Did Donald Trump take a dive last night?

[jmdrake]

Strange bed fellows? Only to the...ahemmm....uninitiated. Strange to the appearance of the masses but decidedly unstrange when you know they all work together toward the same goal.

That's George Wallace on the right, the most vociferous of opponents to desegregation.
"Wallace was elected governor the first time in 1962, with what was the largest popular vote in state history and with the declaration: "I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say, segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

Did you know that when George Wallace first ran for governor he ran on a platform of racial harmony and inclusion? He got beat after his opponent was video taped riding around in a KKK car with a cross lit up in lightbulbs. George Wallace is quoted as saying "I got out n*ggered. I'll never be out n*ggered again." But George Wallace was a progressive his entire life.

This documentary, "Setting the Woods on Fire" explains the truth about George Wallace and what's really behind race politics in America.



It's interesting that Bill Clinton is in the picture. Bill Clinton, our supposed "first black president", said of the late senator Robert Byrd that his joining the KKK was just "what he had to do to get elected."

 

[kahless]

Did you know that when George Wallace first ran for governor he ran on a platform of racial harmony and inclusion? He got beat after his opponent was video taped riding around in a KKK car with a cross lit up in lightbulbs. George Wallace is quoted as saying "I got out n*ggered. I'll never be out n*ggered again." But George Wallace was a progressive his entire life.

This documentary, "Setting the Woods on Fire" explains the truth about George Wallace and what's really behind race politics in America.



It's interesting that Bill Clinton is in the picture. Bill Clinton, our supposed "first black president", said of the late senator Robert Byrd that his joining the KKK was just "what he had to do to get elected."

Damn you jmdrake, I am more than half way through that documentary and can't pull myself away.

There are some interesting historical parallels in terms of support but with Trump there is no racial discrimination factor with his polices. It is the media that has created the fairy tale that there is with Trump.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Ya got to be joking. 15 minutes in and DW and I were saying that if sniffing had been a part of the drinking game we'd already be passed out.

Well, I can see from all the responses from my fellow RPF teammates that the sniffing was, in fact, noticed by some.

See, this is the risk of telling people what they saw, what they noticed, and what was obvious to them. My own ridiculous and arrogant statement was intentional -- my sense is that the arrogance of some of the rest of you is more sincere.

No, Phil, I am not joking. Did it seem funny? Did you think I was that poor a comedian?

No, Ender, I am not a parrot. Who, pray tell, would I be parroting? Some sort of anti-sniffing conspiracy theorists?

No, moostraks, I am not trying to "pin" the Great Sniffing Scandal (SCANDAL!!1!) on "any one agency". What the hey are you talking about?

And that's great, otherone, that is was so obvious. To you!

And that is the moral of my little demonstration here. Just because you see an event a certain way, it is natural to think that everyone cannot help but see it that way. To notice what you noticed. It was so obvious, after all! And so anyone with a differing point of view is clearly horrible, or dishonest, or boobish, or whatever other story you have to make up in your head about how they could come to such a wildly irrational conclusion after seeing the exact same thing you did, taking in the exact same data that you did.

Here's the secret: They didn't!

In 1990, a Stanford University graduate student illustrated this phenomenon by doing a scientific study. Participants played a simple game in which they were assigned to one of two roles: “tapper” or “listener.” Each tapper was asked to pick a well-known song, such as Happy Birthday to You, and tap out the rhythm on a table. The listener’s job was to guess the song.

Over the course of the experiment, 120 songs were tapped out. Listeners guessed only three of the songs correctly: a success ratio of 2.5%. But before they guessed, Newton asked the tappers to predict the probability that listeners would guess correctly. They predicted 50%. The tappers got their message across one time in 40, but they thought they would get it across one time in two. Why?

When a tapper taps, it is impossible for him to avoid hearing the tune playing along to his taps. Meanwhile, all the listener can hear is a kind of bizarre Morse code. Yet the tappers were flabbergasted by how hard the listeners had to work to pick up the tune.

