|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 8:10 pm Post subject: Things are getting interesting in Colorado... |
 |
|
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/
| Code: |
EDITOR'S NOTE: This story was first published on Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2015 at 2:06 p.m. Please see Angry Donald Trump blasts Colorado GOP results as "totally unfair," published on Sunday, April 10, 2016.
Colorado will not vote for a Republican candidate for president at its 2016 caucus after party leaders approved a little-noticed shift that may diminish the state's clout in the most open nomination contest in the modern era.
The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state's delegates to support the candidate who wins the caucus vote.
The move makes Colorado the only state so far to forfeit a role in the early nomination process, according to political experts, but other caucus states are still considering how to adapt to the new rule.
"It takes Colorado completely off the map" in the primary season, said Ryan Call, a former state GOP chairman.
Republicans still will hold precinct caucus meetings in early 2016 to begin the process of selecting delegates for the national convention — but the 37 delegates are not pledged to any specific candidate.
The Democratic Party still will hold a presidential straw poll March 1 — a Super Tuesday vote in a key swing state that is attracting attention from top-tier candidates.
For Republicans, no declared winner means the caucus will lack much of its hype. The presidential campaigns still may try to win delegate slots for their supporters, but experts say the move makes it less likely that candidates will visit Colorado to court voters.
The Colorado system often favors anti-establishment candidates who draw a dedicated following among activists — as evidenced by Rick Santorum's victory in 2012 caucus. So the party's move may hurt GOP contenders such as Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Rand Paul, who would have received a boost if they won the state.
State Republican Party Chairman Steve House said the party's 24-member executive committee made the unanimous decision Friday — six members were absent — to skip the preference poll.
The move, he said, would give Colorado delegates the freedom to support any candidate eligible at the Cleveland convention in July. Republican National Committee officials confirmed that the change complies with party rules.
"If we do a binding presidential preference poll, we would then pledge our delegates ... and the candidates we bind them to may not be in the race by the time we get to the convention," House said in an interview Tuesday.
The caucus is likely to occur in February, but party officials will meet next month to finalize the date.
In 2008 and 2012, die-hard Republican voters gathered at caucus meetings to begin the delegate-selection process of selecting delegates to the national convention and voice support for presidential candidates in a straw poll.
The votes, however, didn't require Colorado delegates to support any particular candidate at the national conventions. This allowed for delegates that supported a losing candidate to vote for the nominee and demonstrate party unity at the convention.
But the freedom also opened the door for political mischief, as Colorado saw in 2012 when Ron Paul supporters managed to win a significant portion of the delegate slots, even though Paul finished far behind other candidates in the Colorado caucuses.
The RNC tightened the rules in 2012 to eliminate nonbinding straw polls and help prevent similar stunts in the future, forcing Colorado Republicans to re-evaluate their process. An effort earlier this year to switch to a presidential primary system failed amid party infighting.
"It's an odd scenario," said Josh Putnam, a political science lecturer at the University of Georgia who runs a popular blog on the presidential nominating process. "It's not to say the campaigns won't be there. ... But you won't have a good reflection of support at the caucuses, much less Colorado Republicans as a whole."
Other caucus states are grappling with the rule change in different ways as they finalize their plans before the deadline at the end of September, Putnam said, but he is not aware of any state that has abandoned the presidential caucus vote.
With the change, the only way Colorado Republican delegates would remain relevant is the remote chance that no candidate emerges as a clear winner in the primary contest. In this case, the state's unbound delegates would receive significant attention and may hold the key to victory in a floor fight.
"If there's the potential for a brokered convention in any way, the unaffiliated delegates become extremely important," said Joy Hoffman, the Arapahoe County GOP chairwoman who attended the party meeting. "If there is someone who becomes a front-runner, ... then nobody's important. So I think the view became that if we were not bound, it's not the worse thing that could happen."
John Frank: 303-954-2409, [email protected] or twitter.com/ByJohnFrank
Colorado caucus results: Published here caucus night. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It would be easier to have sympathy for Republicans who feel they are being cheated out of the candidate of their choice if not for the, "America is a republic, not a democracy," meme that demographic frequently invokes every time a change which they dislike occurs. Okay, so America isn't a democracy, and neither is the Republican Party, which means that "the will of the people" is less important and influential than the will of the individuals in a position to interpret and implement the rules. Should it be surprising if the same party that frets about the potential for "mob rule" ends up disenfranchising many of its own registered members, especially when presidential primaries are more about manufacturing support than anything?
