Trump's remarks | Imamother

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> In the News

Trump's remarks

Previous 1 2 3 17 18 19 20 21 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

↑ 33055 ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 11:17 am

marina wrote:

This is going to hurt, Squish. Not all, but SOME people on the right still support Trump is because they are not skeptical enough.

For example, believing that ESPN is that stupid and not doing the fact checking is not skeptical enough.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/08/.....espn/

They moved him because there were concerns for his safety because of his name after the Charlottesville march and that he would be heckled or harmed. No one at ESPN confused him with anyone.

I doubt ESPN's spin on this very much. They were being ridiculed. ESPN not Robert Lee came up with this ridiculous idea. Saying out was mutual is just a spin.

I do agree with your first sentence.

↑ marina ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 11:29 am

Squishy wrote:

I doubt ESPN's spin on this very much. They were being ridiculed. ESPN not Robert Lee came up with this ridiculous idea. Saying out was mutual is just a spin.

I do agree with your first sentence.

So your position is that ESPN transferred him from his post in CHARLOTTESVILLE because they worried about offending liberal snowflakes, not concerned for safety and heckling of a guy named ROBERT LEE calling a game there?

And that somehow moving him to an Ohio/ PA game would alleviate this problem? No liberal snowflakes would be offended if he called a game in another part of the country? No liberals live in Youngstown? How would this transfer accomplish their purported goal?

This theory makes no sense, sorry.

Much more likely that they pulled him from the CHARLOTTESVILLE game because of the recent events there and the likely reaction of many to hearing that Robert Lee was going to call a game there.

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 11:40 am

marina wrote:

Affirmative action is not punishing successful groups. It's giving a leg up to traditionally marginalized ones.

I always like to point out that almost 3/4 of universities give admission preferences to children and grandchildren of alumni, called legacy students. Some even give preferences to siblings, nieces/ nephews, etc.

You must agree with me that this practically almost exclusively favors white and now Asian applicants.

Are you upset about this favoritism? How upset are you?

Donating $2.5 million also seems to help the chance of admission, but Trump isn't up in arms about that.

Competitive colleges these days look at a lot of things in addition to grades. They want to see not only participation, but leadership in extra-curricular activities. Volunteer work. Other work, not necessarily internships. Interesting outside interests and activities. And, yes, diversity. Given the same grades, the daughter of a West Virginia coal miner is more likely to be admitted to an elite school than the daughter of a New York investment banker. Even if both are white.

Having attended elite colleges and graduate schools, I can tell you that, at least when I attended, the difference in grades and scores between minority and non-minority students was slight, maybe a point to 3.

↑ marina ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 11:40 am

We all need to be more skeptical in how we accept claims made by either side. Whenever something is surprising to me and I think : uh what, that's when I really try to remember to snopes the article or, if I don't have time, just to consider it unverified. Whether from slate or huff po or the drudge report.

↑ marina ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 11:44 am

SixOfWands wrote:

From the case law I've read, admission offices have a list of points they give to applicants and the overall score determines acceptance. You get points for GPA, SAT, poverty, diversity, legacy, etc.

↑ Jeanette ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 11:59 am

Squishy wrote:

You are right.

I didn't like Trump intimidating HRC, but I find her nasty. One only had to look at HTC and see "back up you creep" coming through loud and clear in her demeanor. I find her slimy and always did. Fraudsters disgust me.

Regrettably, the candidates that are presidential don't have the chops to win. Presidential is didn't resonate with the voters. Strong and America first did.

I don't think we would venerate many of our past presidents if they were subjected to what DT is.

That's really fascinating. A man breathing down a woman's back and getting in her space is okay, but if she gets a "back off you creep" look on her face that's disgusting.

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 12:41 pm

Squishy wrote:

I am sorry; close to what?

Being treated like DT.

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 2:32 pm

marina wrote:

Quote:

Meanwhile in NY, a politician called for the confederate flag to be removed from the NYS Capitol. This idiot didn't check to see the flag was part of a mural depicting the Battle of Gettysburg in the War Room.

I think what is wrong with these folks. I wonder why they are so reactionary, so angry, and so illogical. I think the mass hypnosis that caused folks to burn their neighbors as witches is a good explanation.

I haven't been able to find this story, but let's say it's true. Who cares? Politicians call for stupid **** all the time, on both sides. I can spend three pages of this thread posting about lawmakers who propose bills that show an appalling ignorance in constitutional law, for example. But I usually don't bother because individual morons don't reflect on the whole, at least for me.

It wasn't a politician, it was an "activist." And there's no active movement to do anything about it.

http://news10.com/2017/08/18/c.....itol/

↑ Fox ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 7:10 pm

I haven't been able to respond to this thread for a few days, but it's given me time to think and process things a bit.

In general, opponents of Trump seize on his latest gaffe and ask, "How can you still support him when he did/said XYZ?!"

This isn't a bad question, but it completely misses the mentality and concerns of most Trump voters/supporters.

