On 10/25/2016 12:43 PM, Neill Massello wrote:
Sterling Archer wrote:

Not sure what your point(s) is / are. The people calculating these
odds are taking tens of millions of dollars in wagers on this and
numerous other issues. There is little doubt they are going to parse,
ad nauseam, all available, relevant data to maximize their return on
investment.

In the end, they are attempting to predict the future which is never a
sure thing. However, in my humble opinion, they have a far better
record of accuracy than any other soothsayers.

A better track record is your best argument. The fact that money is
involved doesn't really mean that much. The millions wagered represent
the sum of many small bets rather than a few large ones placed by savvy
investors. The individuals placing those bets didn't necessarily parse
ad nauseam. If most people were rational about betting, especially with
small amounts, there would be no lotteries.


I think Ross Perot called lotteries a tax on stupid people. I made this
comment once at a tobacco shop selling lottery tickets and it was not
appreciated.

Frank "frank writes:
On 10/25/2016 10:14 AM, wrote:
much snipped


It would be interesting to see what effect his circus has had on the
resale values of condos/apartments with the Trump name on them.
If the brand name is having trouble in the hotel markets, the same
should be happening there too.
You would think alienating so many people, especially college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.



The Donald even manages to alienate his fellow billionaires ..

http://tinyurl.com/zw5mq5f

... perhaps because he has, so suddenly, become
a man of the people and a staunch advocate of the
everyday working stiff.
John T.


The Clinton's are multimillionaires who made their fortune off the
government selling government influence at the stake of the taxpayers
yet are supported by the have nots and other millionaires.

Complete horse**** with no evidence.


Trump made all his money in the private section yet is not supported by
the have nots and millionaires.

The evidence shows that he was given a million dollars
by his father and was one billion dollars in debt by 1995
and has declared bankruptcy four times.

Scott Lurndal wrote:
Frank "frank writes:
On 10/25/2016 10:14 AM, wrote:
much snipped


It would be interesting to see what effect his circus
has had on
the resale values of condos/apartments with the Trump
name on them.
If the brand name is having trouble in the hotel
markets, the same
should be happening there too.
You would think alienating so many people, especially
college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing
to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.



The Donald even manages to alienate his fellow
billionaires ..

http://tinyurl.com/zw5mq5f

... perhaps because he has, so suddenly, become
a man of the people and a staunch advocate of the
everyday working stiff.
John T.


The Clinton's are multimillionaires who made their
fortune off the
government selling government influence at the stake of
the taxpayers
yet are supported by the have nots and other
millionaires.

Complete horse**** with no evidence.

You obviously haven't beeen paying attention or you have
your head in your ass



Trump made all his money in the private section yet is
not supported
by the have nots and millionaires.

The evidence shows that he was given a million dollars
by his father and was one billion dollars in debt by 1995
and has declared bankruptcy four times.

Trump has NEVER personally declared bankruptcy

Neill Massello used his keyboard to write :
Sterling Archer wrote:

Not sure what your point(s) is / are. The people calculating these
odds are taking tens of millions of dollars in wagers on this and
numerous other issues. There is little doubt they are going to parse,
ad nauseam, all available, relevant data to maximize their return on
investment.

In the end, they are attempting to predict the future which is never a
sure thing. However, in my humble opinion, they have a far better
record of accuracy than any other soothsayers.

A better track record is your best argument. The fact that money is
involved doesn't really mean that much. The millions wagered represent
the sum of many small bets rather than a few large ones placed by savvy
investors. The individuals placing those bets didn't necessarily parse
ad nauseam.

If you re-read what I posted you will see I wrote the people who
calculate the odds are parsing, ad nauseam, all available data. This
is significantly different from the people who are placing wagers, they
are simply swinging dicks just like all of us in this group.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:48:08 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Per Stormin' Norman:
... many people in the flyover states, who are not accustomed to dealing with such deceivers, have
allowed themselves to get too close to Trump's gravitational pull and have ended up in his orbit.

I like the imagery.

Thanks, sometimes I get lucky.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:36:36 -0700, "Sterling Archer"
wrote:

just like all of us in this group.

Huh? I don't recall you ever offering home repair advice here, and
you just showed up recently with a link to betting odds that was
already posted long before you showed up.

Maybe you have a turd in your pocket when you mention "us"?

"Stormin' Norman" wrote in message
There is only one question which comes to mind; In general, do
Trump supporters prefer their crow deep fried
with a KFC-like batter or marinated and grilled?

With a hearty mug of bitter dregs and a slice of humble pie for dessert.
Trump knows he's losing - that's why (as he did during the RNC) he's crying
foul *before* the election. I suspect he's going to take a lot of
down-ticket candidates with him, especially if he goes bananas as the
results come in. Given his performances so far, it's not impossible.

There's still time for a YOOGE game-changer like criminal tax evasion
charges from the IRS for Trump. That would throw a bus-sized sabot into the
loom.

--
Bobby G.

Per Neill Massello:

A better track record is your best argument. The fact that money is
involved doesn't really mean that much. The millions wagered represent
the sum of many small bets rather than a few large ones placed by savvy
investors.

Dunno if guessing the odds of a candidate winning are analogous to
guessing the number of marbles in a jar or the weight of a bull - but in
those cases something seems to be going on with the aggregate of many
guesses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd
--
Pete Cresswell

Per :
Once he gets away
from his Texas base, I bet he would loosen up a bit on his dogma.

IIRC part of his dogma included dissolving the Environment Protection
Agency - at least I'm pretty sure I heard those words come out of his
mouth although I cannot cite.

--
Pete Cresswell

It happens that Oren formulated :
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:36:36 -0700, "Sterling Archer"
wrote:

just like all of us in this group.