Beyond that, if Mr. Trump cannot even influence the party leaders sufficiently to bring them in line behind him, how could he possibly hope to influence the governments of Mexico, China, Russia, and wherever else as he has promised to do? You can rabble rouse America's peasantry easily enough, but the same thing isn't going to work on people living in other countries. If nothing else, there's a test of real leadership ability here, and after we were lectured on how masterfully Mr. Trump manages everyone's egos and what a superb master of persuasion he is, it would be a shame for him if he were unable to bring either ability to bear in defense of his candidacy, wouldn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Beyond that, if Mr. Trump cannot even influence the party leaders sufficiently to bring them in line behind him, how could he possibly hope to influence the governments of Mexico, China, Russia, and wherever else as he has promised to do? You can rabble rouse America's peasantry easily enough, but the same thing isn't going to work on people living in other countries. If nothing else, there's a test of real leadership ability here, and after we were lectured on how masterfully Mr. Trump manages everyone's egos and what a superb master of persuasion he is, it would be a shame for him if he were unable to bring either ability to bear in defense of his candidacy, wouldn't it? |
For someone who pretends to be such a deep and principled philosophical thinker, you really turn into an intellectually duplicitous, handrubbing stereotype whenever you push out an innervated dispatch related to Trumpian nationalism. It's quite telling, actually. Referring to the White working class that has been disenfranchised professionally and demographically for decades as “America's peasantry” (and in comparison to the democrat's industrious Afro-Mestizo base? Please, Shlomo…), calling the one person stepping up to speak for those people a rebel rouser, then producing more of these ratty sneers about what a shame it'll be if the people's overwhelming choice is ultimately bypassed at the end of the process. Nothing ignites terror in the nomad from the shtetl than the thought of those around him collectivizing and expressing their interests as a people. He knows it's eventually bound to turn on his own since his own do so much to undermine that collective identity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Beyond that, if Mr. Trump cannot even influence the party leaders sufficiently to bring them in line behind him, how could he possibly hope to influence the governments of Mexico, China, Russia, and wherever else as he has promised to do? You can rabble rouse America's peasantry easily enough, but the same thing isn't going to work on people living in other countries. If nothing else, there's a test of real leadership ability here, and after we were lectured on how masterfully Mr. Trump manages everyone's egos and what a superb master of persuasion he is, it would be a shame for him if he were unable to bring either ability to bear in defense of his candidacy, wouldn't it? |
For someone who pretends to be such a deep and principled philosophical thinker, you really turn into an intellectually duplicitous, handrubbing stereotype whenever you push out an innervated dispatch related to Trumpian nationalism. It's quite telling, actually. Referring to the White working class that has been disenfranchised professionally and demographically for decades as “America's peasantry” (and in comparison to the democrat's industrious Afro-Mestizo base? Please, Shlomo…), calling the one person stepping up to speak for those people a rebel rouser, then producing more of these ratty sneers about what a shame it'll be if the people's overwhelming choice is ultimately bypassed at the end of the process. Nothing ignites terror in the nomad from the shtetl than the thought of those around him collectivizing and expressing their interests as a people. He knows it's eventually bound to turn on his own since his own do so much to undermine that collective identity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
For someone who pretends to be such a deep and principled philosophical thinker, you really turn into an intellectually duplicitous, handrubbing stereotype whenever you push out an innervated dispatch related to Trumpian nationalism. |
I don't have any idea what "Trumpian Nationalism" is, because when the man in question speaks about such subjects, he invariably changes positions again, and again, and again. That is part of my concern. Mr. Trump has been only too happy to change his positions on various issues moment-to-moment even during the primary, so why on Earth would anyone think he was some kind of principled thinker? Purely and only because they have begun to project onto and identify with him, of course. What is the primary characteristic of a peasant? His relationship with and comportment towards his noble lord, of course. And now, surely, you realize why I made the joke I did.