While Trump supporters certainly don't believe that he's a Nazi sympathizer, they don't really care about whether he is "Presidential" or whether he is "bereft of morals." In fact, one op-ed I read (can't recall who or where) suggested that because Trump voters tend to identify as more religious, they neither expect nor even want a governmental leader to serve as a moral role model. They'll get their morals elsewhere, thank you very much. Whether this is an accurate read or not, I don't know, but it's worth considering.

Trump voters, IMHO, care far less about Trump's individual statements than about the fact that he has no hesitation whatsoever in bringing up uncomfortable subjects and has no desire to curry favor with powerful segments of society.

Let's take his rants against the media:

When Trump goes on one of his rants against the media, I cannot help but think of the Gawker trial. On one hand, my natural libertarian instincts were that the whole thing should have been settled in a gay bar with some scathing insults and a few tossed drinks (this would have saved us from having to consider Hulk Hogan's intimate life as part of freedom of speech, too!) rather than played out in a courtroom.

On the other hand, I couldn't help but cheer, feeling that the verdict against Gawker couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch!

I don't actually believe that most journalists are unpatriotic, evil, etc. But many people have become incredibly disturbed by how far purportedly "objective" media have slid into advocacy journalism. Some, like Christiane Amanpour, are completely upfront about it. Others, like Don Lemon, don't even realize that they are practicing advocacy journalism (watch his recent conversation with Ben Shapiro).

But most journalists and media outlets aren't even open to the discussion of the role of bias or whether journalistic ethics need attention. They act insulted that anyone would point out even mild shortcomings.

Public concern is not rooted simply in media responses to Trump. The Gawker case; the Rolling Stone case; the rehabilitation of Brian Williams; Dan Rather's fall from grace; and the anti-Israel bias of outlets like NYT have eroded the public's confidence in the motivations of those who report the news for decades.

So, yes, I'm sure many Trump voters wish he wouldn't go so far over the top and make stupid misstatements and exaggerations. At the same time, there is a strong sentiment that without Trump's passion (or craziness, depending on your perspective), these issues would never see the light of day.

* For example, James Damore's firing from Google (or "Goolag" as his t-shirt reads).

* Or shadow-banning on Facebook and Twitter. I lost, regained, and lost 25 percent of my Facebook feed this week. The posters are still there and I'm still following them. Their posts just don't appear in my feed. Strangely, all of these lost lambs just happen to be conservative public figures.

* Or attempts by PayPal to prevent certain organizations from collecting money through their service.

* Or demonetization by YouTube that seems directed primarily at conservative/libertarian voices.

Google any of these stories. You'll find a paucity of coverage among MSM outlets. Of course, that may be a function of Google's search algorithms, which would also prove the point.

Will Trump as President address any of these events? Maybe. Maybe not. However, we are willing to put up with Trump's rhetorical excesses because we believe he unashamedly calls out people who hijack the moral high ground and attempt to impose their ideology on others. Moreover, his example encourages people to confront those who would impose their worldview on others for the allegedly better good.

I recently heard James Damore described as "Patient Zero" in the unraveling of Silicon Valley's attempts to control speech. Without Trump in the White House, this "Patient Zero" would be dead and buried before he could even lawyer up; at least under the current White House, he stands a fighting chance, and we stand a fighting chance of learning exactly what goes on at Google.

↑ 33055 ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 7:18 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

I attended one of the elite universities you stated you attended; although it was a different graduate program. It was recent. The program was anything but white. And there were no Asians I can recall. I may have been the only Jew. Certainly, I was the only one eating Kosher. My program was overwhelmingly black. Where is the diversity?

I was actually on that campus today. I looked around and thought it was tours of foreign tourists. It turns out it was the freshman class. Shouldn't there be some balance to the diversity? It is not fair when 74% of the population is white and less than half the entering class is white. Being white is a handicap.

I opt for President Kennedy's definition. He signed the executive order for affirmative action in 1961. Hiring decisions for federally funded projects were to be free from racial bias. I think this is a fairer standard.

I also hold professional graduate degrees. One of my black friends scored HALF my admission score, and she got a merit scholarship as did every black student there. Not one came close to my scores. I had one friend who changed her ethnicity from Spanish to black to get said merit scholarship.

I told admin they shouldn't call it a merit scholarship. They should call it black scholarship. A merit scholarship for being black is dishonest.

If course, my black friend failed out after several chances. A white student would not have been given the opportunities she got. She never belonged in the program in first place. She was admitted because her mother was a black welfare mother. She and her sister shared a bed. Her college education at CUNY was about my HS level.

Additionally, accepting students with lower entrance scores devalues the degree. A 3 or difference is not so much. But half????

↑ 33055 ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 7:21 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

Does Bush the second come close?

Are you asking if Bush2.0 was subject to the same heckling that Trump is? Absolutely

↑ 33055 ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 7:24 pm

marina wrote:

As far as I can see, we are almost saying the same thing except I don't believe Robert Lee was part of the decision. I think they thought three would be sensitivity to his name in Charlottsville.

↑ 33055 ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 7:34 pm

Jeanette wrote:

That's really fascinating. A man breathing down a woman's back and getting in her space is okay, but if she gets a "back off you creep" look on her face that's disgusting.

