CDZ Partisan ideology makes people ugly.

[candycorn]

And of course you can't point to a similar instance on the left.

Of hate? Are you kidding? You can't think of hate from your side?

My guess is that you would perceive hate from your side as some kind of "justifiable passion".

This is why it's so difficult for me to have these conversations. We're speaking two different languages.

I have the same problem with your ideological counterparts.
.

No, I can think of several....probably hundreds... but not to where the leader of the Party says X about the opposition and the rank and file of that party not only disagrees but now basically disavows him.

I'm glad you put it that way - "rank and file".

Yes, no doubt the rank & file Republicans start to pucker the minute he opens his mouth, specifically because they're mortified that they'll be labeled a racist or homophobe or misogynist or whatever by association, by you-know-who, and have to spend the next X years trying to wipe off the slime.

Has Trump said things that could easily be construed as "hateful" by those who sense political advantage? Yep.

Has Trump, purposely or not, attracted a cadre of old-fashioned, mouth-breathing racists? Yep.

Has Trump done the bare minimum to distance himself from them, for political reasons? Yep.

Is Trump himself a hateful person? Nope. No more than anyone else, especially those who watch their words.

Is one side of the spectrum really more hateful than the other? Nope. The amount of ugliness that exists on both ends is too close to call.

That's why I so often say the two ends of the spectrum have many similarities. Different on the issues, but similar in behaviors.
.

You don’t find Trump more hateful than others? Really?

No, I really don't. That doesn't mean he is without bigotry, but no one is. He just doesn't have a filter, and that's one of the reasons I've felt he shouldn't have that job.
.

So others in the GOP field thought that Cruz’s father was involved in killing JFK but had a filter and didn’t say as much?
So others in the GOP field thought that Ben Carson’s behavior was like a child molester but had a filter and didn’t say as much?
So others in the GOP field thought that Carly had a “big fat ugly face” but had a filter and didn’t say as much?

 

[candycorn]

And of course you can't point to a similar instance on the left.

Of hate? Are you kidding? You can't think of hate from your side?

My guess is that you would perceive hate from your side as some kind of "justifiable passion".

This is why it's so difficult for me to have these conversations. We're speaking two different languages.

I have the same problem with your ideological counterparts.
.

No, I can think of several....probably hundreds... but not to where the leader of the Party says X about the opposition and the rank and file of that party not only disagrees but now basically disavows him.

I'm glad you put it that way - "rank and file".

Yes, no doubt the rank & file Republicans start to pucker the minute he opens his mouth, specifically because they're mortified that they'll be labeled a racist or homophobe or misogynist or whatever by association, by you-know-who, and have to spend the next X years trying to wipe off the slime.

Has Trump said things that could easily be construed as "hateful" by those who sense political advantage? Yep.

Has Trump, purposely or not, attracted a cadre of old-fashioned, mouth-breathing racists? Yep.

Has Trump done the bare minimum to distance himself from them, for political reasons? Yep.

Is Trump himself a hateful person? Nope. No more than anyone else, especially those who watch their words.

Is one side of the spectrum really more hateful than the other? Nope. The amount of ugliness that exists on both ends is too close to call.

That's why I so often say the two ends of the spectrum have many similarities. Different on the issues, but similar in behaviors.
.

I’ll agree with you on that. It’s like looking at the letter “c” as a single line that is curved…the ends are closer to one another than the middle. The people at the ends are more alike one another than those in the middle. Where I think you have blinders is that if you place yourself in the middle and look out at the “c”..you’ll find much more of the people who make up the right wing toward the end than the left.
You seem to think everyone to your left and everyone to your right are the same (and of course only comment on the behavior of those not the left).

No, there's a big difference between being "the same" and sharing many behaviors. In terms of both issues and their general approach to things, the two ends are definitely different. In fact, I see the "the two parties are the same" stuff and I think that's silly. Their issues are clearly far apart and becoming more so, even if both parties are controlled by money, etc.

But as those two ends of the "c" get closer, the behaviors they do share become more similar, and it becomes more and more difficult to communicate with them for the same reasons. The problem is that nothing of lasting substance can really be improved unless and until walls on both sides come down and serious communication starts.