Contrary to your implication, I have a reasonable concern, and even esteem, for America's working classes, who engage in honorable labor for their living and really are the foundation of the country. I understand their frustrations with issues like immigration, free trade, and the like, and yes, they have been disenfranchised in a meaningful sense. Unfortunately -- and this is what is vexing about the matter -- they have been and continue to be complicit in their own disenfranchisment. Just as with the "Tea Party," they're responding to dysfunction with dysfunction; embracing the snake oil salesman and setting themselves up for another round of the pain. Mr. Trump's already given enough hints that immigration (skilled and unskilled, legal and illegal) would continue under him; that military adventurism and strong support for Israel would continue under him; that the tax and labor policies of America would shift even more in favor of the wealthy at the expense of the lower classes under him (though not as severely as they would under a hypothetical President Cruz), and so forth. "I'm changing it," was a very well-chosen phrase, even if it was well chosen by accident.
| Swartz wrote: |
| ... what a shame it'll be if the people's overwhelming choice is ultimately bypassed at the end of the process. |
You seem to have missed the point in that statement, which was that the same parties lamenting the potential for a non-democratic Republican Primary themselves lean on memes like this, or this, or this, or so forth whenever faced with the potential of a societal change they personally dislike. Yes, I see the irony, and even the humor, in such people suddenly becoming ardent proponents of decision-by-vote, even to the point where they insist a candidate who failed to get an outright of the majority of the vote ought to win by default. Why shouldn't I joke around a bit by such people? And if someone is offended or irritated by those jokes, well, perhaps they ought to reflect on the true function of comedy and consider carefully exactly why they felt such a thing in response to the lightest of teasings. Why is it I can bear you directly insulting me, but you cannot seem to bear me even making a small joke suggesting that the crowd -- a crowd which is not even the majority of the Republican party, mind you, so I've no idea whence comes this talk of "overwhelming choice" -- lined up behind Mr. Trump might be thinking in error?
Last edited by Fox on Mon Apr 11, 2016 4:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| trueblue wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Beyond that, if Mr. Trump cannot even influence the party leaders sufficiently to bring them in line behind him, how could he possibly hope to influence the governments of Mexico, China, Russia, and wherever else as he has promised to do? You can rabble rouse America's peasantry easily enough, but the same thing isn't going to work on people living in other countries. If nothing else, there's a test of real leadership ability here, and after we were lectured on how masterfully Mr. Trump manages everyone's egos and what a superb master of persuasion he is, it would be a shame for him if he were unable to bring either ability to bear in defense of his candidacy, wouldn't it? |
For someone who pretends to be such a deep and principled philosophical thinker, you really turn into an intellectually duplicitous, handrubbing stereotype whenever you push out an innervated dispatch related to Trumpian nationalism. It's quite telling, actually. Referring to the White working class that has been disenfranchised professionally and demographically for decades as “America's peasantry” (and in comparison to the democrat's industrious Afro-Mestizo base? Please, Shlomo…), calling the one person stepping up to speak for those people a rebel rouser, then producing more of these ratty sneers about what a shame it'll be if the people's overwhelming choice is ultimately bypassed at the end of the process. Nothing ignites terror in the nomad from the shtetl than the thought of those around him collectivizing and expressing their interests as a people. He knows it's eventually bound to turn on his own since his own do so much to undermine that collective identity. |
|
TB do you have anything original to add, or should we just expect other people's thoughts from you, either from articles or bolding other's posts?
If these white people have actually been disenfranchised like you describe, then why get upset when someone calls them peasants? That is basically what you are saying, but you get offended when someone other than Trump is politically incorrect? Also, Trump is not a rebel rouser, he is a rabble rouser, as in those disenfranchised whites are a rabble (again the way you describe them fits the dictionary definition of the word), and it is beyond a doubt that he has roused them.
Also, is it not sterotypical the way that you characterize someone, who happens to be Jewish, in a sterotypical manner. That Swartz, what a sterotypical white nationalist/supremacist/whatever.
Trumpian nationalism, what a strange world we live in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| That Swartz, what a sterotypical white nationalist/supremacist/whatever. |
Mmmm..you really showed him with that, Leon
As far as having anything original to contribute, indeed, I do. But, what is the point? You and your girlfriends simply discard anything that does not meet your warped paradigm(s), which usually comes along with your efforts in response represented as simple smoke screens, sounding like some sort of horrid, putrid brand of soundbite journalism.
Folks have provided much original, and factual, content that has dwarfed both you and your sisters. When will you realize this? You were owned ages ago, ma'am. Your worth (on the forum) is about as useful as chicken crap on a pump handle.
Last edited by trueblue on Mon Apr 11, 2016 4:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What is with the testosterone on the board? We used to have openly female posters, five years ago. Now we have none.
Okay, so I type political opinions like a girl. For all you know, I have been a female all this time. I do not see where that gets us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| trueblue wrote: |
| Quote: |
| That Swartz, what a sterotypical white nationalist/supremacist/whatever. |
Mmmm..you really showed him with that, Leon
As far as having anything original to contribute, indeed, I do. But, what is the point? You and your girlfriends simply discard anything that does not meet your warped paradigm(s), which usually comes along with your efforts in response represented as simple smoke screens, sounding like some sort of horrid, putrid brand of soundbite journalism.