It was her whole demeanor on the stage before, during, and after that disgusted me. She had a puss on. She projected she felt entitled to be president. She projected this was her turn. She never had her husband's charisma, nor did she project his policy wonkiness. Even when Bill was at his lowest, he was charming and could connect with people. He understood that during HRC's campaign it was still the economy stupid.

↑ Fox ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 7:38 pm

Affirmative Action is a perfect example of an uncomfortable conversation we need to have in America.

However, it won't be productive if we allow it to turn into a moral issue.

The moral issue is not affirmative action; the moral issue is making sure that everyone in the U.S. has a more-or-less equal chance to be successful.

Virtually no sane person disagrees that everyone in the U.S. have true opportunity; however, it is entirely reasonable to look at whether affirmative action and racial/ethnic diversity are producing the results we want.

But when such a conversation is immediately shut down -- or if you're fired for discussing the role of diversity in your company -- we not only have no conversation, we fail to figure out what works and what doesn't.

We have enough data to know some things about how and whether various types of affirmative action work. But if data itself is labeled "racist," it's hard to make things better.

I've been interested that a number of conservatives are not necessarily opposed so some sort of slavery reparations. However, they want to make sure that "repair" is genuinely going on -- not just, "give people some money and shut them up." Ironically, advocates for diversity who refuse to consider the data are actually impeding the progress of equality.

↑ 33055 ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 7:40 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

It wasn't a politician, it was an "activist." And there's no active movement to do anything about it.

http://news10.com/2017/08/18/c.....itol/

There's two them that stupid??? The one I referred to is a male city counsel member. Anyway, you must not be following city politics if you think this is the most out there idea yet?

It is just one item in a litany of left run amock.

Please tell me why it is Goodbye, Columbus? Are there that many Italian Supremacists looking to oppress natives?

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 7:42 pm

Squishy wrote:

I'm quite confused as to why you think you know what schools I attended, and what type of graduate school I attended.

But here's a chart of admissions and attendance of African Americans at top schools; its the most recent data I could find quickly:

I am curious as to what type of graduate program you attended at an elite school that was so largely African American, and that awarded merit scholarships to 100% of those students. The only graduate program that I know of that's well-known for accepting a large percentage of minority students is Drexel Med, and that's less than 10% black/Latino (and not particularly prestigious).

I'm also curious where you attended high school that rivaled a CUNY education. Baruch, for example, is #57 on the list of top public colleges, and #64 on the "value" list. Queens is 88/118 on the same lists. And Hunter is 104/163. Both rank much higher than, say, Touro. Which isn't to say that there aren't many better colleges. But I'm very impressed that a high school is better than a school like Baruch.

But obviously our experiences were very different. My African American, Native American and Latino friends in college and graduate school were, in a word, brilliant.

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 7:44 pm

Squishy wrote:

You would be correct. I don't follow city politics in Albany. Please provide a link to an article about it.

And if you want to talk about people running amok, how about Scott Baio, who addressed the RNC at the convention that nominated Trump, suggesting that Heather Heyer's murder was actually a false flag attack, using the "actors" as Sandy Hook (which was apparently also nothing more than a ruse).

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 7:53 pm

Fox wrote:

While Trump supporters certainly don't believe that he's a Nazi sympathizer, they don't really care about whether he is "Presidential" or whether he is "bereft of morals." In fact, one op-ed I read (can't recall who or where) suggested that because Trump voters tend to identify as more religious, they neither expect nor even want a governmental leader to serve as a moral role model. They'll get their morals elsewhere, thank you very much. Whether this is an accurate read or not, I don't know, but it's worth considering.
.

Sure it's accurate. It's how the evangelicals were able to endorse him early and heartily.

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 7:54 pm

Squishy wrote:

Are you asking if Bush2.0 was subject to the same heckling that Trump is?

Yes.

↑ Fox ↓

Thu, Aug 24 2017, 7:59 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

But obviously our experiences were very different. My African American, Native American and Latino friends in college and graduate school were, in a word, brilliant.

This is a fascinating chart, and the most important part is the next-to-the-last column: the black "yield."

It seems to show that the top universities are recruiting from a very limited pool of qualified black applicants. Only MIT got more than approximately half of the black students they admitted to actually attend. Though perhaps Will Smith's last-minute decision to go into show business brought down their numbers.

This, however, shows one of the weaknesses of affirmative action in its current form. It motivates top colleges to chase black superstars while doing little for anyone else. In fact, a frequent complaint is that affirmative action is exacerbating a class division in the African-American community: students from affluent homes can easily avail themselves of these opportunities while increasingly leaving behind those who cannot.

Another issue is what happens to students after graduation. There is a body of research that suggests all students -- but especially minority students -- often benefit most from attending a college that is just slightly below their maximum capabilities. Students who drop down one level in the college hierarchy are shown to achieve more long-term success in their careers than students who attend the best college they can get into.

And, of course, privilege and prejudice is increasingly more complex than simply skin color.

Page 18 of 21

Previous 1 2 3 17 18 19 20 21 Next