The problem is that once we know something—say, the melody of a song—we find it hard to imagine not knowing it. Our knowledge has "cursed" us. We have difficulty sharing it with others, because we can’t readily re-create their state of mind. We have become locked in to our perception.

And so when the listeners you're sitting across from are sure that you're tapping out The Star-Spangled Banner, when of course the obvious truth is that you're tapping out Happy Birthday to You, well, there's only one explanation for that. They're stupider than you. Much, much stupider. Or they're being dishonest with themselves, or with you, or perhaps are just generally dishonest. Or they're experiencing cognitive dissonance. Or they don't understand the ideals The Star-Spangled Banner truly stands for. They hate liberty. Or they're Boobus Americanus. Or maybe they're out-and-out evil.

So this is a perfect example. I chose it because, presumably, no one actually has super-super strong feelings and emotions about whether someone was sniffing during the debate. Hopefully! So maybe, maybe!, you can see how ridiculous it is for you to claim that "Oh, come on, Helmuth, you had to have noticed that. Don't give me that. After all, it was obvious." Just as ridiculous as it would be for me to presume to know what you had and had not noticed. Eh?

I hope that this truth is valuable to someone here. It has wide application and consequences. I hope that someone can soak it in and appreciate it. I just get tired, and sad, to read day after day so much bitterness, so much hate, so much negativity, here on this board from my RPF teammates. You hate so-and-so, and so you also hate all your fellow Americans who kind of like or support so-and-so. That second part is your mistake. They're all just loons and kooks and whatever other nasty thing you want to call them. No, no they're not. They are your fellow Americans. They are your teammates and your shipmates on this Great Ship America. They're pretty good people, many of them.

 

[Mordan]

Well, I can see from all the responses from my fellow RPF teammates that the sniffing was, in fact, noticed by some.

See, this is the risk of telling people what they saw, what they noticed, and what was obvious to them. My own ridiculous and arrogant statement was intentional -- my sense is that the arrogance of some of the rest of you is more sincere.

No, Phil, I am not joking. Did it seem funny? Did you think I was that poor a comedian?

No, Ender, I am not a parrot. Who, pray tell, would I be parroting? Some sort of anti-sniffing conspiracy theorists?

No, moostraks, I am not trying to "pin" the Great Sniffing Scandal (SCANDAL!!1!) on "any one agency". What the hey are you talking about?

And that's great, otherone, that is was so obvious. To you!

And that is the moral of my little demonstration here. Just because you see an event a certain way, it is natural to think that everyone cannot help but see it that way. To notice what you noticed. It was so obvious, after all! And so anyone with a differing point of view is clearly horrible, or dishonest, or boobish, or whatever other story you have to make up in your head about how they could come to such a wildly irrational conclusion after seeing the exact same thing you did, taking in the exact same data that you did.

Here's the secret: They didn't!

In 1990, a Stanford University graduate student illustrated this phenomenon by doing a scientific study. Participants played a simple game in which they were assigned to one of two roles: “tapper” or “listener.” Each tapper was asked to pick a well-known song, such as Happy Birthday to You, and tap out the rhythm on a table. The listener’s job was to guess the song.

Over the course of the experiment, 120 songs were tapped out. Listeners guessed only three of the songs correctly: a success ratio of 2.5%. But before they guessed, Newton asked the tappers to predict the probability that listeners would guess correctly. They predicted 50%. The tappers got their message across one time in 40, but they thought they would get it across one time in two. Why?

When a tapper taps, it is impossible for him to avoid hearing the tune playing along to his taps. Meanwhile, all the listener can hear is a kind of bizarre Morse code. Yet the tappers were flabbergasted by how hard the listeners had to work to pick up the tune.

The problem is that once we know something—say, the melody of a song—we find it hard to imagine not knowing it. Our knowledge has "cursed" us. We have difficulty sharing it with others, because we can’t readily re-create their state of mind. We have become locked in to our perception.

And so when the listeners you're sitting across from are sure that you're tapping out The Star-Spangled Banner, when of course the obvious truth is that you're tapping out Happy Birthday to You, well, there's only one explanation for that. They're stupider than you. Much, much stupider. Or they're being dishonest with themselves, or with you, or perhaps are just generally dishonest. Or they're experiencing cognitive dissonance. Or they don't understand the ideals The Star-Spangled Banner truly stands for. They hate liberty. Or they're Boobus Americanus. Or maybe they're out-and-out evil.

