Trump's newest tweet is really scary

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Your obsession is over the technicalities and your compulsion is the need to correct them

 

True story: When I was in the miliary, I shared a room with 2 friends. I always had my stuff neat I mean if I put my phone or watch down a certain way on the shelf or dresser and left the room and someone moved it I would notice it instantly. My friends used to torture me and mess with things inentionally so they would always get a "who touched my (enter object here)?". The funny thing is we all have some sort of OCD most people just don't realize it and most of the time it's not what they show you on TV.

I will show my obsession again:

 

I do not have a compulsion to correct them. Not all desires are compulsions. I like correcting them, it gives me satisfaction. That doesn't make it a compulsion. I am able to leave my room without correcting them. In the case of people with OCD their compulsions are often so strong that they will make themselves physically sick if they do not give in to them. 

 

We don't "all have some sort of OCD". The problem is most people don't really understand OCD so they use it as a joke when they happen to see someone who is "neat", or someone who is mildly annoyed at something. That is not OCD (Here I am with my technicalities again hehe).

 

EDIT: I should point out that technically for OCD you only need obsessions or compulsions, you don't need both. I do have some obsessions, but they don't meet the other two criteria for them to be diagnosed. I am a fully fuctioning adult despite my obsessions, which don't impact my life in a significantly negative way. As we are on here I am still editing my paper like I'm supposed to be doing this morning.

Edited February 7, 2017 by bcking

[OriZ 3,157]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

I will show my obsession again:

 

I do not have a compulsion to correct them. Not all desires are compulsions. I like correcting them, it gives me satisfaction. That doesn't make it a compulsion. I am able to leave my room without correcting them. In the case of people with OCD their compulsions are often so strong that they will make themselves physically sick if they do not give in to them. 

 

We don't "all have some sort of OCD". The problem is most people don't really understand OCD so they use it as a joke when they happen to see someone who is "neat", or someone who is mildly annoyed at something. That is not OCD (Here I am with my technicalities again hehe).

I rest my case!

[verneforchat 139]

17 minutes ago, bcking said:

I will show my obsession again:

 

I do not have a compulsion to correct them. Not all desires are compulsions. I like correcting them, it gives me satisfaction. That doesn't make it a compulsion. I am able to leave my room without correcting them. In the case of people with OCD their compulsions are often so strong that they will make themselves physically sick if they do not give in to them. 

 

We don't "all have some sort of OCD". The problem is most people don't really understand OCD so they use it as a joke when they happen to see someone who is "neat", or someone who is mildly annoyed at something. That is not OCD (Here I am with my technicalities again hehe).

 

EDIT: I should point out that technically for OCD you only need obsessions or compulsions, you don't need both. I do have some obsessions, but they don't meet the other two criteria for them to be diagnosed. I am a fully fuctioning adult despite my obsessions, which don't impact my life in a significantly negative way. As we are on here I am still editing my paper like I'm supposed to be doing this morning.

Don't bother explaining OCD to people who diagnose OCD on immigration forums. 

[OriZ 3,157]

Just now, bcking said:

 

I was almost compelled to respond to you again with some more technicalities, but I walked away. I came back to my computer 26 times, but eventually I walked away

It was 27 times.

[Merle 458]

8 minutes ago, verneforchat said:

Your constant personal attacks such OCD etc are a poor excuse for humorous fun, and I also encourage you to stop.

What year were you born? 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

33 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

As far as I can tell that comment was not towards you. Sometimes in this forum we tend to have some fun(I'm sure bcking realizes my initial comment was not meant as an insult, as I was talking about myself as well). Your constant trolling and personal attacks against people are far from appreciated and I encourage you to stop.

yup 2nd that motion

[smilesammich 10,727]

16 minutes ago, bcking said:

 

I was almost compelled to respond to you again with some more technicalities, but I walked away. I came back to my computer 26 times, but eventually I walked away

but did you tap the computer each time to fully complete each comeback? otherwise all 26 times are useless.

[bcking 3,157]

25 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

but did you tap the computer each time to fully complete each comeback? otherwise all 26 times are useless.

Yup. Typed the response out in full, then deleted it. 26 times.

 

I also stepped outside my door and then back inside my door 26 times as well.

 

(We should not make light of people with actual OCD, it can be horribly debilitating.)

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Yup. Typed the response out in full, then deleted it. 26 times.

 

I also stepped outside my door and then back inside my door 26 times as well.

 

(We should not make light of people with actual OCD, it can be horribly debilitating.)

i was joking about tics in ocd, but i guess my experience is more with tourettes - the symptoms overlap. realistically all of these responses are neurological and not necessarily something that can be controlled or helped by willpower so, of course experiencing them is debilitating to one's autonomy.

[TBoneTX 45,288]

Several posts have been removed and administrative action applied to one member's account.

[CaliCat 3,957]

9 hours ago, JayJayH said:

 

Eh.......