All I care about is fixing things, improving things. Little partisan victories for their own sake mean nothing to me.
.

Well, we’re talking about 2 different things

 

[Mac1958]

Of hate? Are you kidding? You can't think of hate from your side?

My guess is that you would perceive hate from your side as some kind of "justifiable passion".

This is why it's so difficult for me to have these conversations. We're speaking two different languages.

I have the same problem with your ideological counterparts.
.

No, I can think of several....probably hundreds... but not to where the leader of the Party says X about the opposition and the rank and file of that party not only disagrees but now basically disavows him.

I'm glad you put it that way - "rank and file".

Yes, no doubt the rank & file Republicans start to pucker the minute he opens his mouth, specifically because they're mortified that they'll be labeled a racist or homophobe or misogynist or whatever by association, by you-know-who, and have to spend the next X years trying to wipe off the slime.

Has Trump said things that could easily be construed as "hateful" by those who sense political advantage? Yep.

Has Trump, purposely or not, attracted a cadre of old-fashioned, mouth-breathing racists? Yep.

Has Trump done the bare minimum to distance himself from them, for political reasons? Yep.

Is Trump himself a hateful person? Nope. No more than anyone else, especially those who watch their words.

Is one side of the spectrum really more hateful than the other? Nope. The amount of ugliness that exists on both ends is too close to call.

That's why I so often say the two ends of the spectrum have many similarities. Different on the issues, but similar in behaviors.
.

You don’t find Trump more hateful than others? Really?

No, I really don't. That doesn't mean he is without bigotry, but no one is. He just doesn't have a filter, and that's one of the reasons I've felt he shouldn't have that job.
.

So others in the GOP field thought that Cruz’s father was involved in killing JFK but had a filter and didn’t say as much?
So others in the GOP field thought that Ben Carson’s behavior was like a child molester but had a filter and didn’t say as much?
So others in the GOP field thought that Carly had a “big fat ugly face” but had a filter and didn’t say as much?

Gawd, I don't know.

More importantly, I don't know why it matters.

If you want to say that a person is full of hate, great. If you feel that gives you some kind of advantage, great. At some point, if you're serious about fixing or improving anything, you'll have to communicate with people you don't like, who don't like you.

Everyone is screaming, no one is listening, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. Maybe it's just easier than communicating.
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trump's daughter and grandkids harassed on an airplane, people refusing to perform for the inauguration or even in his hotels, the stories are coming fast and furious.

All of this is an excellent illustration of how ugly partisan ideology makes people.

For the next four (or more) years, those who hate Trump will continue their vicious-as-possible attacks, they'll defend and/or deflect for all nastiness directed at him and his family, they'll ignore and/or distort any positive news or attribute it to Obama or someone else, and they'll be hoping for as much pain as possible, to then be leveraged for electoral advantage.

Just as it was the last eight years, and before that. And it just keeps getting worse.

I'd like some (civil, decent, honest) input on this, without the standard finger-pointing and aggressive lack of self-awareness.

1. How has it come to this?
2. What good can come from this behavior, specifically?
3. What, if anything, can be done to reverse this ugly course?

JimBowie1958, you and I began a conversation on this yesterday.
.

Do you really believe that only bad people disagree with you?

 

[Mac1958]

Trump's daughter and grandkids harassed on an airplane, people refusing to perform for the inauguration or even in his hotels, the stories are coming fast and furious.

All of this is an excellent illustration of how ugly partisan ideology makes people.

For the next four (or more) years, those who hate Trump will continue their vicious-as-possible attacks, they'll defend and/or deflect for all nastiness directed at him and his family, they'll ignore and/or distort any positive news or attribute it to Obama or someone else, and they'll be hoping for as much pain as possible, to then be leveraged for electoral advantage.

Just as it was the last eight years, and before that. And it just keeps getting worse.

I'd like some (civil, decent, honest) input on this, without the standard finger-pointing and aggressive lack of self-awareness.

1. How has it come to this?
2. What good can come from this behavior, specifically?
3. What, if anything, can be done to reverse this ugly course?