So this is a perfect example. I chose it because, presumably, no one actually has super-super strong feelings and emotions about whether someone was sniffing during the debate. Hopefully! So maybe, maybe!, you can see how ridiculous it is for you to claim that "Oh, come on, Helmuth, you had to have noticed that. Don't give me that. After all, it was obvious." Just as ridiculous as it would be for me to presume to know what you had and had not noticed. Eh?

I hope that this truth is valuable to someone here. It has wide application and consequences. I hope that someone can soak it in and appreciate it. I just get tired, and sad, to read day after day so much bitterness, so much hate, so much negativity, here on this board from my RPF teammates. You hate so-and-so, and so you also hate all your fellow Americans who kind of like or support so-and-so. That second part is your mistake. They're all just loons and kooks and whatever other nasty thing you want to call them. No, no they're not. They are your fellow Americans. They are your teammates and your shipmates on this Great Ship America. They're pretty good people, many of them.

This is the response of a true RPF member. +1. Good day to you sir!

 

[Ender]

Well, I can see from all the responses from my fellow RPF teammates that the sniffing was, in fact, noticed by some.

See, this is the risk of telling people what they saw, what they noticed, and what was obvious to them. My own ridiculous and arrogant statement was intentional -- my sense is that the arrogance of some of the rest of you is more sincere.

No, Phil, I am not joking. Did it seem funny? Did you think I was that poor a comedian?

No, Ender, I am not a parrot. Who, pray tell, would I be parroting? Some sort of anti-sniffing conspiracy theorists?

No, moostraks, I am not trying to "pin" the Great Sniffing Scandal (SCANDAL!!1!) on "any one agency". What the hey are you talking about?

And that's great, otherone, that is was so obvious. To you!

And that is the moral of my little demonstration here. Just because you see an event a certain way, it is natural to think that everyone cannot help but see it that way. To notice what you noticed. It was so obvious, after all! And so anyone with a differing point of view is clearly horrible, or dishonest, or boobish, or whatever other story you have to make up in your head about how they could come to such a wildly irrational conclusion after seeing the exact same thing you did, taking in the exact same data that you did.

Here's the secret: They didn't!

In 1990, a Stanford University graduate student illustrated this phenomenon by doing a scientific study. Participants played a simple game in which they were assigned to one of two roles: “tapper” or “listener.” Each tapper was asked to pick a well-known song, such as Happy Birthday to You, and tap out the rhythm on a table. The listener’s job was to guess the song.

Over the course of the experiment, 120 songs were tapped out. Listeners guessed only three of the songs correctly: a success ratio of 2.5%. But before they guessed, Newton asked the tappers to predict the probability that listeners would guess correctly. They predicted 50%. The tappers got their message across one time in 40, but they thought they would get it across one time in two. Why?

When a tapper taps, it is impossible for him to avoid hearing the tune playing along to his taps. Meanwhile, all the listener can hear is a kind of bizarre Morse code. Yet the tappers were flabbergasted by how hard the listeners had to work to pick up the tune.

The problem is that once we know something—say, the melody of a song—we find it hard to imagine not knowing it. Our knowledge has "cursed" us. We have difficulty sharing it with others, because we can’t readily re-create their state of mind. We have become locked in to our perception.

And so when the listeners you're sitting across from are sure that you're tapping out The Star-Spangled Banner, when of course the obvious truth is that you're tapping out Happy Birthday to You, well, there's only one explanation for that. They're stupider than you. Much, much stupider. Or they're being dishonest with themselves, or with you, or perhaps are just generally dishonest. Or they're experiencing cognitive dissonance. Or they don't understand the ideals The Star-Spangled Banner truly stands for. They hate liberty. Or they're Boobus Americanus. Or maybe they're out-and-out evil.