 

Trump was far from my first pick either. But the popular vote argument is kind of like saying the Falcons won because they played better 3/4 of the game.

 

If leading by 3/4 of the game were the established rules, then the Patriots would have  strategized differently. Likewise, if winning the popular vote was the established rule, I doubt the Trump campaign would have strategized the way they did. I'm not saying Trump would have won. But the notion that Clinton "really" won is purely hypothetical.

 

Good argument, except at the conclusion. When you look closer, Trump being elected by the college, was similar to the Falcons being given the win because the referee thought they played better. Tump was not elected by the majority of the American people. He was elected by the majority of the electoral college, in a result that is not representative of the will of the majority of the people.  He lost the popular vote by a whooping 2.9 million votes. This last election was one where the will of the people was not satisfied.

 

 

 

[CaliCat 3,957]

8 hours ago, JayJayH said:

I disagree. You're reading the analogy wrong. The point of the analogy isn't the number of points or the spread. The point is, you can't assume the same outcome if you play by different rules.

I'm by no means arguing that Trump has a mandate. He doesn't. He's the least popular president to take office in U.S. history, despite his own claims that these polls are "rigged." Which stems from not understanding basic statistics. Most election polls were spot on - Except in PA, MI and WI. 45 out of 50 states were predicted within the margin of error.

 

But the popular vote argument is hypothetical.

 

If it was a pure popular vote election and I was the Trump campaign, I wouldn't have spent considerable resources on Wisconsin and Michigan. I would have campaigned more in Upstate New York. I would have campaigned more in inland California. I would have spent resources on massive get out the vote campaigns in rural Illinois. Point being, the popular vote argument assumes a similar outcome given completely different circumstances. There is no way of knowing what the outcome of the election would have been if it was a pure popular vote election, or if winning the popular vote had a certain impact on electoral votes.

 

How many California Republicans stayed home because "California is blue anyway?"

How many Texas Democrats stayed home because "Texas is red anyway?"

How many more Utah Republicans would have voted for Evan McMullin if Utah's 6 electoral college votes were not an issue?

How many Clinton voters in Ohio would have voted for Jill Stein had Ohio not been a swing state?

How many Trump voters in Pennsylvania would have voted for Gary Johnson had Pennsylvania not been a swing state?

 

When you play a game, you strategize according to the end goal.

The Cavs won the NBA playoffs because they won 4 out of 7 games, despite Golden State having more rebounds. If the goal was to have the most rebounds, the game would have been played differently from both sides, and the outcome would have been hypothetical at best.

 

You're 100% - the US president is not elected by direct vote. No argument there. But in most elections, the popular vote coincides with the electoral college. In this election it didn't, and I bet it hurts the fragile ego of the so-called president more than anyone else. 

No question the college elected him, but he can't say he had the people with him, especially trailing in the approval ratings. His mandate is questionable.

[jg121783 3,915]

On 2/6/2017 at 9:04 AM, bcking said:

This ignores the other valid argument that a document written 200+ years ago and before the industrial revolution is something that should only be read literally and never be changed or updated. We have to move with the times or our country will be just a blip in the history of humanity. 

A judges job is to take a literal interpretation of the Constitution.  They don't get to change it or other laws on the books from the bench. As far as the Constitution not being able to be changed goes it can and has been changed. The founders knew times would change and put mechanisms in place to deal with that. The argument that the Constitution is an old out dated document has been disproven over and over again. The argument that it is a "living document" is also utter nonsense pushed mostly by a bunch of gun grabbers.

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

A judges job is to take a literal interpretation of the Constitution.  They don't get to change it or other laws on the books from the bench. As far as the Constitution not being able to be changed goes it can and has been changed. The founders knew times would change and put mechanisms in place to deal with that. The argument that the Constitution is an old out dated document has been disproven over and over again. The argument that it is a "living document" is also utter nonsense pushed mostly by a bunch of gun grabbers.

If a judge's job is solely to take a "literal interpretation" of the Constitution, we wouldn't need a judge. A literal interpretation is quite easy to do. Just read it and rule based PURELY on what it says. If we did that, we would have a lot of gaps in our government. The constitution is vague in many instances. We have constantly expanded on it over time. Every amendment has had expansion based on judicial cases.

 

A judge's job is far more nuanced than that.

[OriZ 3,157]

2 hours ago, CaliCat said:

 

Good argument, except at the conclusion. When you look closer, Trump being elected by the college, was similar to the Falcons being given the win because the referee thought they played better. Tump was not elected by the majority of the American people. He was elected by the majority of the electoral college, in a result that is not representative of the will of the majority of the people.  He lost the popular vote by a whooping 2.9 million votes. This last election was one where the will of the people was not satisfied.

 

 

 

 

It is representative of the will of the majority of states, is it not? Even moreso, it is representative of the will of the majority of counties, is it not? Just because a few big cities voted differently than the rest of the country does not mean "the will of the people was not satisfied".