Folks have provided much original, and factual, content that has dwarfed both you and your sisters. When will you realize this? You were owned ages ago, ma'am. Your worth (on the forum) is about as useful as chicken crap on a pump handle. |
Like I was saying, the rabble has been roused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| For someone who pretends to be such a deep and principled philosophical thinker, you really turn into an intellectually duplicitous, handrubbing stereotype whenever you push out an innervated dispatch related to Trumpian nationalism. |
I don't have any idea what "Trumpian Nationalism" is, because when the man in question speaks about such subjects, he invariably changes positions again, and again, and again. That is part of my concern. Mr. Trump has been only too happy to change his positions on various issues moment-to-moment even during the primary, so why on Earth would anyone think he was some kind of principled thinker? Purely and only because they have begun to project onto and identify with him, of course. What is the primary characteristic of a peasant? His relationship with and comportment towards his noble lord, of course. And now, surely, you realize why I made the joke I did.
Contrary to your implication, I have a reasonable concern, and even esteem, for America's working classes, who engage in honorable labor for their living and really are the foundation of the country. I understand their frustrations with issues like immigration, free trade, and the like, and yes, they have been disenfranchised in a meaningful sense. Unfortunately -- and this is what is vexing about the matter -- they have been and continue to be complicit in their own disenfranchisment. Just as with the "Tea Party," they're responding to dysfunction with dysfunction; embracing the snake oil salesman and setting themselves up for another round of the pain. Mr. Trump's already given enough hints that immigration (skilled and unskilled, legal and illegal) would continue under him; that military adventurism and strong support for Israel would continue under him; that the tax and labor policies of America would shift even more in favor of the wealthy at the expense of the lower classes under him (though not as severely as they would under a hypothetical President Cruz), and so forth. "I'm changing it," was a very well-chosen phrase, even if it was well chosen by accident. |
I doubt you would feel the need to engage in such backpedaling if you were actually trying to make a joke, instead of showing your true feelings about the White working class. And it's all the more unbelievable to me personally being aware of how often your copatriots try to ridicule those same people in similar ways. And your analysis of Trump again comes off as crooked. You have a funny way of skewing things ever so slightly so you can deliver what I assume you believe are decisive blows to his character/policies, but I'm not sure it's worth my time to critique any of that. Part of it has to do with you simply not being aware of how a nationalist-leaning movement like the Tea Party was coopted and turned into something else so it could be driven into the ground, which is becoming routine in rightist movements due to dual-citizens like Ben Shapiro and Milo trying to parade around as the face of them.
| Fox wrote: |
| a crowd which is not even the majority of the Republican party |
This is the kind of deceptiveness I'm talking about with you. It shifts the focus from the fact that if anyone other than Trump had the kind of lead and support he does, there wouldn't even be a debate around him not receiving the nomination. The primary race would be considered all but over. This “not even a majority of the Republican Party” concept means absolutely nothing.
| Leon wrote: |
| If these white people have actually been disenfranchised like you describe, then why get upset when someone calls them peasants? |
The real issue revolves around who has portrayed these people as peasants in their media, TV shows, and movies, promoted economic policies that send their jobs overseas, and immigration policies that ensure that they will have compete with outsiders for the crappy jobs that still remain. Maybe it's the hypocrisy of the individual calling them peasants in light of who's been presenting them as such culturally, promoting their downward mobility economically, and their disenfranchisement politically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
What is with the testosterone on the board? We used to have openly female posters, five years ago. Now we have none.
Okay, so I type political opinions like a girl. For all you know, I have been a female all this time. I do not see where that gets us. |
I'll tell you where it got us, toots: to a point where you finally started making sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| trueblue wrote: |
| Quote: |
| That Swartz, what a sterotypical white nationalist/supremacist/whatever. |
Mmmm..you really showed him with that, Leon
As far as having anything original to contribute, indeed, I do. But, what is the point? You and your girlfriends simply discard anything that does not meet your warped paradigm(s), which usually comes along with your efforts in response represented as simple smoke screens, sounding like some sort of horrid, putrid brand of soundbite journalism.
Folks have provided much original, and factual, content that has dwarfed both you and your sisters. When will you realize this? You were owned ages ago, ma'am. Your worth (on the forum) is about as useful as chicken crap on a pump handle. |
Like I was saying, the rabble has been roused. |
Well, from any objective point of view, you and your girlfriends were roused some time ago.