JimBowie1958, you and I began a conversation on this yesterday.
.

Do you really believe that only bad people disagree with you?

Straight to the straw man argument you go.

Not interested.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yep.

I see us as all having an innate struggle between our sense of being an individual and of being part of a group. We need that group bond in order to survive, but have the sort of self-awareness necessary to act as an individual, so there is always a tension between the two.

I imagine something of a bell curve where those at one end of the spectrum you have the sociopaths, the the heretics and the loners, and at the other end you have the fundamentalists, the totalitarians, and the sheeple. Too much individuality leads to dysfunction, but so does excessive conformity -- mob behavior and whatnot.

Man oh man, just looking around the board right now.

As this stuff just keeps getting worse, I'm seeing things written that would never even enter my head, not in a thousand years.

It's troubling, frankly. Every time we hit a new low, it's only temporary.
.

I've never seen so much sheer hate, uglyness, vitriole, labeling, and an utter unwillingness to discuss as I have lately. It's very dispiriting and it is coming from both sides. There seem to be no brakes.

1. How has it come to this?
2. What good can come from this behavior, specifically?
3. What, if anything, can be done to reverse this ugly course?

It certainly isn't a new phenomenum, in fact I'm surprised no one complained until now. It's been getting worse and worse and worse each year.

1. How has it come to this? Good question. A fundamental lack of manners and compassion disquised anti-PC maybe? An inability to recognize that just because you CAN - doesn't mean you should? You can blame the idiot that behaved that way, but don't overlook the role of the media (all kinds) and the unwillingness of the audience to condemn these kinds of attacks a culture that seems to glorify this behavior as "free speech".

2. What good can come from it? I honestly don't know. The only good I can think of is that it puts sunlight on some truly deplorable behavior and challenges us, on all sides to condemn it.

3. Condemnation. Stepping in and making a difference. Not being a standerby and allowing it. Not DEFENDING IT. You don't have to be violent. Whether it's Ivanka Trump or Michelle Obama or a Jewish guy with a yarmuka or a Muslim woman with a hajib - it should be excused. You can't be saying Trump caused it with his ugly rhetoric as an excuse for bad behavior. Teaching kids that this is not how to express political displeasure. Publically humiliating the attacker with condemnation.




Others have mentioned "tribalism". Humans are social animals - we're hardwired to want to be part of a group. Unfortunately a lot of "bonding rituals" include bullying and violence towards outsiders to solidify the group.

You may disagree with this, but there goes: On one hand, I agree, this over-the-top snap-back against PC has led to, enabled, and allowed for some horrible, counter-productive behaviors. And no one is more virulently anti-PC than I am. That seems to be an ongoing problem in this country - we just love to kneejerk at every opportunity, and Trump really played on that. More than anything else, THAT got him into office.

HOWEVER - it would also be a mistake to acknowledge that and then ignore/dismiss the size and passion of the anti-PC'ers. While some of their behaviors have been flat-out wrong, they were and are reacting to something that has been taking place and growing for decades. It's real, and it's not going anywhere. I think that those who push PC are as responsible for Trump as anyone else. It's time they admit that and stop pushing it.

Regarding what can be done, my guess is that it has reached a point where a grass roots effort like that just isn't enough. The hatred on both sides is just too intense for that. My guess is that it will take people recognized as "leaders" - political, business, sports, pop culture, music, all of it - to be brave and use their position and visibility and influence to call it out and condemn it in no uncertain terms.

Look at it another way: Companies pay "celebrities" millions and millions to promote and endorse their products because they know the public will react to those endorsements. Well, maybe those same people could leverage their considerable influence to deal with the hatred that has infected this country. It shouldn't be that way - the thought of "celebrities" (plus more serious leaders, such as politics & business) coming to the rescue is repellent to me - but I think that's where we are.
.

You make some really good points Mac. And I agree - the PC-extremists are just as much to blame but I wonder if too much is made of PC because it seems like what used to be called good manners and being nice now gets automatically labeled "PC" - sometimes I don't even what PC is half the time.