So this is a perfect example. I chose it because, presumably, no one actually has super-super strong feelings and emotions about whether someone was sniffing during the debate. Hopefully! So maybe, maybe!, you can see how ridiculous it is for you to claim that "Oh, come on, Helmuth, you had to have noticed that. Don't give me that. After all, it was obvious." Just as ridiculous as it would be for me to presume to know what you had and had not noticed. Eh?

I hope that this truth is valuable to someone here. It has wide application and consequences. I hope that someone can soak it in and appreciate it. I just get tired, and sad, to read day after day so much bitterness, so much hate, so much negativity, here on this board from my RPF teammates. You hate so-and-so, and so you also hate all your fellow Americans who kind of like or support so-and-so. That second part is your mistake. They're all just loons and kooks and whatever other nasty thing you want to call them. No, no they're not. They are your fellow Americans. They are your teammates and your shipmates on this Great Ship America. They're pretty good people, many of them.

My POV is that you were the one that was hating on [MENTION=7761]moostraks[/MENTION] and then me. You said that she and I did NOT hear the sniffs -when I had and so did moo. [MENTION=10850]phill4paul[/MENTION] steps in over your remarks and you call that "hate".

BTW- I play the rhythm game with my music students all the time- they get so that they are pretty accurate on which song is being clapped. (We clap the rhythm.)

ETA: I tell my students that we have 2 ears and 1 mouth for a reason- better to listen twice as much than spouting one's mouth continually.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

My POV is that you were the one that was hating on [MENTION=7761]moostraks[/MENTION] and then me. You said that she and I did NOT hear the sniffs -when I had and so did moo. [MENTION=10850]phill4paul[/MENTION] steps in over your remarks and you call that "hate".

Hate, hate, hate. No one was "hating" on me for not noticing the sniffing, I did not call anyone's statements towards me hate. Nor was I hating on anyone else for noticing the sniffing. My point was merely that it is equally ridiculous both for me to tell you what you noticed or should have noticed as for you to tell me.

I thought, by the way, Ender, that you had! You wrote "YES MOO DID" and I thought you meant "YES YOU DID" as in, "Yes, Helmuth, you most certainly did notice that, you couldn't have missed it, you're just lying." And that the "MOO" was just a bizarre attempt to be funny and insult me somehow by calling me a cow.

You see how easy it is to misunderstand each other?

Where the "hate" comes in is exactly where I said it does: hate for the supporters of political candidates you dislike. That just seems unnecessary to me. It's draining. Even fellow RPF members, who have fought the fight of liberty shoulder-to-shoulder with you for years, heaven help them if they dare express anything that could be construed as sympathy towards one of the candidates: toss the heretic overboard! Evil! What a drain.

 

[Ender]

Hate, hate, hate. No one was "hating" on me for not noticing the sniffing, I did not call anyone's statements towards me hate. Nor was I hating on anyone else for noticing the sniffing. My point was merely that it is equally ridiculous both for me to tell you what you noticed or should have noticed as for you to tell me.

I thought, by the way, Ender, that you had! You wrote "YES MOO DID" and I thought you meant "YES YOU DID" as in, "Yes, Helmuth, you most certainly did notice that, you couldn't have missed it, you're just lying." And that the "MOO" was just a bizarre attempt to be funny and insult me somehow by calling me a cow.

You see how easy it is to misunderstand each other?

Where the "hate" comes in is exactly where I said it does: hate for the supporters of political candidates you dislike. That just seems unnecessary to me. It's draining. Even fellow RPF members, who have fought the fight of liberty shoulder-to-shoulder with you for years, heaven help them if they dare express anything that could be construed as sympathy towards one of the candidates: toss the heretic overboard! Evil! What a drain.

OK- my bad- I misunderstood you. Easy to do when we're writing, not talking.

And my experience on the forum has been one of being called names and thrown insults for months now, because I'm not a Trump supporter. I have have said many times that I support everyone's right to vote for whom they choose. I do NOT support the ridiculous insults that are piled on those who do not endorse Trump.

And, I don't hate anyone. Any derogatory remarks you see from me toward anyone is after mucho insults, innuendoes and name-calling of others.

