President Trump Addresses the Joint Session of Congress

[OriZ 3,157]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

There were two groups of people in the population that voted for Trump:

 

1. The group that didn't see any problems with how Trump behaves and treats women, and how he treats opponents - They have a similar low moral character compared to their choice for President

2. The group that DID recognize those problems with Trump, but decided to prioritize something else over those and ended up voting for him - They may not have a low moral character, but they don't rank morality very highly in the grand scheme of things

 

Though I agree one major problem with this election was you can make the same statement about both candidates. Hillary definitely has her own list of morality-questioning actions and characteristics. So in order to vote for either one you had to put aside certain standards (if you had them).

I agree, and I think when it comes to politics most just gave up on the moral thing. Because lets face it it's not just Trump or Clinton it's alot deeper than that. At the end of the day what people care about is what that person is going to do for them.

[Teddy B 17,251]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

I wish I could be that idealistic. Unfortunately, once the two parties decided on their candidates one of them was going to be President. "3rd party candidates" are a joke in this country, so realistically we had to pick one of two people. 

 

I had problems with each one but when it came down to it my moral compass was conflicting less with Hillary than with Trump. Not to mention when both candidates are morally dubious it sort of equals it out a bit, and you are then able to consider other aspects and clearly Hillary was more prepared and more knowledgeable.

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

So all the people that voted for Clinton 2x times have low moral character ?

It makes it difficult for you to participate in these conversations when your reading comprehension lacks the required proficiency. Try reading my post again please.

 

I made no comment as to how many people reside into groups 1 or 2 for either candidate. I have no idea how many people actually agree with Trump's past actions that reflect a poor moral character (those that agree with them would indeed have a low moral character themselves. If you see nothing wrong with joking about grabbing women by the genitals, then you fall into the same group as Trump), nor do I have any idea how many agree with the ones Clinton has made.

 

The people in group 2 do not themselves have low moral character, they are just willing to put aside their concerns regarding morality for other issues.

 

I don't think I can make it any clearer, sorry.

[yuna628 9,646]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

I wish I could be that idealistic. Unfortunately, once the two parties decided on their candidates one of them was going to be President. "3rd party candidates" are a joke in this country, so realistically we had to pick one of two people. 

 

I had problems with each one but when it came down to it my moral compass was conflicting less with Hillary than with Trump. Not to mention when both candidates are morally dubious it sort of equals it out a bit, and you are then able to consider other aspects and clearly Hillary was more prepared and more knowledgeable.

Oh I know 3rd party are a joke. But ask yourself why they are a joke? Why is it that more Independents aren't in the mainstream, especially if some of them do have really good ideas? BTW, in local elections in MD you can't even vote unless you're registered R or D. Indie voters are shut out. 18 states operate with such closed primaries. I think Repubs and Dems seem a little too desperate to keep a death grip on the status quo and convince us there are no other options... and this is how even more 'mainstream' indies come off pretty weaksauce.

6 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Well, where the problem would come in these elections is if everybody was that way, we would end up with like 3 votes total

 Maybe so, but it also might change a lot about our political system for the better.

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Oh I know 3rd party are a joke. But ask yourself why they are a joke? Why is it that more Independents aren't in the mainstream, especially if some of them do have really good ideas? BTW, in local elections in MD you can't even vote unless you're registered R or D. Indie voters are shut out. 18 states operate with such closed primaries. I think Repubs and Dems seem a little too desperate to keep a death grip on the status quo and convince us there are no other options... and this is how even more 'mainstream' indies come off pretty weaksauce.

I think they are a joke because, for the most part, people only really talk about them for Presidential elections.

 

If they want to gain more support they need to focus on add seats in the House or Senate. I agree with you that there are restrictions that make that difficult, and those restrictions should change (good luck with that considering the restrictions benefit the people in power that would need to vote to change them).

 

For all its faults (and of course each system has its own problems), a Parliamentary system like the UK and many European countries at least allow for the growth of smaller parties, which then leads to the formation of "coalitions". While they aren't always great, at least it forces politicians to work with people they disagree with at least some of the time. I also much prefer the concept of electing your local representative, and then the "party leader" becoming the head of government, but I realize that would destroy one of our "checks and balances" and therefore not "American". By virtue of the fact that the House and Senate have a majority of the same party as the President, this Presidency will be far more "productive" than the last. That has nothing to do with the quality of the man elected to be President.