I think you might be right there, but in a sense - you're asking celebrities to be role models, and that is appropriate.

Thank you. I think PC goes far beyond manners, though. Quick examples, and I could definitely go on:

1. The lives of millions, generations of American blacks being damaged by people who enable bad behaviors by spinning and deflecting and excusing them. Any serious criticism is met with "you're just a racist", a tactic specifically meant to put the target on the defensive and avoid honest conversation on a critical topic.

2. College kids being enabled, even supported, in shutting and shouting down all opposing ideas during the very best time of their lives for hearing it and seriously considering it. We are closing young, fertile, brilliant minds at the very time we should be guaranteeing that they are exposed to all ideas and possibilities.

3. Shutting and shouting down all opposing thought with screams of racist, Nazi, fascist, homophobe, misogynist, on and on, accomplishing nothing but avoiding honest, introspective communication - the kind of communication that must happen if we're ever going to heal the divisions in this country that are only getting deeper and deeper.

Regarding "asking celebrities to be role models" - oh yeah, believe me, I know you're right. My thought process on this (such as it is) is that we have become such a shallow, celebrity-driven, media-driven culture that we might be able to leverage those very things to right the ship. If we're going to give these people such wealth and such (damn near literal) worship, then let's leverage this worship in a positive way. Kind of a Hail Mary pass, I have to admit.
.

Let's examine point number one.

Criticism isn't met with accusations of racism. But empty accusatory criticism is met with appropriate pushback.

If you tell me that you MUST say that black kids are more likely to be violent than white kids, you'd be OBLIGED to give some reasoned explanation for it....other than...."they aren't as civilized" or "they can't learn how to be civil". And...just saying it without an attempt at the explaination leads the listener nowhere.

Yes. Black kids in America are statistically more likely to be violent.

And????????

If you leave it there, you are being bigoted. You don't think so....but you are.

You say you want to fix things....let's start by you giving us your take on why it is that black kids are more likely to be violent in America.

Hint....it ain't because liberals think they are every bit as capable of being good citizens as anyone else. That's NOT the reason.

Care to try?

 

[candycorn]

You don’t find Trump more hateful than others? Really?

No, I really don't. That doesn't mean he is without bigotry, but no one is. He just doesn't have a filter, and that's one of the reasons I've felt he shouldn't have that job.
.[/QUOTE]


So others in the GOP field thought that Cruz’s father was involved in killing JFK but had a filter and didn’t say as much?
So others in the GOP field thought that Ben Carson’s behavior was like a child molester but had a filter and didn’t say as much?
So others in the GOP field thought that Carly had a “big fat ugly face” but had a filter and didn’t say as much?
[/QUOTE]
Gawd, I don't know.

More importantly, I don't know why it matters.

If you want to say that a person is full of hate, great. If you feel that gives you some kind of advantage, great. At some point, if you're serious about fixing or improving anything, you'll have to communicate with people you don't like, who don't like you.

Everyone is screaming, no one is listening, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. Maybe it's just easier than communicating.
.[/QUOTE]

To review:

You said:

“Is Trump himself a hateful person? Nope. No more than anyone else, especially those who watch their words.”

I asked:

"You don’t find Trump more hateful than others? Really?”

You said:
"No, I really don't. That doesn't mean he is without bigotry, but no one is. He just doesn’t have a filter…”

Now, what you do is you don’t compare Trump to Mother Theresa, Pope Benedict or Father Dolan….you compare him to his peers. So I asked…

"So others in the GOP field thought that Cruz’s father was involved in killing JFK but had a filter and didn’t say as much?
So others in the GOP field thought that Ben Carson’s behavior was like a child molester but had a filter and didn’t say as much?
So others in the GOP field thought that Carly had a “big fat ugly face” but had a filter and didn’t say as much?”

I just pulled 3 examples out of thin air… I didn’t reference the well-known allegations that a woman was on her period, what he said about he Energy Sec Nominee “trying to look smart” by wearing glasses, the inciting of violence at his rallies….

Your bizarre response was…

“Gawd, I don’t know."

At this point…I think it’s clear you are being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Mac1958]

At this point…I think it’s clear you are being intellectually dishonest.