Huh? I don't recall you ever offering home repair advice here, and
you just showed up recently with a link to betting odds that was
already posted long before you showed up.

Maybe you have a turd in your pocket when you mention "us"?

A turd in my pocket? No, but I did have you in mind.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:23:18 -0700, "Sterling Archer"
wrote:

It happens that Oren formulated :
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:36:36 -0700, "Sterling Archer"
wrote:

just like all of us in this group.

Huh? I don't recall you ever offering home repair advice here, and
you just showed up recently with a link to betting odds that was
already posted long before you showed up.

Maybe you have a turd in your pocket when you mention "us"?

A turd in my pocket? No, but I did have you in mind.

Go back to your corner, lay down and **** yourself, Bitch.

It happens that Oren formulated :
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:23:18 -0700, "Sterling Archer"
wrote:

It happens that Oren formulated :
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:36:36 -0700, "Sterling Archer"
wrote:

just like all of us in this group.

Huh? I don't recall you ever offering home repair advice here, and
you just showed up recently with a link to betting odds that was
already posted long before you showed up.

Maybe you have a turd in your pocket when you mention "us"?

A turd in my pocket? No, but I did have you in mind.

Go back to your corner, lay down and **** yourself, Bitch.

There are those uncontrolled emotions again. You should see a
physician, some testosterone injections might help you man-up.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:36:18 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:


You would think alienating so many people, especially college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.

That comes across as a little too elitist for my tastes. Trump supporters might be a little gullible or
naive, but the vast majority of them are good Americans, good people who want the best for our country.


IMHO, the vast majority of Trump supporters are deplorable.
Simple as that. Being a rube is no excuse.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:38:10 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Please don't feed the deplorables.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 05:53:29 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:36:18 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:


You would think alienating so many people, especially college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.

That comes across as a little too elitist for my tastes. Trump supporters might be a little gullible or
naive, but the vast majority of them are good Americans, good people who want the best for our country.


IMHO, the vast majority of Trump supporters are deplorable.
Simple as that. Being a rube is no excuse.

If that is true, then, IMHO you are as bad as Trump. Generalizing in such a fashion is despicable,
prejudicial, bigoted and ignorant.

If I am not mistaken, that is what you feel constitutes being deplorable, isn't it?

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:59:19 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 05:53:29 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:36:18 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:


You would think alienating so many people, especially college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.

That comes across as a little too elitist for my tastes. Trump supporters might be a little gullible or
naive, but the vast majority of them are good Americans, good people who want the best for our country.


IMHO, the vast majority of Trump supporters are deplorable.
Simple as that. Being a rube is no excuse.

If that is true, then, IMHO you are as bad as Trump. Generalizing in such a fashion is despicable,
prejudicial, bigoted and ignorant.

If I am not mistaken, that is what you feel constitutes being deplorable, isn't it?

Spin it however you want. Doesn't matter what you call me. I told
you it was simple. There's Trump supporters and then the others.
I'm an other. Good enough for me.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:20:46 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:59:19 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 05:53:29 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:36:18 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:


You would think alienating so many people, especially college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.

That comes across as a little too elitist for my tastes. Trump supporters might be a little gullible or
naive, but the vast majority of them are good Americans, good people who want the best for our country.


IMHO, the vast majority of Trump supporters are deplorable.
Simple as that. Being a rube is no excuse.

If that is true, then, IMHO you are as bad as Trump. Generalizing in such a fashion is despicable,
prejudicial, bigoted and ignorant.

If I am not mistaken, that is what you feel constitutes being deplorable, isn't it?

Spin it however you want. Doesn't matter what you call me. I told
you it was simple. There's Trump supporters and then the others.
I'm an other. Good enough for me.

Vast numbers of our fellow citizens are not "deplorable" simply because they disagree with your ideology. I
have many good friends who will vote for Trump, not one of them is deplorable. Some are misguided, some are
naive, some are gullible, some see Mrs. Clinton as Lucifer. Not one of them has bad intentions, is noticeably
bigoted, prejudiced or ignorant.

Anyone who supports either Clinton or Trump is blind to the evil which is starring them squarely in the face.
That does not make them bad people, it makes them human beings who have been caught up in a Faustian contest.

I also know I could be wrong, Trump and or Clinton could turn out to be fantastic presidents. However, since
my first presidential election in 1944 I have never seen two major candidates who scare me as much as Clinton
and Trump.

On 10/26/2016 10:47 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:20:46 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:59:19 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 05:53:29 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:36:18 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:


You would think alienating so many people, especially college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.

That comes across as a little too elitist for my tastes. Trump supporters might be a little gullible or
naive, but the vast majority of them are good Americans, good people who want the best for our country.


IMHO, the vast majority of Trump supporters are deplorable.
Simple as that. Being a rube is no excuse.

If that is true, then, IMHO you are as bad as Trump. Generalizing in such a fashion is despicable,
prejudicial, bigoted and ignorant.

If I am not mistaken, that is what you feel constitutes being deplorable, isn't it?

Spin it however you want. Doesn't matter what you call me. I told
you it was simple. There's Trump supporters and then the others.
I'm an other. Good enough for me.


Vast numbers of our fellow citizens are not "deplorable" simply because they disagree with your ideology. I
have many good friends who will vote for Trump, not one of them is deplorable. Some are misguided, some are
naive, some are gullible, some see Mrs. Clinton as Lucifer. Not one of them has bad intentions, is noticeably
bigoted, prejudiced or ignorant.

How is calling someone who disagrees with your assessment of the
candidates "misguided, naive, or gullible" any different than calling
them "deplorable"? You've still judged those people as being less
rather than equal.

Does your assessment of them as not having bad intentions, not being
bigoted, prejudiced or ignorant make up for that?