Let it go Leon...you're done, and have been for some time now. There is nothing surprising about you, which is why you are never surprised (or aware) when folks get the better you.
Anyway....trouble in Colorado...
This kind of reminds me of the Jackson, Adams election, where Jackson won the majority of the people but some back alley "delegates" (or Adams and his relationship with the Speaker of the House then) cost it. Really, roughly 1 million votes down the drain in CO.
Well, at least we know that things have not really changed since Old Hickory was ambushed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
What is with the testosterone on the board? We used to have openly female posters, five years ago. Now we have none.
Okay, so I type political opinions like a girl. For all you know, I have been a female all this time. I do not see where that gets us. |
I'll tell you where it got us, toots: to a point where you finally started making sense. |
Burn.
You may need some SPF 3000 PM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| I doubt you would feel the need to engage in such backpedaling ... |
Why do you think anything I've said is "backpedaling?" Can I not even attempt to clarify something for someone who seems to have misunderstood it without "backpedaling?" I have a long posting history on this board, have written before about topics like immigration, housing, labor, and the like, and what I have written is in accord with my proffered clarification here. Beyond that, I've never been especially shy about voicing controversial or unpopular ideas, so if I really did hold the "White working class" in some sort of absolute contempt, why would I be shy about saying such? I would face no consequences for it, after all. To disagree with me is one thing, but to suggest things like "crookedness," "duplicity," and so forth implies I have some sort of motive for any of that, and it's hard for me to see what that motive might be.
| Swartz wrote: |
| You have a funny way of skewing things ever so slightly so you can deliver what I assume you believe are decisive blows to his character/policies ... |
I don't know his character, and I don't know his policies, so I can't rightly attack either in any meaningful sense. All I can do is point out perceived inconsistencies. But make no mistake, I don't think mentions of those inconsistencies are "decisive blows," because anyone who didn't notice them for them self will ignore the mention of them, or even treat their mention as an attack! So why do I mention them at all? Mostly to open myself to challenge, which is why it disappoints me when I'm repaid without much content. I know I won't change any minds; most people are not interested in serious self-examination and epistemological striving, not even in the slightest. But if I don't put myself in a position where my own thoughts can be criticized by others, it would be very easy to fall into the same trap. My suspicion is that you will read that and smirk to yourself, thinking, "Hah, there he goes pretending again," or the like, and that's okay. I don't require credulity, only sincere, content-laden exchange. An occasional insult mixed in with that criticism is not a big deal (especially if it's clever), but the challenge, that's what's important. Of course, no one is required to help me with that particular project, so if you wanted to simply say, "You know, conversation with Lyin' Fox isn't worth my time, so I'm going to just start ignoring him," that would be understandable enough.
| Swartz wrote: |
| Part of it has to do with you simply not being aware of how a nationalist-leaning movement like the Tea Party was coopted and turned into something else so it could be driven into the ground, which is becoming routine in rightist movements due to dual-citizens like Ben Shapiro and Milo trying to parade around as the face of them. |
This is what perplexes me so much: you understand how the sentiment of the populace can be co-opted, but seemingly refuse to take seriously the possibility that it's happening right now before you. And if Mr. Trump were to win, and his policies weren't the ones you were led to believe, suddenly it would be, "Oh Donald Trump, that shill for dual citizens. His daughter is Jewish, you know, and he's received lots of awards from Jewish 'dual citizens,' and he promised to support Israel 1000%. Dual citizens ruin everything." Nothing I said above is a lie, nor even skewed: he has a Jewish daughter, he boasted about the Jewishness of his future granddaughter, he has received awards from Jews, and he did promise to support Israel 1000%. While you support him, none of that seems to matter, but it's still there, waiting to become the explanatory factor should thinks ever turn out not to your liking.