Funny how you left out the rest of my response.

Well, not funny, predictable.

That's okay. If you think I'm a liar, there's no reason for further communication.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No, I can think of several....probably hundreds... but not to where the leader of the Party says X about the opposition and the rank and file of that party not only disagrees but now basically disavows him.

I'm glad you put it that way - "rank and file".

Yes, no doubt the rank & file Republicans start to pucker the minute he opens his mouth, specifically because they're mortified that they'll be labeled a racist or homophobe or misogynist or whatever by association, by you-know-who, and have to spend the next X years trying to wipe off the slime.

Has Trump said things that could easily be construed as "hateful" by those who sense political advantage? Yep.

Has Trump, purposely or not, attracted a cadre of old-fashioned, mouth-breathing racists? Yep.

Has Trump done the bare minimum to distance himself from them, for political reasons? Yep.

Is Trump himself a hateful person? Nope. No more than anyone else, especially those who watch their words.

Is one side of the spectrum really more hateful than the other? Nope. The amount of ugliness that exists on both ends is too close to call.

That's why I so often say the two ends of the spectrum have many similarities. Different on the issues, but similar in behaviors.
.

You don’t find Trump more hateful than others? Really?

No, I really don't. That doesn't mean he is without bigotry, but no one is. He just doesn't have a filter, and that's one of the reasons I've felt he shouldn't have that job.
.

So others in the GOP field thought that Cruz’s father was involved in killing JFK but had a filter and didn’t say as much?
So others in the GOP field thought that Ben Carson’s behavior was like a child molester but had a filter and didn’t say as much?
So others in the GOP field thought that Carly had a “big fat ugly face” but had a filter and didn’t say as much?

Gawd, I don't know.

More importantly, I don't know why it matters.

If you want to say that a person is full of hate, great. If you feel that gives you some kind of advantage, great. At some point, if you're serious about fixing or improving anything, you'll have to communicate with people you don't like, who don't like you.

Everyone is screaming, no one is listening, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. Maybe it's just easier than communicating.
.

I could not have said that better myself.

 

[LoneLaugher]

At this point…I think it’s clear you are being intellectually dishonest.

Funny how you left out the rest of my response.

Well, not funny, predictable.

That's okay. If you think I'm a liar, there's no reason for further communication.
.

Why not? What is wrong with communicating with someone who thinks you are dishonest?

You should note that he said you were being intellectually dishonest regarding this discussion. He didn't call you a liar in the general sense of the word. You've no reason to be so offended.

 

[candycorn]

At this point…I think it’s clear you are being intellectually dishonest.

Funny how you left out the rest of my response.

Well, not funny, predictable.

That's okay. If you think I'm a liar, there's no reason for further communication.
.

What germane response did I leave out?

 

[candycorn]

At this point…I think it’s clear you are being intellectually dishonest.

Funny how you left out the rest of my response.

Well, not funny, predictable.

That's okay. If you think I'm a liar, there's no reason for further communication.
.

Why not? What is wrong with communicating with someone who thinks you are dishonest?

You should note that he said you were being intellectually dishonest regarding this discussion. He didn't call you a liar in the general sense of the word. You've no reason to be so offended.

I guess I hurt his feelings. Poor Mac1958

When you say, “I don’t know” when asked if Carly thought Cruz’s father was associated with the JFK Assassinations the same way Trump did:

Trump accuses Cruz's father of helping JFK's assassin

You lose credibility.

 

[Mac1958]

At this point…I think it’s clear you are being intellectually dishonest.

Funny how you left out the rest of my response.

Well, not funny, predictable.

That's okay. If you think I'm a liar, there's no reason for further communication.
.

Why not? What is wrong with communicating with someone who thinks you are dishonest?

You should note that he said you were being intellectually dishonest regarding this discussion. He didn't call you a liar in the general sense of the word. You've no reason to be so offended.

I guess I hurt his feelings. Poor Mac1958

When you say, “I don’t know” when asked if Carly thought Cruz’s father was associated with the JFK Assassinations the same way Trump did:

Trump accuses Cruz's father of helping JFK's assassin

You lose credibility.