Anyone who supports either Clinton or Trump is blind to the evil which is starring them squarely in the face.
That does not make them bad people, it makes them human beings who have been caught up in a Faustian contest.

In your opinion, right?

I also know I could be wrong, Trump and or Clinton could turn out to be fantastic presidents. However, since
my first presidential election in 1944 I have never seen two major candidates who scare me as much as Clinton
and Trump.


We're also living in VERY different times in history, too.

--
Maggie

"Stormin' Norman" wrote in
stuff snipped
Vast numbers of our fellow citizens are not "deplorable" simply
because they disagree with your ideology.

No, but they may be deplorable per se, and unfortunately I've seen enough
video of Trump supporters to know that *many* are fueled by racial animus
and wrong on the facts. Hell, you just have to read through the miasma here
to know that.

Ideology is one thing. But when you start going into fully unsubstantiated
accusations of wrong-doing like election rigging (and spread demonstably
false propaganda to support those claims) you're no longer in the realm of
ideology, at least IMHO. You're in the realm of undermining the
Constitution.

Same for those who make threats to overthrow the government by force if the
election turns out not to their liking. That's far more treasonous in my
mind than Hillary talking about a fact that's pretty much already out there
(launch times).

--
Bobby G.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

stuff snipped

IMHO, the vast majority of Trump supporters are deplorable.
Simple as that. Being a rube is no excuse.

I'd say, based on recent exchanges, that TS'ers are deplorably ignorant.
The educational system has failed them and they really can't evaluate basic
facts clearly. If you can't understand how much water is involved in
covering the surface of the earth with 2 miles of it, then how much other
"difficult" stuff (like the functions of government) don't you understand as
well?

True, some are blatantly bigoted as well as being hopelessly uninformed, but
Hillary's comment was about as dumb as Mitt's 47% comment and she may end up
paying dearly for it. You want to convert and not condemn potential fence
sitters.

The best thing that can happen to her is slipping in the polls because it
will motivate people to get out and vote for her in a way they might not if
the polls put her far (and perhaps wrongly) ahead.

We're all participants in the biggest reality TV show the world has ever
seen. Are we not amused? (-:

--
Bobby G.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:05:07 -0400, "Robert Green" wrote:

"Stormin' Norman" wrote in
stuff snipped
Vast numbers of our fellow citizens are not "deplorable" simply
because they disagree with your ideology.

No, but they may be deplorable per se, and unfortunately I've seen enough
video of Trump supporters to know that *many* are fueled by racial animus
and wrong on the facts. Hell, you just have to read through the miasma here
to know that.

"they may be deplorable?" Please, using that logic, one could say Clinton supporters "may be" dishonest,
disingenuous, racist, treasonous, baby murdering, genocidal, far left socialists.

As for this group having a miasma, that is blatantly absurd. This group, in general, has a lively discussion
of politics and home repair. Some discussions become heated, but for the most part they remain acceptably
civil.

As for videos, you are not thinking this through. The only videos which make it through the system are the
controversial videos of a small minority. Videos of the millions and millions of people exhibiting civil,
rational behavior are far too boring to make the news or social media, this applies to both Clinton and Trump
related stories.



Ideology is one thing. But when you start going into fully unsubstantiated
accusations of wrong-doing like election rigging (and spread demonstably
false propaganda to support those claims) you're no longer in the realm of
ideology, at least IMHO. You're in the realm of undermining the
Constitution.

Got it, guilt by association. Trump's supporters are deplorable because Trump has a stupid mouth.......


Same for those who make threats to overthrow the government by force if the
election turns out not to their liking. That's far more treasonous in my
mind than Hillary talking about a fact that's pretty much already out there
(launch times).

You are sloppily cherry-picking statements made by a miniscule minority and using a very broad brush to smear
tens of millions of your fellow citizens. This is as demagogic as anything Trump might have said, actually,
it is right up there with Saul Alinsky and Joseph Goebbels.

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 10/26/2016 10:47 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:20:46 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:59:19 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 05:53:29 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:36:18 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:


You would think alienating so many people, especially college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.

That comes across as a little too elitist for my tastes. Trump supporters might be a little gullible or
naive, but the vast majority of them are good Americans, good people who want the best for our country.


IMHO, the vast majority of Trump supporters are deplorable.
Simple as that. Being a rube is no excuse.

If that is true, then, IMHO you are as bad as Trump. Generalizing in such a fashion is despicable,
prejudicial, bigoted and ignorant.

If I am not mistaken, that is what you feel constitutes being deplorable, isn't it?

Spin it however you want. Doesn't matter what you call me. I told
you it was simple. There's Trump supporters and then the others.
I'm an other. Good enough for me.


Vast numbers of our fellow citizens are not "deplorable" simply because they disagree with your ideology. I
have many good friends who will vote for Trump, not one of them is deplorable. Some are misguided, some are
naive, some are gullible, some see Mrs. Clinton as Lucifer. Not one of them has bad intentions, is noticeably
bigoted, prejudiced or ignorant.

How is calling someone who disagrees with your assessment of the
candidates "misguided, naive, or gullible" any different than calling
them "deplorable"? You've still judged those people as being less
rather than equal.


Try the dictionary. Deplorable is a strong adjective, one of condemnation,
way beyond misguided, naive, or gullible. People can be misguided, naive
or gullible and still be decent human beings.


Does your assessment of them as not having bad intentions, not being
bigoted, prejudiced or ignorant make up for that?


Anyone who supports either Clinton or Trump is blind to the evil which is starring them squarely in the face.
That does not make them bad people, it makes them human beings who have been caught up in a Faustian contest.

In your opinion, right?

I also know I could be wrong, Trump and or Clinton could turn out to be fantastic presidents. However, since
my first presidential election in 1944 I have never seen two major candidates who scare me as much as Clinton
and Trump.