My one big "fault", throughout my life, has been to come to the aid of the underdog. If someone is being piled on by haters, I'm going to defend them. Happened all the time as a kid- and I expect it will continue for all my life.

 

[The One]

Looks real

Source: kennerly 11:33 AM - 24 Sep 2016

‏@kennerly: 1st Lady Michelle Obama hugs Pres. George W.Bush at opening of @NMAAHC I was there for 1 of museums chief sponsors @BankofAmerica https://twitter.com/kennerly/status/779750637366108161

From "kennerly's" twitter feed (and look at his other posts)

kennerly: Canon Explorer of Light, Pulitzer Prize winner, former chief White House photographer
https://twitter.com/kennerly​

A blatant, in your face reminder that this absurd fake "division" b/w "left" and "right" is a circus act.

I stand corrected.

 

[moostraks]

Well, I can see from all the responses from my fellow RPF teammates that the sniffing was, in fact, noticed by some.

See, this is the risk of telling people what they saw, what they noticed, and what was obvious to them. My own ridiculous and arrogant statement was intentional -- my sense is that the arrogance of some of the rest of you is more sincere.

No, Phil, I am not joking. Did it seem funny? Did you think I was that poor a comedian?

No, Ender, I am not a parrot. Who, pray tell, would I be parroting? Some sort of anti-sniffing conspiracy theorists?

No, moostraks, I am not trying to "pin" the Great Sniffing Scandal (SCANDAL!!1!) on "any one agency". What the hey are you talking about?

And that's great, otherone, that is was so obvious. To you!

And that is the moral of my little demonstration here. Just because you see an event a certain way, it is natural to think that everyone cannot help but see it that way. To notice what you noticed. It was so obvious, after all! And so anyone with a differing point of view is clearly horrible, or dishonest, or boobish, or whatever other story you have to make up in your head about how they could come to such a wildly irrational conclusion after seeing the exact same thing you did, taking in the exact same data that you did.

Here's the secret: They didn't!

In 1990, a Stanford University graduate student illustrated this phenomenon by doing a scientific study. Participants played a simple game in which they were assigned to one of two roles: “tapper” or “listener.” Each tapper was asked to pick a well-known song, such as Happy Birthday to You, and tap out the rhythm on a table. The listener’s job was to guess the song.

Over the course of the experiment, 120 songs were tapped out. Listeners guessed only three of the songs correctly: a success ratio of 2.5%. But before they guessed, Newton asked the tappers to predict the probability that listeners would guess correctly. They predicted 50%. The tappers got their message across one time in 40, but they thought they would get it across one time in two. Why?

When a tapper taps, it is impossible for him to avoid hearing the tune playing along to his taps. Meanwhile, all the listener can hear is a kind of bizarre Morse code. Yet the tappers were flabbergasted by how hard the listeners had to work to pick up the tune.

The problem is that once we know something—say, the melody of a song—we find it hard to imagine not knowing it. Our knowledge has "cursed" us. We have difficulty sharing it with others, because we can’t readily re-create their state of mind. We have become locked in to our perception.

And so when the listeners you're sitting across from are sure that you're tapping out The Star-Spangled Banner, when of course the obvious truth is that you're tapping out Happy Birthday to You, well, there's only one explanation for that. They're stupider than you. Much, much stupider. Or they're being dishonest with themselves, or with you, or perhaps are just generally dishonest. Or they're experiencing cognitive dissonance. Or they don't understand the ideals The Star-Spangled Banner truly stands for. They hate liberty. Or they're Boobus Americanus. Or maybe they're out-and-out evil.

So this is a perfect example. I chose it because, presumably, no one actually has super-super strong feelings and emotions about whether someone was sniffing during the debate. Hopefully! So maybe, maybe!, you can see how ridiculous it is for you to claim that "Oh, come on, Helmuth, you had to have noticed that. Don't give me that. After all, it was obvious." Just as ridiculous as it would be for me to presume to know what you had and had not noticed. Eh?

