Pass the popcorn please...

I'm honestly not sure why it's a big deal if it's confirmed that Trump's wiretapping claims are false. He basically lies (and is caught lying) on a daily basis and it hasn't deterred his core constituency of the angry and uneducated.

I think I would go a little further.

Assuming people have opinions that I contribute them to have, is in fact a not a liberal mindset at all: it deprives people to actually express themselves first, before this person makes an assumption about people's opinion. It is the direct opposite of what is called "liberal". It gives zero chance to practice that free speech liberals are defining themselves by.

Just because I love apples doesn't have to mean I think non-apples suck. And people who are into non-apples must suck, too. I don't get these shortcuts, and by a group labelling themselves liberals.

It is not a dichotomy, per se. It is more ( A is good, -A is bad, therefore unrelated B must be bad, too). It is skewing perceptions so it fits into a frame that consists of two poles. Polarizing with a void between. Who thinks merely within two poles?? How liberal is that?

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

I am expressing MY viewpoint. I don't extrapolate that someone who is nationalistic is bad or is a bad person!!! I don't think that way. Because I don't agree with that view, it does not follow that I think someone is a bad person because of he/she believes it. You are drawing that conclusion.


I think that the ideal of nationalism is bad because it can lead people to become aggressive with others or reject the totality of a person (to be blind to their shared humanity in general or their individual benefit to society in particular) using a metric that I don't agree with. As an example, the Khan soldier who was killed. In my opinion his family was vilified by Trump supporters because he was a Muslim. Yet no one could doubt his patriotism to the US (he died for the US and was highly decorated). I would argue that nationalistic reasons made this attack understandable, and overwhelmed his patriotism.

I don't really classify people as good or bad! Because indon't share the same values as others does not mean I am in conflict with them. We should be able to live peacefully with differences. You would agree? (it can be pretty boring talking to the converted ie people you share values with )

I agree with you re: culture - it is both a reference point in the past and a living thing. It's very hard to categorise.

Thanks very much for the discussion.

Those bloody angry and uneducated deplorables!

When will those plebs realize that we know what's best for them?!

Look at the trend, from 75% approval to 47% in just two months. Horrible.
Fox' recent poll.

I haven't followed the details of the Khan story. But my understanding is the following. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The father of the soldier who was killed spoke up against Trump at, I think, a Hillary rally.

Now any loss of life is sad, especially if its a close family member. But I think if you drag your personal family suffering into the limelight and use it as public political ammunition, and that at a time that the campaign has already got very dirty, it is naive to expect that somebody isn't going to hit back and that some of the mud isn't going to hit you. So in my view, it was Khan's daddy who started it. He didn't need to or have to go there and make that statement. He decided to make a private bereavement into a public talking point, Personally I would never do that. I feel we should leave the dead alone and that mourning should occur within the circle of family and friends. But everybody has to make that call themselves. I hope, in return for his speaking he got a generous checque from Hillary. But no matter what the deal was, he accepted that. He is an educated and intelligent man. He must have thought it through. He must have foreseen what was going to happen.

But now let's analysze this further.

Some people were appaled that Khan was being dragged into the mud. Their thinking was, this guy died for his country. That puts him beyond criticism and puts his daddy who his making capital out of his son's death beyond criticism too. Maybe they thought, Trump's supporters are patriots and nationalists and they wouldn't attack the daddy of a dead serviceman. Therefore th daddy of the dead serviceman can attack Trump for all he likes and they wouldn't dare speak back. But they were wrong. So maybe they misunderstood that patriotism / nationalism is not about my country right or wrong.

If Khan senior genuinely didn't see that coming, then i feel very very sorry for him. If that is the case, I also feel that Hillary tricked him, and that it was a very evil thing to do.

But then I don't really buy this naievety thing.

And then there is the Muslim angle. Some saw criticism of Khan as anti Muslim. Now Khan wasn't a guy speaking up against Trump who happened by the by just by accident to also be a Muslim and he let that fact slip by accident. No, he actually spoke up and put his Muslimness in the centre of his statement. Now if somebody had attacked him for being left handed or suffering from some tabu disease, that would be totally unfair and discriminatory. If he had not mentioned so prominently that he was a Muslim, it would also have been unfair to use that against him. But the Muslim aspect was something he brought up. If you bring a weapon to battle, then don't be surprised if somebody turns it against you.

So in my view it was legitimate to take that discussion point forwards. However, some of the things that were done with it were not legitimate. Some of the things that were being said were vile. Let's make that quite clear.

Now I'm not defending the attacks on him being a Muslim. I don't think its right for little children to be hit on the head with a soup bowl. But if the little children tug on the table cloth, that's what happens. That's why I also think they shouldn't tug on the table cloth. It's not the fault of the soup bowl. It's the fault of the children and if you like of the table cloth. You get my point. There are idiots out there. You provoke the idiots. They hit back at you. You don't want the idiots to hit you. You don't provoke them. I learnt this in the sandpit when I was about 4. I alos learnt that if you don't want to get hit, you set up a child who was more stupid than yourself to provoke the idiots. Then they got hit. That was Mr Khan taking hits for Hillary.

Especially if the provocation was part of the plan by Hillary, to show that some racists support Trump (we all knew that already) and to infer from that that all Trump supportwers are racists (which they aren't) and if making that point comes ta the cost of great stress and suffering for Mr Khan, well he's an expendable idiot who has served his purpose. Thank you for showing us how you think Hillary.

And when that happened, why were the angry fingers point at Trump? Why not at Hillary?

But I don't see what this has to do with nationalism or patriotism. Apart from, the attack on Khan was bad. nationalists are also bad. Therefore the people who did that were nationalists. Not a very deep thought.

the pleasure is mine

Basically, that's the gist of it but more like "When will this, the least educated and most bigoted voting block in modern times, admit they've been had by an incompetent liar who's milking the presidency for all its worth?" but as long as they find solace and support in internet echo chambers of like minded mouth breathers who consider ignorance a virtue we'll probably be waiting a while.

Apples and pears (or in this case orange/s...) -
not all apples are the same, and some are rotten - and if you believe in fairy tales, poisoned even.

Perhaps when the know-it-all snobs ('liberals' ) stop looking down their noses at them for daring to form their own opinions.

Or maybe in eight years time

An idea might inspire some people to be violent. Should we blame the idea or the people who take it so far? It 'can'..does not mean we gotta ban a perfectly ok idea just because some people process it for the sake of their own interests. Loads of folks who call themselves left, justify violence and outrage by 'having ideas'. For example, that Trump is evil.

Does that make them snowflakes?

That word really winds you up eh?

Outraged snowflakes!


Hahahah...

Indeed. And when enough snowflakes feel the outrage.....avalanche.

''Make sure to wear the vagina hats, that'll let 'em know that we really mean business!''

hmmm... I like to think that outraged snowflakes just melt away!

Forming their own opinions is fine and democratic.

Would be better if they formed informed opinions but we have to take what we get

Trump's not evil. He just isn't up to the job. The Presidency is bigger than any occupant of the post, but each era is defined by those occupants. What we're in danger of is the current occupant of the role bringing it into disrepute. How is that beneficial to anyone?

They probably didn't even bother to vote those unwashed slobs!

I'll bet it was them crafty Ruskies what rigged the election!