We're also living in VERY different times in history, too.

--
Maggie

What exactly is so different in history now that makes being a bombastic,
nasty, divisive, ignorant, lying jerk or a pay to play, money grubbing,
lying crook, who can't even handle classified info, acceptable as candidates?

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 11:46:03 AM UTC-4, Stormin' Norman wrote:


Vast numbers of our fellow citizens are not "deplorable" simply because they disagree with your ideology.

The problem is that with Trump, for many, it's not about "ideology".
It's about the many offensive things he's said and done that reflect
on his lack of character and values. It's how so many people can
gloss over that which gets me. Just like with Hillary, most of her
supporters gloss over the gross mishandling of classified info and
the obvious pay to play, the huge payments from hostile foreign
govts, anyone that would pay, that went to the Clintons and/or the
foundation. That too has nothing to do with political ideology, but
everything to do with character and value.

And for those that want to label the Trump supporters as deplorable,
then the same can be done for those Hillary supporters that ignore
the above too.




I
have many good friends who will vote for Trump, not one of them is deplorable. Some are misguided, some are
naive, some are gullible, some see Mrs. Clinton as Lucifer. Not one of them has bad intentions, is noticeably
bigoted, prejudiced or ignorant.


What is hard for me to accept is how you reconcile those above people
with Trumps statements where he says McCain is no war hero, he prefers
the vets who were not captured, smears Mexican illegals as a bunch of
rapists, lies about seeing thousands and thousands of Arabs celebrating
in Jersey City on 9/11, mimics the body movements of a disabled man.
How does one accept all that and still not be ignorant, prejudiced or
totally lacking in morals, character and decency?



Anyone who supports either Clinton or Trump is blind to the evil which is starring them squarely in the face.

Agree.

That does not make them bad people, it makes them human beings who have been caught up in a Faustian contest.

But the problem is the Trumpets aren't saying, yeah, he sucks too, I don't
like those things he's said and done that I listed above, and plenty
more, but I have to vote for him because Hillary is worse. They are
saying Trump is great and all is fine. Look at Mr. T here for example.
He claims there is nothing wrong with Trump at all, that all the above
that I listed is just made up by the media. THAT is the problem. What
does that tell you about his character, his values? He won't even
address it, just keeps claiming that you have to listen to Trump, as
if all that really, really bad stuff was never said, never happened.



I also know I could be wrong, Trump and or Clinton could turn out to be fantastic presidents. However, since
my first presidential election in 1944 I have never seen two major candidates who scare me as much as Clinton
and Trump.

I agree, but Trump scares me more. What would happen if during the
Cuban missile crisis we had Trump as president? The Trump who attacks,
escalates, goes after anyone at the drop of a hat? With the Joint
Chiefs recommending immediate air strikes and invasion of Cuba, what
would Trump have done? What would Hillary have done? Seems likely
to me that with Hillary we might have wound up with the missiles still
there, but with Trump we could have easily ended up with a nuclear war.
That's how I see it.

Per Vic Smith:
IMHO, the vast majority of Trump supporters are deplorable.
Simple as that. Being a rube is no excuse.

The pundits I've been listening to (David Brooks, for example) would
disagree.

Certainly Trump has a lock on the Racist/White Supremacist vote, but the
guys I've been listening to say that many (or maybe most) Trump
supporters are good, decent people who have simply been ignored by both
parties for years and years.

For instance the Repubs, in an act of amazing leadership, have convinced
a large block of people living paycheck-to-paycheck that voting for them
is patriotic, tax cuts for people earning over $250,000 per year are in
their interest, and a bunch of other things..... and they have been
harvesting those votes for years and years without doing anything for
those people.

The Dems have been no better. Once the party of union and working
people, they have become the party of the educated suburbanite upper
middle class....and have taken the brunt of the responsibility for
implementing NAFTA with no measures to soften the impact on all those
people who would lose their jobs.

I wouldn't back Trump on a bet... but I can easily see how decent
hard-working people who have not had their ears to the ground
politics-wise could be strongly attracted to somebody, *anybody*,
besides the status quo.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per trader_4:
It's about the many offensive things he's said and done that reflect
on his lack of character and values. It's how so many people can
gloss over that which gets me. Just like with Hillary, most of her
supporters gloss over the gross mishandling of classified info and
the obvious pay to play, the huge payments from hostile foreign
govts, anyone that would pay, that went to the Clintons and/or the
foundation. That too has nothing to do with political ideology, but
everything to do with character and value.

A few nights back, Charlie Rose had Glenn Beck on for a half hour.

I'm no Glenn Beck fan, but I thought sounded much more rational that I
would have expected - and it was obvious that the guy is world-class,
industrial-strength smart.

And I thought that he made a few good points.

One of them was that BOTH parties have pretty much abandoned principle
and integrity in favor of perpetuating their own power.

One example he gave was Trump: if Trump were running on the Dem ticket,
the Repubs that are standing by and supporting him would be cutting him
to shreds.

Ditto Hillary: if she were running on a Repub ticket the Dems would be
all over her.

Beck said that, until both parties can start calling a spade a spade, he
does not see much hope for the country.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Robert Green:
The educational system has failed them and they really can't evaluate basic
facts clearly.


Think back on your school days. I cannot recall a single course that
explicitly addressed/taught Critical Thinking. English composition
was supposed to teach organized thought, math was supposed to teach
problem-solving skills.... but nobody was teaching me how to think
critically.


If I had a couple billion bucks and wanted to do something for the
country I would:

- Commission a bunch of experts to develop courses in Critical Thinking
for grade school, high school, college, and post-school people.

- Hire the same level PR firms that the Koch Brothers use to push their
agenda only to push the idea of teaching Critical Thinking in schools.