I hope that this truth is valuable to someone here. It has wide application and consequences. I hope that someone can soak it in and appreciate it. I just get tired, and sad, to read day after day so much bitterness, so much hate, so much negativity, here on this board from my RPF teammates. You hate so-and-so, and so you also hate all your fellow Americans who kind of like or support so-and-so. That second part is your mistake. They're all just loons and kooks and whatever other nasty thing you want to call them. No, no they're not. They are your fellow Americans. They are your teammates and your shipmates on this Great Ship America. They're pretty good people, many of them.

I get your rant but piss poor attempt at proving your point. I was surprised it finally became noticed because he's done this behavior previously without much notice. I attributed the recognition to the diversity and number of people watching this time. As for my position about the agency, if you care at all to know, it was a short cut to a rebuttal I've seen regarding how the mic was being sabotaged. I was avoiding any further misperceptions of what you were already attempting to be dismissive of as my experience because, honestly, my initial reaction when I saw it after Orlando was someone possibly messing with his mic. I just have no idea how it could be done as it is right before he speaks and sooo pronounced.

Anywho, to the rest of your rant, some are working to put in place candidates not supported by the forum and heaping tons of erroneous statements to which you have pushback occurring. We won't just all get along and Ron Paul is no longer a point of cohesiveness. In many ways I regret my support of RP which has led to what we have today. It is a kick in the teeth to realize what has been used to create the movement that is Trump.

This "great ship America" is not at all within some cohesive vision that everyone agrees upon here and "they're pretty good people, many of them" is an appeal to ignore the ugliness which is driving the intensity of opinions being espoused. If you are so tired of the hate, take a break. I'm guessing it ain't gonna get better any time soon.

 

[moostraks]

Hate, hate, hate. No one was "hating" on me for not noticing the sniffing, I did not call anyone's statements towards me hate. Nor was I hating on anyone else for noticing the sniffing. My point was merely that it is equally ridiculous both for me to tell you what you noticed or should have noticed as for you to tell me.

I thought, by the way, Ender, that you had! You wrote "YES MOO DID" and I thought you meant "YES YOU DID" as in, "Yes, Helmuth, you most certainly did notice that, you couldn't have missed it, you're just lying." And that the "MOO" was just a bizarre attempt to be funny and insult me somehow by calling me a cow.

You see how easy it is to misunderstand each other?

Where the "hate" comes in is exactly where I said it does: hate for the supporters of political candidates you dislike. That just seems unnecessary to me. It's draining. Even fellow RPF members, who have fought the fight of liberty shoulder-to-shoulder with you for years, heaven help them if they dare express anything that could be construed as sympathy towards one of the candidates: toss the heretic overboard! Evil! What a drain.

So, I'm curious, if you wanted to have a loving environment where your ideals for the society you wish to live in are embraced, would you be loving and tolerant of those who are actively working against your interests? Or would you speak up and educate those who are attempting to force you to pay for a society you do NOT want to live in? Would you attend your neighborhood association meetings if they were zoning you out and still forcing you to pay your member fees? Would you sit passively by in those meetings and allow the other members to work against your interests, especially as the become progressively toxic to you?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

OK- my bad- I misunderstood you.

No, no, as I said: I misunderstood you! :o Now what would HB say at a time like this...... nope, not gonna do it.

And my experience on the forum has been one of being called names and thrown insults for months now,

That is exactly what I am speaking out against! RPF denizens sympathetic, or unsympathetic, to either candidate, do not deserve such bitterness. Do not deserve, for example, to be called chimpanzees. Do not deserve to be called whatever you were called. Do not deserve to be called morons and idiots and whatever other empty insults. Etc.

My one big "fault", throughout my life, has been to come to the aid of the underdog.

My own proclivity is the same.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I get your rant but piss poor attempt

Anywho, to the rest of your rant,

Why do you repeatedly call what I wrote a "rant"?

I think what I wrote was reasonable, measured, and dignified. I hope it was uplifting, even. Why would you perceive it as foaming at the mouth? How could you? Yet again, just a terrific example of different perceptions. One post, two totally different realities! Fascinating, eh?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Or would you speak up and educate those

Would you... allow the other members to work against your interests, especially as the become progressively toxic to you?

