> Um, no dude, the hearings are done, and so is the Attorney General. Loretta Lynch closed the investigation
Not sure if you're aware of it but Loretta Lynch is finally getting fired.
> Why aren't the other half of voters more upset about Trump's multiple bankruptcies, ...
Because none of these are CRIMES. Everyone can make their own opinions about whether they bode well for presidency according to their preferences. Half of this list aren't actually facts, they are your opinions (also apparently largely based not on the direct observations but on the prejudiced re-telling and villification by Trump's opponents). But what Clinton has done are crimes. Outright crimes. A criminal must not be a president. A criminal must be punished.
> the list is actually quite long and diverse.
I've seen this list. Nothing on it is "damning". Nothing. It's basically a collection of prejudiced bullshit. None of the supposed Trump's actions on the list are even wrong, let alone "damining". The only person this list is damning for is its author.
> But you still won't be absorbing the basic lesson here: You are guilty of the same filtering as everyone else. You are not above it. You are not a champion of truth; you are selectively building - and passing around - the narrative that lets you feel like one.
Everyone is building a narrative but there are different gradations of how far these narratives are away from reality.
> Did you really just vote for a guy who is due in court for fraud three weeks after his election?
I've read on it and I don't see any fraud. Some morons decided that if they didn't become real estate moguls from a short course, it must be a fraud. I see a frivolous lawsuit. How stupid and disgusting can these people be? Hey, it gets even funnier: I've recently read about a case where a bunch of law graduates who went there to make the big bucks after graduation but couldn't get these big bucks, have brought a lawsuit against their university for fraud. Every single university can be sued for fraught, and for really big bucks, not like Trump's peanuts.
> identification of Trump as a racist. Sure, it bothers you, but it doesn't bother you enough to actually vote differently.
Nope, it doesn't, for multiple reasons. First of all, this label has been attached to him though pretty weird logical manipulations: "if he says that the illegal immigrants are criminals, this means that he says that all the Mexicans are criminals!". Don't you see that it's the person who applies this kind of logic is the racist one? Because this logic makes the assumption that all the Mexicans are illegal immigrants. That's a very offensive assumption made by someone who has a deep prejudice against the Mexicans. Since you seem to agree with that assumption, you must be racist, not Trump.
The same goes about equating all the immigrants with the illegal immigrants. I'm a _legal_ immigrant and I find such equations quite offensive. The presence of the illegal immigrants had made my immigration process more complicated, and I have a strong dislike for them. And yes, I've met a few of them , and in my direct experience they do tend to be crooked.
Second, I want all sides to be treated by the same criteria. Do you agree that the BLM are racist? If you consider Trump racist, you definitely must consider BLM racist too. Clinton supported BLM, so she supported racism by the bucket. Yes, KKK expressed their support for Trump but Trump disavowed them, unlike Clinton.
By the way, do you have any issues with Madonna's objectification of women? It's kind of strange that I don't see any loud complaints in the press. And since Clinton didn't disclaim nor chastise Madonna, she could be held accountable for this objectification too.
Third, the pretty much same argument as you make about the Catholics: if we go into the absolutes, everyone is racist. Everyone prefers their own family, clan and so on. It's normal. The real question is about the degree of it, what amount is OK and what amount is too much?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-11-12 02:48 am (UTC)Not sure if you're aware of it but Loretta Lynch is finally getting fired.
> Why aren't the other half of voters more upset about Trump's multiple bankruptcies, ...
Because none of these are CRIMES. Everyone can make their own opinions about whether they bode well for presidency according to their preferences. Half of this list aren't actually facts, they are your opinions (also apparently largely based not on the direct observations but on the prejudiced re-telling and villification by Trump's opponents). But what Clinton has done are crimes. Outright crimes. A criminal must not be a president. A criminal must be punished.
> the list is actually quite long and diverse.
I've seen this list. Nothing on it is "damning". Nothing. It's basically a collection of prejudiced bullshit. None of the supposed Trump's actions on the list are even wrong, let alone "damining". The only person this list is damning for is its author.
> But you still won't be absorbing the basic lesson here: You are guilty of the same filtering as everyone else. You are not above it. You are not a champion of truth; you are selectively building - and passing around - the narrative that lets you feel like one.
Everyone is building a narrative but there are different gradations of how far these narratives are away from reality.
> Did you really just vote for a guy who is due in court for fraud three weeks after his election?
I've read on it and I don't see any fraud. Some morons decided that if they didn't become real estate moguls from a short course, it must be a fraud. I see a frivolous lawsuit. How stupid and disgusting can these people be? Hey, it gets even funnier: I've recently read about a case where a bunch of law graduates who went there to make the big bucks after graduation but couldn't get these big bucks, have brought a lawsuit against their university for fraud. Every single university can be sued for fraught, and for really big bucks, not like Trump's peanuts.
> identification of Trump as a racist. Sure, it bothers you, but it doesn't bother you enough to actually vote differently.
Nope, it doesn't, for multiple reasons. First of all, this label has been attached to him though pretty weird logical manipulations: "if he says that the illegal immigrants are criminals, this means that he says that all the Mexicans are criminals!". Don't you see that it's the person who applies this kind of logic is the racist one? Because this logic makes the assumption that all the Mexicans are illegal immigrants. That's a very offensive assumption made by someone who has a deep prejudice against the Mexicans. Since you seem to agree with that assumption, you must be racist, not Trump.
The same goes about equating all the immigrants with the illegal immigrants. I'm a _legal_ immigrant and I find such equations quite offensive. The presence of the illegal immigrants had made my immigration process more complicated, and I have a strong dislike for them. And yes, I've met a few of them , and in my direct experience they do tend to be crooked.
Second, I want all sides to be treated by the same criteria. Do you agree that the BLM are racist? If you consider Trump racist, you definitely must consider BLM racist too. Clinton supported BLM, so she supported racism by the bucket. Yes, KKK expressed their support for Trump but Trump disavowed them, unlike Clinton.
By the way, do you have any issues with Madonna's objectification of women? It's kind of strange that I don't see any loud complaints in the press. And since Clinton didn't disclaim nor chastise Madonna, she could be held accountable for this objectification too.
Third, the pretty much same argument as you make about the Catholics: if we go into the absolutes, everyone is racist. Everyone prefers their own family, clan and so on. It's normal. The real question is about the degree of it, what amount is OK and what amount is too much?