Tangentially, has anybody else read "A Field Guide to Lies: Critical
Thinking in the Information Age" by Daniel J. Levitin?
--
Pete Cresswell

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Robert Green:
The educational system has failed them and they really can't evaluate basic
facts clearly.


Think back on your school days. I cannot recall a single course that
explicitly addressed/taught Critical Thinking. English composition
was supposed to teach organized thought, math was supposed to teach
problem-solving skills.... but nobody was teaching me how to think
critically.


If I had a couple billion bucks and wanted to do something for the
country I would:

- Commission a bunch of experts to develop courses in Critical Thinking
for grade school, high school, college, and post-school people.

- Hire the same level PR firms that the Koch Brothers use to push their
agenda only to push the idea of teaching Critical Thinking in schools.



Tangentially, has anybody else read "A Field Guide to Lies: Critical
Thinking in the Information Age" by Daniel J. Levitin?
--
Pete Cresswell

Add requiring a course in economics in high school too. When I took
my first economics course in high school, the wonders of the free market
system and how it dovetails with our other freedoms became very clear.
For example, you quickly understand how a tax on business winds up
reflected in the price of their products, just like an increase in
the price of raw goods, labor, etc. An educated populace would be
harder to pander to with false promises on taxes and economic miracles.

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 1:30:55 PM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Vic Smith:
IMHO, the vast majority of Trump supporters are deplorable.
Simple as that. Being a rube is no excuse.

The pundits I've been listening to (David Brooks, for example) would
disagree.

Certainly Trump has a lock on the Racist/White Supremacist vote, but the
guys I've been listening to say that many (or maybe most) Trump
supporters are good, decent people who have simply been ignored by both
parties for years and years.

For instance the Repubs, in an act of amazing leadership, have convinced
a large block of people living paycheck-to-paycheck that voting for them
is patriotic, tax cuts for people earning over $250,000 per year are in
their interest, and a bunch of other things..... and they have been
harvesting those votes for years and years without doing anything for
those people.

The Dems have been no better. Once the party of union and working
people, they have become the party of the educated suburbanite upper
middle class....and have taken the brunt of the responsibility for
implementing NAFTA with no measures to soften the impact on all those
people who would lose their jobs.

I wouldn't back Trump on a bet... but I can easily see how decent
hard-working people who have not had their ears to the ground
politics-wise could be strongly attracted to somebody, *anybody*,
besides the status quo.
--
Pete Cresswell

That's Trump's only path to victory, ie that there are enough of those
mad as hell people who are fed up and will vote for him because he's
an outsider. The sad thing is, he would have gotten those and plenty
more votes if he had not run such a despicable campaign where he drove
away a lot of voters like me.

It's also possible that the Trump vote count is under reported in polls
because people don't want to admit they will vote for him because in the
media world out there that makes them a racist, red neck, etc.

Per trader_4:

Add requiring a course in economics in high school too. When I took
my first economics course in high school, the wonders of the free market
system and how it dovetails with our other freedoms became very clear.

My #1-daughter-the-farmer has a lot of contact with Amish ("Pennsylvania
Dutch") people.

At least some of them still believe the earth is flat.

But she says "They know how money works."... and they seem to do pretty
well economically.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per trader_4:

It's also possible that the Trump vote count is under reported in polls
because people don't want to admit they will vote for him because in the
media world out there that makes them a racist, red neck, etc.

My son-in-law spotted that early on. His term is "Closet Trump
Supporters".

Also, my understanding is that polls have become problematic to the
extent that they are conducted via telephone and therefore only with
people who have land lines and who talk to telephone solicitors.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 14:52:35 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:05:07 -0400, "Robert Green" wrote:



You are sloppily cherry-picking statements made by a miniscule minority and using a very broad brush to smear
tens of millions of your fellow citizens. This is as demagogic as anything Trump might have said, actually,
it is right up there with Saul Alinsky and Joseph Goebbels.

Your grouping of Alinsky and Goebbels puts your credibility in the
trash.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 19:03:21 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 14:52:35 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:05:07 -0400, "Robert Green" wrote:



You are sloppily cherry-picking statements made by a miniscule minority and using a very broad brush to smear
tens of millions of your fellow citizens. This is as demagogic as anything Trump might have said, actually,
it is right up there with Saul Alinsky and Joseph Goebbels.

Your grouping of Alinsky and Goebbels puts your credibility in the
trash.

Of course it does....... ;-) As if Alinsky and Goebbels didn't employ and advocate similar methodologies,
please.........

On 10/27/2016 11:39 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 10/26/2016 10:47 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:20:46 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:59:19 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 05:53:29 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:36:18 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:


You would think alienating so many people, especially college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.

That comes across as a little too elitist for my tastes. Trump supporters might be a little gullible or
naive, but the vast majority of them are good Americans, good people who want the best for our country.


IMHO, the vast majority of Trump supporters are deplorable.
Simple as that. Being a rube is no excuse.

If that is true, then, IMHO you are as bad as Trump. Generalizing in such a fashion is despicable,
prejudicial, bigoted and ignorant.

If I am not mistaken, that is what you feel constitutes being deplorable, isn't it?

Spin it however you want. Doesn't matter what you call me. I told
you it was simple. There's Trump supporters and then the others.
I'm an other. Good enough for me.


Vast numbers of our fellow citizens are not "deplorable" simply because they disagree with your ideology. I
have many good friends who will vote for Trump, not one of them is deplorable. Some are misguided, some are
naive, some are gullible, some see Mrs. Clinton as Lucifer. Not one of them has bad intentions, is noticeably
bigoted, prejudiced or ignorant.

How is calling someone who disagrees with your assessment of the
candidates "misguided, naive, or gullible" any different than calling
them "deplorable"? You've still judged those people as being less
rather than equal.