I realized long ago a funny thing. A very liberating thing. No one actually cares what I think.

I mean, do you?

Obviously you don't! What I think about things has no bearing on your life and well-being whatsoever!

No one on RPF cares what I think.

No one on RPF cares what political candidate I may support or don't support.

No one would be the least interested in hearing my reasoning as to why I made that decision.

Booooo-r-ing!

They have all made their own decisions.

For their own reasons.

No one cares about those reasons, either. Except for themselves.

I am not going to be "educating" anyone any time soon. And I learned long ago that it's not up to me to "allow" or not "allow" anyone to do anything. I'm not in charge of them. I can't control them. At all. And whew: what a relief that is!

 

[devil21]

Did you know that when George Wallace first ran for governor he ran on a platform of racial harmony and inclusion? He got beat after his opponent was video taped riding around in a KKK car with a cross lit up in lightbulbs. George Wallace is quoted as saying "I got out n*ggered. I'll never be out n*ggered again." But George Wallace was a progressive his entire life.

This documentary, "Setting the Woods on Fire" explains the truth about George Wallace and what's really behind race politics in America.



It's interesting that Bill Clinton is in the picture. Bill Clinton, our supposed "first black president", said of the late senator Robert Byrd that his joining the KKK was just "what he had to do to get elected."

Thank you for your reply and proving the point. What they say in public doesn't matter because it's nothing but a facade while they all work together behind the scenes.

I'll check out the documentary. Sounds interesting.

 

[moostraks]

Why do you repeatedly call what I wrote a "rant"?

I think what I wrote was reasonable, measured, and dignified. I hope it was uplifting, even. Why would you perceive it as foaming at the mouth? How could you? Yet again, just a terrific example of different perceptions. One post, two totally different realities! Fascinating, eh?

Rant-2
: to scold vehemently


Yes, we are coming at the situation from two different perspectives. And you chose to try and make a display of your love for others by dismissing several of us to prove your point. It was a piss poor tactic which you then went on to lecture those of us you had misconstrued. I hope you feel better now.

 

[CPUd]

Another interesting story about Wallace, he convinced his wife to run for Gov to get around term limits. She was reluctant at first, and didn't like campaigning for herself, but she won anyway. While her husband was busy setting up business as usual, it turned out she liked being Governor and wanted to do some of her own things. So there was a bit of conflict, depending on who you ask.

 

[moostraks]

I realized long ago a funny thing. A very liberating thing. No one actually cares what I think.

I mean, do you?

Obviously you don't! What I think about things has no bearing on your life and well-being whatsoever!

No one on RPF cares what I think.

No one on RPF cares what political candidate I may support or don't support.

No one would be the least interested in hearing my reasoning as to why I made that decision.

Booooo-r-ing!

They have all made their own decisions.

For their own reasons.

No one cares about those reasons, either. Except for themselves.

I am not going to be "educating" anyone any time soon. And I learned long ago that it's not up to me to "allow" or not "allow" anyone to do anything. I'm not in charge of them. I can't control them. At all. And whew: what a relief that is!

I realized a funny thing a long time ago. That when I was looking into information on a subject I read opposing view points and formed my own decisions. Many times I never left any evidence of my own participation because I merely read and moved on, but the information I took from the various places expanded my perspective.

RPFs has changed quite a bit over the years. There's a change of tone right now in a number of places online that have become very dismal. It seeps out irl interactions.

No reason to even participate in life or forums if you'll have made no difference by sharing with others. Life is about interaction.

Why bother with your previous charade if you weren't trying to change people's opinions? Why explain why you did it if you didn't think it matters?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Rant-2
: to scold vehemently

Where was the scolding? Where was the vehemence? I believe my words were: "I just get tired, and sad".

Yes, we are coming at the situation from two different perspectives.

Exactly! The lesson is there on all meta-levels! Firing on all cylinders! I misunderstand Ender (in the very process of explaining about misunderstanding!), you think some sniffing is so pronounced you're driven to distraction by it, I don't even notice it at all, you think I'm a ranting jerk, I think I'm an awesome guy.