You asked my opinion, I answered. I didn't ask yours.

I don't see a reason to try to convince you of my opinion.

If you think I am a liar or have no credibility or that I'm a Nazi or a Martian, that's fine with me.

Neither my ego nor my self esteem are based on what unknown people on an internet message board think of me.

Something definitely tells me that's a little unusual here.
.

 

[candycorn]

At this point…I think it’s clear you are being intellectually dishonest.

Funny how you left out the rest of my response.

Well, not funny, predictable.

That's okay. If you think I'm a liar, there's no reason for further communication.
.

Why not? What is wrong with communicating with someone who thinks you are dishonest?

You should note that he said you were being intellectually dishonest regarding this discussion. He didn't call you a liar in the general sense of the word. You've no reason to be so offended.

I guess I hurt his feelings. Poor Mac1958

When you say, “I don’t know” when asked if Carly thought Cruz’s father was associated with the JFK Assassinations the same way Trump did:

Trump accuses Cruz's father of helping JFK's assassin

You lose credibility.

You asked my opinion, I answered. I didn't ask yours.

I don't see a reason to try to convince you of my opinion.

If you think I am a liar or have no credibility or that I'm a Nazi or a Martian, that's fine with me.

Neither my ego nor my self esteem are based on what unknown people on an internet message board think of me.

Something definitely tells me that's a little unusual here.
.

Its okay Mac. We just thought you were better than that. I mean, if Vig or Easy or Dark fury or any number of the idiots who back Trump 100% had said that “they were all thinking it, Trump just has no filter”, that would be par for the course. Your “I don’t know” if they too were thinking it is, well, frankly stupid.

Like the very respectable Senator Paul or Governor Huckabee( both of whom with I disagree with to no end politically) was sitting there thinking “Wow, Megan must be on her period today.” or “I wonder if Cruz’s father had anything to do with JFK getting popped?” and only their “filter” stopped them from saying it???

That you’re now throwing out the “nazi” reference is weak. Again, we thought you were better than that.

 

[Mac1958]

At this point…I think it’s clear you are being intellectually dishonest.

Funny how you left out the rest of my response.

Well, not funny, predictable.

That's okay. If you think I'm a liar, there's no reason for further communication.
.

Why not? What is wrong with communicating with someone who thinks you are dishonest?

You should note that he said you were being intellectually dishonest regarding this discussion. He didn't call you a liar in the general sense of the word. You've no reason to be so offended.

I guess I hurt his feelings. Poor Mac1958

When you say, “I don’t know” when asked if Carly thought Cruz’s father was associated with the JFK Assassinations the same way Trump did:

Trump accuses Cruz's father of helping JFK's assassin

You lose credibility.

You asked my opinion, I answered. I didn't ask yours.

I don't see a reason to try to convince you of my opinion.

If you think I am a liar or have no credibility or that I'm a Nazi or a Martian, that's fine with me.

Neither my ego nor my self esteem are based on what unknown people on an internet message board think of me.

Something definitely tells me that's a little unusual here.
.

Its okay Mac. We just thought you were better than that. I mean, if Vig or Easy or Dark fury or any number of the idiots who back Trump 100% had said that “they were all thinking it, Trump just has no filter”, that would be par for the course. Your “I don’t know” if they too were thinking it is, well, frankly stupid.

Like the very respectable Senator Paul or Governor Huckabee( both of whom with I disagree with to no end politically) was sitting there thinking “Wow, Megan must be on her period today.” or “I wonder if Cruz’s father had anything to do with JFK getting popped?” and only their “filter” stopped them from saying it???

That you’re now throwing out the “nazi” reference is weak. Again, we thought you were better than that.

Well, that's what you get for expecting too much.
.

 

[candycorn]

Funny how you left out the rest of my response.

Well, not funny, predictable.

That's okay. If you think I'm a liar, there's no reason for further communication.
.

Why not? What is wrong with communicating with someone who thinks you are dishonest?

You should note that he said you were being intellectually dishonest regarding this discussion. He didn't call you a liar in the general sense of the word. You've no reason to be so offended.