Try the dictionary. Deplorable is a strong adjective, one of condemnation,
way beyond misguided, naive, or gullible. People can be misguided, naive
or gullible and still be decent human beings.

So, it's OK to judge your friends in a negative light as long as it's
not so bad as the words someone else might use??

Aren't you STILL judging your friends and in essence telling the world
to have pity on those poor misguided, naive, and gullible people because
they don't agree with you??

How magnanimous of you.


--
Maggie

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Vic Smith:
IMHO, the vast majority of Trump supporters are deplorable.
Simple as that. Being a rube is no excuse.

The pundits I've been listening to (David Brooks, for example) would
disagree.

Certainly Trump has a lock on the Racist/White Supremacist vote,

And there's a large enough segment of his base that are like that supporting
him unfortunately amounts to tacit support of his most rabid base.

but the guys I've been listening to say that many (or maybe most) Trump
supporters are good, decent people who have simply been ignored by both
parties for years and years.

I don't know how you assign a figure to how many supporters are closet
KKK'ers and how many are good, decent people. I do know one metric: It
seems a lot easier to find Trump supporters willing to go straight to
impeachment, overthrow and rebellion remarks because they're on the news on
most every channel almost every night. I don't have to go looking for them
and there are people in different cities all saying similar things at Trump
rallies.

For instance the Repubs, in an act of amazing leadership, have convinced
a large block of people living paycheck-to-paycheck that voting for them
is patriotic, tax cuts for people earning over $250,000 per year are in
their interest, and a bunch of other things..... and they have been
harvesting those votes for years and years without doing anything for
those people.

It's been done with oceans of paid propaganda. The truth is that people do
better under Democratic presidents:

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/luc...ats-2015-10-27

Since 1945, American voters have swung back and forth between both
parties: seven Democratic presidents and nine Republican ones. Economic
growth in real terms (in other words adjusted for inflation) averaged 2.54%
per year under Republican presidents, but 4.35% per year under Democratic
ones. That annual difference of 181 basis points, say Alan Blinder and Mark
Watson, the two economics professors at Princeton who conducted the study,
really adds up over time. It means that real GDP expanded 18.6% during a
"typical Democratic four-year term, but only by 10.6% during a typical
Republican term." Adding more fuel to the argument, The Economist notes that
better job creation and stock market performance also coincide more with
Democratic presidents than Republican ones.

And I believe that the death of the trickle-down tomfoolery is yclept.
Trickle-down will lumber along for a little while longer at the hands of the
old school Republicans, but the economic data strongly suggest that tax cuts
to the rich increase speculation and not jobs. Look at all the work on
self-driving vehicles and think about all the people that drive for a
living. They're heading off a cliff but we keep hearing from the R's that
they have a solution: give the wealthy more money to kill, not create, new
jobs. At least that's the real result of their policies.

Worse still, the speculation that springs from lower taxation on the
ultra-rich tends to wreak havoc with younger people. The housing bubble
made it almost impossible for first home buyers in many markets.

The Dems have been no better. Once the party of union and working
people, they have become the party of the educated suburbanite upper
middle class....and have taken the brunt of the responsibility for
implementing NAFTA with no measures to soften the impact on all those
people who would lose their jobs.

I am not sure who to blame for NAFTA and even if there IS any blame.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/naftacafta-blame-game/

SEIU-COPE points to a report authored by economist Robert E. Scott for the
Economic Policy Institute, a think tank that is partly funded by labor
unions and has union presidents on its board. Scott estimated in 2003 that
NAFTA, enacted 10 years earlier, was responsible for the net loss of 879,280
jobs. But other studies have found the net impact on jobs was minor.

I wouldn't back Trump on a bet... but I can easily see how decent
hard-working people who have not had their ears to the ground
politics-wise could be strongly attracted to somebody, *anybody*,
besides the status quo.

The gridlock is really in Congress, not the Presidency. Look at the
difference in approval ratings. IIRC, Congress is heading towards negative
approval numbers at 13%. Until the problems in Congress are fixed, the game
will pretty much continue on the same track.

--
Bobby G.

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 12:16:50 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 10/27/2016 11:39 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 10/26/2016 10:47 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:20:46 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:59:19 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 05:53:29 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:36:18 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:


You would think alienating so many people, especially college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.

That comes across as a little too elitist for my tastes. Trump supporters might be a little gullible or
naive, but the vast majority of them are good Americans, good people who want the best for our country.


IMHO, the vast majority of Trump supporters are deplorable.
Simple as that. Being a rube is no excuse.

If that is true, then, IMHO you are as bad as Trump. Generalizing in such a fashion is despicable,
prejudicial, bigoted and ignorant.

If I am not mistaken, that is what you feel constitutes being deplorable, isn't it?

Spin it however you want. Doesn't matter what you call me. I told
you it was simple. There's Trump supporters and then the others.
I'm an other. Good enough for me.


Vast numbers of our fellow citizens are not "deplorable" simply because they disagree with your ideology. I
have many good friends who will vote for Trump, not one of them is deplorable. Some are misguided, some are
naive, some are gullible, some see Mrs. Clinton as Lucifer. Not one of them has bad intentions, is noticeably
bigoted, prejudiced or ignorant.

How is calling someone who disagrees with your assessment of the
candidates "misguided, naive, or gullible" any different than calling
them "deplorable"? You've still judged those people as being less
rather than equal.


Try the dictionary. Deplorable is a strong adjective, one of condemnation,
way beyond misguided, naive, or gullible. People can be misguided, naive
or gullible and still be decent human beings.

So, it's OK to judge your friends in a negative light as long as it's
not so bad as the words someone else might use??


Who the hell said anyone was judging friends? It was in the context
of voters.



Aren't you STILL judging your friends and in essence telling the world
to have pity on those poor misguided, naive, and gullible people because
they don't agree with you??