And you chose to try and make a display of your love for others by dismissing several of us to prove your point. It was a piss poor tactic which you then went on to lecture those of us you had misconstrued. I hope you feel better now.

I didn't make any display of love. More important to correct, I definitely didn't dismiss anyone. I like phil4paul and otherone, Ender's OK, and I don't really know you. Maybe you chose the wrong screen name and just aren't memorable enough.

Anyway, my apologies for any way in which you have been miscontrued -- feel free to correct the record by re-construing yourself in the proper and accurate light you prefer.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

your previous charade

Wait, was it a rant or a charade?

Wow, you seem to have really developed a very negative opinion of me in very short order! Doesn't take much, I gather?

I think this may the only time on these boards you have ever conversed with me. Are there any others I am forgetting?

Why explain why you did it if you didn't think it matters?

Oh, you missed an important part! "Except for themselves."

 

[CPUd]

Trump’s debate incompetence a slap in the face to his supporters

Hillary Clinton was boring and exceptionally well-prepared. Donald Trump was exciting but embarrassingly undisciplined. He began with his strongest argument — that the political class represented by her has failed us and it’s time to look to a successful dealmaker for leadership — and kept to it pretty well for the first 20 minutes.

Then due to the vanity and laziness that led him to think he could wing the most important 95 minutes of his life, he lost the thread of his argument, he lost control of his temper and he lost the perspective necessary to correct these mistakes as he went.

Methodically and carefully, Hillary Clinton took over. Her purpose was to show she was rational and policy-driven, the kind of person who could be trusted to handle a careful and delicate job with prudence and sobriety — and that he was none of these things.

And she succeeded. By the end of the 95 minutes, Trump was reduced to a sputtering mess blathering about Rosie O’Donnell and about how he hasn’t yet said the mean things about Hillary that he is thinking.

Most important, he set ticking time bombs for himself over the next six weeks.

As she hammered him on his tax returns, he handed her an inestimable gift by basically saying he pays no federal taxes despite his billions — and moreover, that if he had done so, it would have been “squandered” anyway.

By the end of the 95 minutes, Trump was reduced to a sputtering mess blathering about Rosie O’Donnell and about how he hasn’t yet said the mean things about Hillary that he is thinking.

That’s not going to go away, nor is her suggestion that his refusal to release his returns is the result of his either not being as rich as he says or not being as charitable as he claims.

Clinton quoted him saying in 2006 that he hoped for a housing meltdown because it would provide buying opportunities and thereby goaded him into saying “that’s called business, by the way.” To which she quickly replied that 9 million people lost their jobs and 5 million lost their homes in the housing meltdown he was so excited about. Blammo.

His reply to Hillary’s recitation of the fact he’d begun his career settling a Justice Department lawsuit about racial discrimination in Trump housing was that there was “no admission of guilt,” which is the sort of thing the villain said at the end of “LA Law” and sounded no better in real life.

Even when he could have taken her down, he was so incompetent he didn’t go for it. A question about cybersecurity was the perfect opportunity to hammer Clinton on her outrageous mishandling of classified information.

Instead, he went into a bizarre digression in which he alternately wondered whether his son Barron might grow up to become a hacker and defended Vladimir Putin from the accusation Russia had tapped into the Democratic National Committee’s emails (which the FBI says almost certainly happened). That has to count as the biggest choke of his political life.

By the time the last 15 minutes rolled around, he was reduced to yammering about Rosie O’Donnell being mean to him and Hillary running mean commercials about him and praising himself because there are some really terrible things he could have said about Hillary but hasn’t. By this point, even his smart closing zinger — “she has experience but it’s bad experience” — was buried inside a weird word salad that reduced its effectiveness to almost nil.

His supporters should be furious with him, and so should the public in general. By performing this incompetently, by refusing to prepare properly for this exchange, by not learning enough to put meat on the bones of his populist case against Clinton, he displayed nothing but contempt for the people who have brought him this far — and for the American people who are going to make this momentous decision on Nov. 8.

http://nypost.com/2016/09/27/trumps-debate-incompetence-a-slap-in-the-face-to-his-supporters/