| Swartz wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| a crowd which is not even the majority of the Republican party |
This is the kind of deceptiveness I'm talking about with you. It shifts the focus from the fact that if anyone other than Trump had the kind of lead and support he does, there wouldn't even be a debate around him not receiving the nomination. The primary race would be considered all but over. This “not even a majority of the Republican Party” concept means absolutely nothing. |
It means a lot... within the context of the rules and regulations of the Republican Party and its presidential primary process, which is the context in question. If even citing basic, obvious facts is "duplicitous," then for God's sake, what constitutes honesty? Why should the actual majority of Republican primary voters who have not lent their vote to Mr. Trump be treated as mathematically irrelevant by the Republican Party? Why should the rules of the party be treated as irrelevant? Why should a group of people who favors the judgment of elite decision makers over the will of the people be expected to suddenly start respecting the will of a minority -- a strong minority, but still a minority -- of their registered party members? None of these questions are unfair or duplicitous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2016 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| I doubt you would feel the need to engage in such backpedaling ... |
Why do you think anything I've said is "backpedaling?" Can I not even attempt to clarify something for someone who seems to have misunderstood it without "backpedaling?" I have a long posting history on this board, have written before about topics like immigration, housing, labor, and the like, and what I have written is in accord with my proffered clarification here. Beyond that, I've never been especially shy about voicing controversial or unpopular ideas, so if I really did hold the "White working class" in some sort of absolute contempt, why would I be shy about saying such? I would face no consequences for it, after all. To disagree with me is one thing, but to suggest things like "crookedness," "duplicity," and so forth implies I have some sort of motive for any of that, and it's hard for me to see what that motive might be.
| Swartz wrote: |
| You have a funny way of skewing things ever so slightly so you can deliver what I assume you believe are decisive blows to his character/policies ... |
I don't know his character, and I don't know his policies, so I can't rightly attack either in any meaningful sense. All I can do is point out perceived inconsistencies. But make no mistake, I don't think mentions of those inconsistencies are "decisive blows," because anyone who didn't notice them for them self will ignore the mention of them, or even treat their mention as an attack! So why do I mention them at all? Mostly to open myself to challenge, which is why it disappoints me when I'm repaid without much content. I know I won't change any minds; most people are not interested in serious self-examination and epistemological striving, not even in the slightest. But if I don't put myself in a position where my own thoughts can be criticized by others, it would be very easy to fall into the same trap. My suspicion is that you will read that and smirk to yourself, thinking, "Hah, there he goes pretending again," or the like, and that's okay. I don't require credulity, only sincere, content-laden exchange. An occasional insult mixed in with that criticism is not a big deal (especially if it's clever), but the challenge, that's what's important. Of course, no one is required to help me with that particular project, so if you wanted to simply say, "You know, conversation with Lyin' Fox isn't worth my time, so I'm going to just start ignoring him," that would be understandable enough.
| Swartz wrote: |
| Part of it has to do with you simply not being aware of how a nationalist-leaning movement like the Tea Party was coopted and turned into something else so it could be driven into the ground, which is becoming routine in rightist movements due to dual-citizens like Ben Shapiro and Milo trying to parade around as the face of them. |
This is what perplexes me so much: you understand how the sentiment of the populace can be co-opted, but seemingly refuse to take seriously the possibility that it's happening right now before you. And if Mr. Trump were to win, and his policies weren't the ones you were led to believe, suddenly it would be, "Oh Donald Trump, that shill for dual citizens. His daughter is Jewish, you know, and he's received lots of awards from Jewish 'dual citizens,' and he promised to support Israel 1000%. Dual citizens ruin everything." Nothing I said above is a lie, nor even skewed: he has a Jewish daughter, he boasted about the Jewishness of his future granddaughter, he has received awards from Jews, and he did promise to support Israel 1000%. While you support him, none of that seems to matter, but it's still there, waiting to become the explanatory factor should thinks ever turn out not to your liking.
| Swartz wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| a crowd which is not even the majority of the Republican party |
This is the kind of deceptiveness I'm talking about with you. It shifts the focus from the fact that if anyone other than Trump had the kind of lead and support he does, there wouldn't even be a debate around him not receiving the nomination. The primary race would be considered all but over. This “not even a majority of the Republican Party” concept means absolutely nothing. |
It means a lot... within the context of the rules and regulations of the Republican Party and its presidential primary process, which is the context in question. If even citing basic, obvious facts is "duplicitous," then for God's sake, what constitutes honesty? Why should the actual majority of Republican primary voters who have not lent their vote to Mr. Trump be treated as mathematically irrelevant by the Republican Party? Why should the rules of the party be treated as irrelevant? Why should a group of people who favors the judgment of elite decision makers over the will of the people be expected to suddenly start respecting the will of a minority -- a strong minority, but still a minority -- of their registered party members? None of these questions are unfair or duplicitous. |
Colorado is a state of less than 6 million people. Most of the population os concentrated in the Denver/Aurora/Boulder/Lakewood area...secular progressive central.
1 million people who voted for Trump now have a worthless vote, due to the haughty and bumptious elite delegates. Granted, this is not the first time, as something similar happened to Ron Paul.
It is just shows that the voice and vote of the people can subjectively be stomped out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