How magnanimous of you.


Still confused with the English language, I see.

On 10/29/2016 10:43 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 12:16:50 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 10/27/2016 11:39 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 10/26/2016 10:47 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:20:46 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:59:19 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 05:53:29 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:36:18 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:


You would think alienating so many people, especially college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.

That comes across as a little too elitist for my tastes. Trump supporters might be a little gullible or
naive, but the vast majority of them are good Americans, good people who want the best for our country.


IMHO, the vast majority of Trump supporters are deplorable.
Simple as that. Being a rube is no excuse.

If that is true, then, IMHO you are as bad as Trump. Generalizing in such a fashion is despicable,
prejudicial, bigoted and ignorant.

If I am not mistaken, that is what you feel constitutes being deplorable, isn't it?

Spin it however you want. Doesn't matter what you call me. I told
you it was simple. There's Trump supporters and then the others.
I'm an other. Good enough for me.


Vast numbers of our fellow citizens are not "deplorable" simply because they disagree with your ideology. I
have many good friends who will vote for Trump, not one of them is deplorable. Some are misguided, some are
naive, some are gullible, some see Mrs. Clinton as Lucifer. Not one of them has bad intentions, is noticeably
bigoted, prejudiced or ignorant.

How is calling someone who disagrees with your assessment of the
candidates "misguided, naive, or gullible" any different than calling
them "deplorable"? You've still judged those people as being less
rather than equal.


Try the dictionary. Deplorable is a strong adjective, one of condemnation,
way beyond misguided, naive, or gullible. People can be misguided, naive
or gullible and still be decent human beings.

So, it's OK to judge your friends in a negative light as long as it's
not so bad as the words someone else might use??


Who the hell said anyone was judging friends? It was in the context
of voters.

Stormin is judging his friends.

He said: "I have many good friends who will vote for Trump, not one of
them is deplorable. Some are misguided, some are naive, some are gullible."

He doesn't see his friends as equals because they don't share the same
political choices. He also sees his viewpoint as superior to his
friends and has judged them as being misguided, naive, and gullible
because they have a different point of view.


Aren't you STILL judging your friends and in essence telling the world
to have pity on those poor misguided, naive, and gullible people because
they don't agree with you??

How magnanimous of you.


--
Maggie

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Vic Smith:
IMHO, the vast majority of Trump supporters are deplorable.
Simple as that. Being a rube is no excuse.

The pundits I've been listening to (David Brooks, for example) would
disagree.

Certainly Trump has a lock on the Racist/White Supremacist vote,

And there's a large enough segment of his base that are like that supporting
him unfortunately amounts to tacit support of his most rabid base.

but the guys I've been listening to say that many (or maybe most) Trump
supporters are good, decent people who have simply been ignored by both
parties for years and years.

I don't know how you assign a figure to how many supporters are closet
KKK'ers and how many are good, decent people. I do know one metric: It
seems a lot easier to find Trump supporters willing to go straight to
impeachment, overthrow and rebellion remarks because they're on the news on
most every channel almost every night.

And of course that has nothing to do with the media, with the exception
of Fox, being libs, right? Note: Now would be a good time to claim
that you're a Republican, when obviously you're not.




I don't have to go looking for them
and there are people in different cities all saying similar things at Trump
rallies.

For instance the Repubs, in an act of amazing leadership, have convinced
a large block of people living paycheck-to-paycheck that voting for them
is patriotic, tax cuts for people earning over $250,000 per year are in
their interest, and a bunch of other things..... and they have been
harvesting those votes for years and years without doing anything for
those people.

It's been done with oceans of paid propaganda. The truth is that people do
better under Democratic presidents:


Note: Now would be a good time to claim again that you're a Republican, when obviously you're not.




Worse still, the speculation that springs from lower taxation on the
ultra-rich tends to wreak havoc with younger people. The housing bubble
made it almost impossible for first home buyers in many markets.


ROFL. "Speculation that results from low taxes on the rich". Wow,
that a new one! If the govt just took all the money, then there
would be no speculation, so let's do that!

On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 10:51:33 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 10/29/2016 10:43 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 12:16:50 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 10/27/2016 11:39 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 10/26/2016 10:47 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:20:46 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:59:19 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 05:53:29 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:36:18 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:


You would think alienating so many people, especially college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.

That comes across as a little too elitist for my tastes. Trump supporters might be a little gullible or
naive, but the vast majority of them are good Americans, good people who want the best for our country.


IMHO, the vast majority of Trump supporters are deplorable.
Simple as that. Being a rube is no excuse.

If that is true, then, IMHO you are as bad as Trump. Generalizing in such a fashion is despicable,
prejudicial, bigoted and ignorant.

If I am not mistaken, that is what you feel constitutes being deplorable, isn't it?

Spin it however you want. Doesn't matter what you call me. I told
you it was simple. There's Trump supporters and then the others.
I'm an other. Good enough for me.


Vast numbers of our fellow citizens are not "deplorable" simply because they disagree with your ideology. I
have many good friends who will vote for Trump, not one of them is deplorable. Some are misguided, some are
naive, some are gullible, some see Mrs. Clinton as Lucifer. Not one of them has bad intentions, is noticeably
bigoted, prejudiced or ignorant.

How is calling someone who disagrees with your assessment of the
candidates "misguided, naive, or gullible" any different than calling
them "deplorable"? You've still judged those people as being less
rather than equal.


Try the dictionary. Deplorable is a strong adjective, one of condemnation,
way beyond misguided, naive, or gullible. People can be misguided, naive
or gullible and still be decent human beings.

So, it's OK to judge your friends in a negative light as long as it's
not so bad as the words someone else might use??


Who the hell said anyone was judging friends? It was in the context
of voters.