[Teddy B 17,251]

13 minutes ago, bcking said:

It makes it difficult for you to participate in these conversations when your reading comprehension lacks the required proficiency. Try reading my post again please.

 

I made no comment as to how many people reside into groups 1 or 2 for either candidate. I have no idea how many people actually agree with Trump's past actions that reflect a poor moral character (those that agree with them would indeed have a low moral character themselves. If you see nothing wrong with joking about grabbing women by the genitals, then you fall into the same group as Trump), nor do I have any idea how many agree with the ones Clinton has made.

 

The people in group 2 do not themselves have low moral character, they are just willing to put aside their concerns regarding morality for other issues.

 

I don't think I can make it any clearer, sorry.

Not to rehash old threads, but the statement in bold is no less an insult than my equating one's posting style to that of a petulant child. Seeing you were one of the people to bring that insult to my attention in the previous thread, I figured I'd reach out and do the same for you.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Teddy B said:

Not to rehash old threads, but the statement in bold is no less an insult than my equating one's posting style to that of a petulant child. Seeing you were one of the people to bring that insult to my attention in the previous thread, I figured I'd reach out and do the same for you.

Touche

I'm past editing time, so come what may

[Teddy B 17,251]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Touche

I'm past editing time, so come what may

It's very easy to let one slip once in a while. Some peeps are beggin for it.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

33 minutes ago, bcking said:

It makes it difficult for you to participate in these conversations when your reading comprehension lacks the required proficiency. Try reading my post again please.

 

I made no comment as to how many people reside into groups 1 or 2 for either candidate. I have no idea how many people actually agree with Trump's past actions that reflect a poor moral character (those that agree with them would indeed have a low moral character themselves. If you see nothing wrong with joking about grabbing women by the genitals, then you fall into the same group as Trump), nor do I have any idea how many agree with the ones Clinton has made.

 

The people in group 2 do not themselves have low moral character, they are just willing to put aside their concerns regarding morality for other issues.

 

I don't think I can make it any clearer, sorry.

I love the smell of a MDL reading comprehension flame in the morning. God help my soul but I do 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

19 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

Not to rehash old threads, but the statement in bold is no less an insult than my equating one's posting style to that of a petulant child. Seeing you were one of the people to bring that insult to my attention in the previous thread, I figured I'd reach out and do the same for you.

+1 for the judicious use of petulant 

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

I love the smell of a MDL reading comprehension flame in the morning. God help my soul but I do 

If I'm wrong please quote my original post where I mentioned that everyone who voted for Clinton had low moral character.

 

I love how when you are uncomfortable and you can't actually respond appropriately, you tend to resort to bringing up "MDL" issues, as if your inability to read my post has anything to do with political positions.

[Teddy B 17,251]

7 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

+1 for the judicious use of petulant 

The original post I made using the word petulant and a couple of others in that same thread got me a week on the beaches of Ankara. I'm just glad the weather was nice.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

9 minutes ago, bcking said:

If I'm wrong please quote my original post where I mentioned that everyone who voted for Clinton had low moral character.

 

I love how when you are uncomfortable and you can't actually respond appropriately, you tend to resort to bringing up "MDL" issues, as if your inability to read my post has anything to do with political positions.

Your overwhelming brilliance and my inability to formulate a witty response to you makes me uncomfortable. wow you nailed it. Seriously your IQ must be off the charts. I mean that..

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

The original post I made using the word petulant and a couple of others in that same thread got me a week on the beaches of Ankara. I'm just glad the weather was nice.

I'm getting on a plane this afternoon for a week in the Amazon with my wife. A week long "ban" would be well timed if it happened today

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Your overwhelming brilliance and my inability to formulate a witty response to you makes me uncomfortable. wow you nailed it. Seriously your IQ must be off the charts. I mean that..

Can't comment on my IQ (I don't know it), but glad we agree on your first sentence. 

 

Other people here are perfectly capable of reading my posts and responding in a reasonable way (regardless of whether they agree with me or not). Perhaps you should leave it up to them?