I guess I hurt his feelings. Poor Mac1958

When you say, “I don’t know” when asked if Carly thought Cruz’s father was associated with the JFK Assassinations the same way Trump did:

Trump accuses Cruz's father of helping JFK's assassin

You lose credibility.

You asked my opinion, I answered. I didn't ask yours.

I don't see a reason to try to convince you of my opinion.

If you think I am a liar or have no credibility or that I'm a Nazi or a Martian, that's fine with me.

Neither my ego nor my self esteem are based on what unknown people on an internet message board think of me.

Something definitely tells me that's a little unusual here.
.

Its okay Mac. We just thought you were better than that. I mean, if Vig or Easy or Dark fury or any number of the idiots who back Trump 100% had said that “they were all thinking it, Trump just has no filter”, that would be par for the course. Your “I don’t know” if they too were thinking it is, well, frankly stupid.

Like the very respectable Senator Paul or Governor Huckabee( both of whom with I disagree with to no end politically) was sitting there thinking “Wow, Megan must be on her period today.” or “I wonder if Cruz’s father had anything to do with JFK getting popped?” and only their “filter” stopped them from saying it???

That you’re now throwing out the “nazi” reference is weak. Again, we thought you were better than that.

Well, that's what you get for expecting too much.
.

It’s rapidly becoming less and less of a problem with you…thats for sure.

 

[candycorn]

Why not? What is wrong with communicating with someone who thinks you are dishonest?

You should note that he said you were being intellectually dishonest regarding this discussion. He didn't call you a liar in the general sense of the word. You've no reason to be so offended.

I guess I hurt his feelings. Poor Mac1958

When you say, “I don’t know” when asked if Carly thought Cruz’s father was associated with the JFK Assassinations the same way Trump did:

Trump accuses Cruz's father of helping JFK's assassin

You lose credibility.

You asked my opinion, I answered. I didn't ask yours.

I don't see a reason to try to convince you of my opinion.

If you think I am a liar or have no credibility or that I'm a Nazi or a Martian, that's fine with me.

Neither my ego nor my self esteem are based on what unknown people on an internet message board think of me.

Something definitely tells me that's a little unusual here.
.

Its okay Mac. We just thought you were better than that. I mean, if Vig or Easy or Dark fury or any number of the idiots who back Trump 100% had said that “they were all thinking it, Trump just has no filter”, that would be par for the course. Your “I don’t know” if they too were thinking it is, well, frankly stupid.

Like the very respectable Senator Paul or Governor Huckabee( both of whom with I disagree with to no end politically) was sitting there thinking “Wow, Megan must be on her period today.” or “I wonder if Cruz’s father had anything to do with JFK getting popped?” and only their “filter” stopped them from saying it???

That you’re now throwing out the “nazi” reference is weak. Again, we thought you were better than that.

Well, that's what you get for expecting too much.
.

It’s rapidly becoming less and less of a problem with you…thats for sure.

Funny how you left out the rest of my response.

Well, not funny, predictable.

That's okay. If you think I'm a liar, there's no reason for further communication.
.

Why not? What is wrong with communicating with someone who thinks you are dishonest?

You should note that he said you were being intellectually dishonest regarding this discussion. He didn't call you a liar in the general sense of the word. You've no reason to be so offended.

I guess I hurt his feelings. Poor Mac1958

When you say, “I don’t know” when asked if Carly thought Cruz’s father was associated with the JFK Assassinations the same way Trump did:

Trump accuses Cruz's father of helping JFK's assassin

You lose credibility.

You asked my opinion, I answered. I didn't ask yours.

I don't see a reason to try to convince you of my opinion.

If you think I am a liar or have no credibility or that I'm a Nazi or a Martian, that's fine with me.

Neither my ego nor my self esteem are based on what unknown people on an internet message board think of me.

Something definitely tells me that's a little unusual here.
.

Its okay Mac. We just thought you were better than that. I mean, if Vig or Easy or Dark fury or any number of the idiots who back Trump 100% had said that “they were all thinking it, Trump just has no filter”, that would be par for the course. Your “I don’t know” if they too were thinking it is, well, frankly stupid.

