I haven't disagreed with you. I asked a straightforward question to understand your definition of an extremist but rather than answer it you're jerking me around. I'd like to have a good debate, and maybe even learn who people with different views consider extremist, but I can't do that if you won't help me out.
I'm just trying to figure out the sign behind the guy in the purple shirt. "Right is still right, Wrong is still wrong", well yeah but what is she trying to say. She doesn't look like one that would be trying to quote William Penn's "Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it."
I mentioned it previously that the extremist views were that of the constantly advocating campus type and youth population and their common practice of simply dismissing opponents as racists and bigots rather than debating the merits of the arguments. The media covered and promoted those points of view to the point that Democrats actually believed it reflected a national pulse on those issues. Clinton, particularly, jumped right on board which was why she called Trump supporters "deplorables." That's as extreme a minimization of people who think contrary to you as could be imagined, and was instigated by assuming the same ideology of the campus advocate type population that simply condemns and criticizes opposing thinkers. There was nothing moderate about that statement -- it was an extreme to appeal to an extreme demographic and it backfired tremendously. But it was that extreme ideology that made Trumps extreme counter to it appealing to people. So both liberals and conservative voters are responsible for Trump. People didn't just flock to him absent of constant barrage and ridicule by the other side.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ending_campaign_cash_at_trump_businesses.html Surprise! Trump Continues to Raise Enormous Campaign Funds and Spend Them at His Companies. "It didn’t take long for Donald Trump to begin using the presidency for profit. Even before he was sworn in, his eldest sons were travelling the globe flanked with Secret Service details that doubled as sales props for the family business. His wife, Melania, has remained behind in New York City, a decision that means the U.S. government is now almost certainly a paying tenant in a building owned by the president. His White House advisers have served as TV pitch-people for Trump-branded products on more than one occasion. And all the while, Trump himself has used every free moment he has—and some he doesn’t—to raise the profile of his family’s real estate portfolio, from his hotel in Washington, D.C., to his private club in Palm Beach, Florida. But while it’s important to keep an eye on the long con Trump is playing, let’s not forget about the more straightforward grift he has been running ever since he first stepped off a Trump Tower escalator and onto the main political stage nearly two years ago. Via the Wall Street Journal: The new reports, filed late Friday with the Federal Election Commission, showed that Mr. Trump’s campaign directed more than 6% of the $6.3 million it spent in the first three months of 2017 to the president’s companies, including $274,013 in rent to Trump Tower, $58,685 for lodging to the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Fla., and $13,828 for facility rental and catering to the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas. This is just more of the same from Candidate Trump. During the 2016 election, his campaign and the Republican National Committee combined to send more than $14 million to Trump family-owned businesses and to reimburse the Trump family for travel. The latest FEC filings suggests the president has no intention of giving up the lucrative revenue stream for his family even now that he’s found other streams to tap from within the White House." Ron
If you don't like extremism, I'd think the solution would be to embrace a moderate candidate, not a bigger extremist. I also find the blowback over "deplorables" to be hypocritical, considering when Hillary said it, Trump had already called Mexicans rapists, etc. The logical response would be either go after Hillary while apologizing for the things Trump said, or cut her a break for saying a stupid thing.
True, but that would require a level of pragmatism from the voters that most don't have on either side. Most people vote emotionally and when you have one side spouting extremes that constantly marginalize you and your beliefs and you get a candidate like Trump whose positions were basically a big F You to the libs, everything you want to say to them yourself, well that candidate is going to be more appealing than a moderate candidate who refuses to engage in counter attacks equal to the attacks.
I'm not convinced that actually happened. Sure, the Keith Olbermanns and Elizabeth Warrens of the world spout extremes, but there were always a few on both sides who did that. You're making it seem like the Democrats and media went mad during the past eight years, but the only people I saw going mad were the Tea Partiers and conservative talk show hosts. The media went hard after Trump in particular, but that's because Trump had spent years accusing Obama of being born in another country and insulted everyone he didn't like. After the election some Democrats turned hard to the left, and I don't like it, but unless they gain real power, I don't consider them a threat.
Another great job by president Trump: http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/politics/carl-vinson-korea-trump/index.html Maybe he should watch this, especially the part where Bush talks about the United Nations and the rule of law: Ron
Ron is like the dog that convinced his owners to take him to the park, and he just happily keeps bringing branches back to his people while they are speaking to other people and patting him on the head every once in a while. Good stick, Ronnie, go get another stick while the humans talk! Roll over! Good boy!
Is there a way to do a poll in an already ongoing thread? I would like to make one titled "Who actually read's the stuff Ron's copies and pastes?" Yes? No? I'm Ron Burgundy?
In a surprise shocker Exxon Mobil has applied to the Treasury Department for a waiver from U.S. sanctions on Russia in a bid to resume its joint venture with state oil giant PAO Rosneft. https://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-seeks-u-s-waiver-to-work-in-russia-despite-sanctions-1492620677 is water wet? are boobs nice to look at? is EM going to receive this waiver? all difficult questions
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/19/the-united-states-isnt-hacking-north-koreas-missile-launches/ "Add to that a healthy dose of partisanship. We live in a bizarre era where every issue becomes a referendum on Donald Trump. While (slightly more than) half of us are convinced he’s going to get us all killed, his fans desperately want to believe that he’s not just some grifter in hopelessly over his head. And so when he says North Korea isn’t going to test a missile in one of his Twitter outbursts, and then a missile test fails, the Drudge Report and his troll army on Twitter attribute the stroke of luck to Cheeto Jesus. Psychologists call this the fundamental attribution error. You see this a lot in cults. It’s all a dangerous fantasy, though. The Trump administration plainly has no idea what it is doing, opting for a “new” strategy identical to the approach adopted by the Obama and Bush administrations. The unifying feature of this approach has been desperate paralysis — sorry, patiently hoping for a strategic miracle." Ron
When I see Ron's posts, I fast forward to the credits. Ironically, each post sounds the same. Sent from my KIW-L24 using Tapatalk
