclusions until we see more information.  

I’m cautiously optimistic.  It’s nice to see legitimate movement over there.  We need to draw down from over there and start dealing with our North Korea right here.  

I know obama passed on helping the protestors.  He wanted to try a sea change in the Middle East by strengthening the Iranians.  Nice idea, and it was a new way of thinking which is admirable for the attempt.  It was just foolish to think they could be trusted.   But at least he tried.

Trumps "hammer" has been calling names on Twitter.  That's it.

His tariffs have resulted in china cutting imports from American farmers...not help with NK.

And we had not getting "results all of a sudden".  This is a familiar dance with NK over 20 years.

We ALL want peace...but most of us also understand history.