Stormin is judging his friends.

He said: "I have many good friends who will vote for Trump, not one of
them is deplorable. Some are misguided, some are naive, some are gullible."

He doesn't see his friends as equals because they don't share the same
political choices. He also sees his viewpoint as superior to his
friends and has judged them as being misguided, naive, and gullible
because they have a different point of view.



Chuckle (again), present partial quotes, take them out of context, assign the worst of intentions all in an
effort to spin another ad hominem attack, not to mention the other logical fallacies embodied in your
presentation.

I do appreciate the effort you are expending to lure me into defending my comments, however, my comments stand
as written.

"Vast numbers of our fellow citizens are not "deplorable" simply because they disagree with your ideology. I
have many good friends who will vote for Trump, not one of them is deplorable. Some are misguided, some are
naive, some are gullible, some see Mrs. Clinton as Lucifer. Not one of them has bad intentions, is noticeably
bigoted, prejudiced or ignorant."

On 10/29/2016 11:07 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 10:51:33 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 10/29/2016 10:43 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 12:16:50 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 10/27/2016 11:39 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 10/26/2016 10:47 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:20:46 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:59:19 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 05:53:29 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:36:18 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:


You would think alienating so many people, especially college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.

That comes across as a little too elitist for my tastes. Trump supporters might be a little gullible or
naive, but the vast majority of them are good Americans, good people who want the best for our country.


IMHO, the vast majority of Trump supporters are deplorable.
Simple as that. Being a rube is no excuse.

If that is true, then, IMHO you are as bad as Trump. Generalizing in such a fashion is despicable,
prejudicial, bigoted and ignorant.

If I am not mistaken, that is what you feel constitutes being deplorable, isn't it?

Spin it however you want. Doesn't matter what you call me. I told
you it was simple. There's Trump supporters and then the others.
I'm an other. Good enough for me.


Vast numbers of our fellow citizens are not "deplorable" simply because they disagree with your ideology. I
have many good friends who will vote for Trump, not one of them is deplorable. Some are misguided, some are
naive, some are gullible, some see Mrs. Clinton as Lucifer. Not one of them has bad intentions, is noticeably
bigoted, prejudiced or ignorant.

How is calling someone who disagrees with your assessment of the
candidates "misguided, naive, or gullible" any different than calling
them "deplorable"? You've still judged those people as being less
rather than equal.


Try the dictionary. Deplorable is a strong adjective, one of condemnation,
way beyond misguided, naive, or gullible. People can be misguided, naive
or gullible and still be decent human beings.

So, it's OK to judge your friends in a negative light as long as it's
not so bad as the words someone else might use??


Who the hell said anyone was judging friends? It was in the context
of voters.

Stormin is judging his friends.

He said: "I have many good friends who will vote for Trump, not one of
them is deplorable. Some are misguided, some are naive, some are gullible."

He doesn't see his friends as equals because they don't share the same
political choices. He also sees his viewpoint as superior to his
friends and has judged them as being misguided, naive, and gullible
because they have a different point of view.


Chuckle (again), present partial quotes, take them out of context, assign the worst of intentions all in an
effort to spin another ad hominem attack, not to mention the other logical fallacies embodied in your
presentation.

Your full quote and context is above. Your intentions were to represent
your friends as not being as bad as being "deplorable", but then you
went on to say they were "misguided, naive, and gullible".

It's not a spin, ad hom, or logical fallacy.


I do appreciate the effort you are expending to lure me into defending my comments, however, my comments stand
as written.

You believe because you're judgement isn't as harsh as calling them
"deplorable" makes it acceptable in some way to call them "misguided,
naive, and gullible". You're STILL characterizing your FRIENDS as being
LESS than equal to you.


"Vast numbers of our fellow citizens are not "deplorable" simply because they disagree with your ideology. I
have many good friends who will vote for Trump, not one of them is deplorable. Some are misguided, some are
naive, some are gullible, some see Mrs. Clinton as Lucifer. Not one of them has bad intentions, is noticeably
bigoted, prejudiced or ignorant."


I asked you before, how is you calling your friends "misguided, naive,
and gullible" any different from calling them "deplorable"? You're
STILL judging them as being LESS than your equal.

Would you tell your friends that you see them as "misguided, naive, and
gullible", and then ask them if you've made them feel less than your
equal? I doubt it.

Why is that right to do that to your friends?? Why are your friends
viewpoints not as legitimate as your own?

--
Maggie

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Robert Green:
The educational system has failed them and they really can't evaluate
basic
facts clearly.

Think back on your school days. I cannot recall a single course that
explicitly addressed/taught Critical Thinking. English composition
was supposed to teach organized thought, math was supposed to teach
problem-solving skills.... but nobody was teaching me how to think
critically.

Real critical thinking courses didn't occur until college where a number of
courses (law, debating/speech classes, journalism, gov't and politics and a
few others taught me how to research facts (it was libraries only in those
days!) and "make a case." None of them was titled or exclusively dealt
with critical thinking but each one had bits and pieces. However, I have to
agree that it's really not taught in HS - and neither is balancing a
checkbook or reading a legal contract.

If I had a couple billion bucks and wanted to do something for the
country I would:

- Commission a bunch of experts to develop courses in Critical Thinking
for grade school, high school, college, and post-school people.

There's some question as to the ability of grade school students to absorb
the skills required for critical thinking at that age. They don't yet have
some of the fundamentals under their belt.

- Hire the same level PR firms that the Koch Brothers use to push their
agenda only to push the idea of teaching Critical Thinking in schools.

I have a friend who teaches at a local community college and she tells me
that today's kids have very little ability to determine the validity of
sources they use in reports. IOW, many think if it's on a website, it's got
to be true. Based on the stuff that some people post here it seems to be
true.

--
Bobby G.