Like the very respectable Senator Paul or Governor Huckabee( both of whom with I disagree with to no end politically) was sitting there thinking “Wow, Megan must be on her period today.” or “I wonder if Cruz’s father had anything to do with JFK getting popped?” and only their “filter” stopped them from saying it???

That you’re now throwing out the “nazi” reference is weak. Again, we thought you were better than that.

Well, that's what you get for expecting too much.
.

Oh and happy new year to you and yours.

 

[Mac1958]

I guess I hurt his feelings. Poor Mac1958

When you say, “I don’t know” when asked if Carly thought Cruz’s father was associated with the JFK Assassinations the same way Trump did:

Trump accuses Cruz's father of helping JFK's assassin

You lose credibility.

You asked my opinion, I answered. I didn't ask yours.

I don't see a reason to try to convince you of my opinion.

If you think I am a liar or have no credibility or that I'm a Nazi or a Martian, that's fine with me.

Neither my ego nor my self esteem are based on what unknown people on an internet message board think of me.

Something definitely tells me that's a little unusual here.
.

Its okay Mac. We just thought you were better than that. I mean, if Vig or Easy or Dark fury or any number of the idiots who back Trump 100% had said that “they were all thinking it, Trump just has no filter”, that would be par for the course. Your “I don’t know” if they too were thinking it is, well, frankly stupid.

Like the very respectable Senator Paul or Governor Huckabee( both of whom with I disagree with to no end politically) was sitting there thinking “Wow, Megan must be on her period today.” or “I wonder if Cruz’s father had anything to do with JFK getting popped?” and only their “filter” stopped them from saying it???

That you’re now throwing out the “nazi” reference is weak. Again, we thought you were better than that.

Well, that's what you get for expecting too much.
.

It’s rapidly becoming less and less of a problem with you…thats for sure.

Why not? What is wrong with communicating with someone who thinks you are dishonest?

You should note that he said you were being intellectually dishonest regarding this discussion. He didn't call you a liar in the general sense of the word. You've no reason to be so offended.

I guess I hurt his feelings. Poor Mac1958

When you say, “I don’t know” when asked if Carly thought Cruz’s father was associated with the JFK Assassinations the same way Trump did:

Trump accuses Cruz's father of helping JFK's assassin

You lose credibility.

You asked my opinion, I answered. I didn't ask yours.

I don't see a reason to try to convince you of my opinion.

If you think I am a liar or have no credibility or that I'm a Nazi or a Martian, that's fine with me.

Neither my ego nor my self esteem are based on what unknown people on an internet message board think of me.

Something definitely tells me that's a little unusual here.
.

Its okay Mac. We just thought you were better than that. I mean, if Vig or Easy or Dark fury or any number of the idiots who back Trump 100% had said that “they were all thinking it, Trump just has no filter”, that would be par for the course. Your “I don’t know” if they too were thinking it is, well, frankly stupid.

Like the very respectable Senator Paul or Governor Huckabee( both of whom with I disagree with to no end politically) was sitting there thinking “Wow, Megan must be on her period today.” or “I wonder if Cruz’s father had anything to do with JFK getting popped?” and only their “filter” stopped them from saying it???

That you’re now throwing out the “nazi” reference is weak. Again, we thought you were better than that.

Well, that's what you get for expecting too much.
.

Oh and happy new year to you and yours.

And to you!
.

 

[Polk]

Nothing new.

Chelsea was mildly harassed on her looks, the Bush twins were harassed, (I remember a rumor one of them supposedly had an abortion while still living at the WH), the Obama girls were for the most part left alone, as far as I remember.

It will never end, unfortunately,

too many partisans.

Major difference, Obama's daughters and chelsea were still kids when their dads were in the WH. Bush's daughters were adults and were getting into trouble with the law. Trumps adult kids by his first marriage seem to be engaging in some pretty unseemly behavior.

They were "adults," but they were more analogous to Chelsea Clinton and the Obama daughters (young, not engaged in active politics) than to Ivanka.