2016 Presidential Campaign

[Nick Danger]

I keep in mind that when I first joined the Forums, my son (the computer guy, Dave) said, "you won't like it, Mom. Most of the people on there are idiots and losers." How right he was.

Hehe, not a place for the thin-skinned, that's for sure. Most of these forums come with an "ignore" function that let's you mask all posts from members of your choosing, particularly handy for those whose consistently try to bait others into emotional outbursts. For the most part this is one of the milder venues once you get to know who's who.

Word on the street is that Trump is pretty much toast at this point. The big question now seems to be whether or not he's just going to be a sore loser, or a deposed despot with a scorched earth agenda.

 

[JLM]

You don't know what a "categorical statement" is, do you?

Sorry, mea culpa- I got the impression you were including all women in one category.

 

[mentalfloss]

This is why America is already great:

[WATCH] Watch Donald Trump’s Hollywood Star Destroyed: Exclusive Video | Deadline

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Sorry, mea culpa- I got the impression you were including all women in one category.

No. . . when someone says "Women are" or "Women do," THEY, and not I, are including all women in one category.

A categorical statement is made by the person stating it, not by the person hearing it.

Hope that helped.

 

[JLM]

No. . . when someone says "Women are" or "Women do," THEY, and not I, are including all women in one category.

A categorical statement is made by the person stating it, not by the person hearing it.

Hope that helped.

Could it be possible that the word "some" was meant to be understood? Sometimes (back in the day) I would say "got a rotten hangover" when what was meant was "I have a rotten hangover"....................Savvy?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Could it be possible that the word "some" was meant to be understood? Sometimes (back in the day) I would say "got a rotten hangover" when what was meant was "I have a rotten hangover"....................Savvy?

Best way you can get "meant to be understood" to actually be understood is to say it. Categorical statements are stereotypes. They are symptoms of lazy, inaccurate thinking.

 

[davesmom]

Hehe, not a place for the thin-skinned, that's for sure. Most of these forums come with an "ignore" function that let's you mask all posts from members of your choosing, particularly handy for those whose consistently try to bait others into emotional outbursts. For the most part this is one of the milder venues once you get to know who's who.
.

I never use 'ignore'. If you let them keep talking you get to know who and what they really are.
The ones who use personal attacks are the ones who have no credible arguments.

 

[JLM]

I never use 'ignore'. If you let them keep talking you get to know who and what they really are.
The ones who use personal attacks are the ones who have no credible arguments.

There's just one guy I have on "ignore" but that doesn't work very well because as soon as someone responds to his idiotic, brain dead statement you get to see it anyway.

 

[TenPenny]

I never use 'ignore'. If you let them keep talking you get to know who and what they really are.
The ones who use personal attacks are the ones who have no credible arguments.

I'd say that the ones who categorize all women in one lump have no credible arguments.

 

[Cannuck]

You must be totally nuts!!!

The ones who use personal attacks are the ones who have no credible arguments.

Hehehe

 

[coldstream]

The tracking polls (Rasmussen, IDB, LAT) all still have this as a statistical dead heat. That must frustrate the Mainstream Media Polls whose intent is to deflate and suppress the Trump vote. They have really lost all sense of being honest brokers and have abandoned even the pretense of objectivity.

 

[MHz]

The first one highlights what is openly done in the 2nd vid.

 

[Corduroy]

You think women still have to be liberated?

Yup. One thing they need to be liberated from is the culture of victim blaming you're perpetuating.

 

[EagleSmack]

Yup. One thing they need to be liberated from is the culture of victim blaming you're perpetuating.

Unless it is a Clinton accuser of course.

 

[Cannuck]

Unless it is a Clinton accuser of course.

Oh pumpkin, are you still all salty about what happened 20 years ago?

 

[EagleSmack]

Oh pumpkin, are you still all salty about what happened 20 years ago?

You're silly

 

[Nick Danger]

I never use 'ignore'. If you let them keep talking you get to know who and what they really are.
The ones who use personal attacks are the ones who have no credible arguments.

I prefer to choose my friends. Sure I can tolerate those who go on and on, but those who are consistently nasty enough to be "toxic" serve no purpose and as such, are a waste of my time. I can't find any more reason to indulge them here than I would in real life, and in real life I avoid them as best I can.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I never use 'ignore'. If you let them keep talking you get to know who and what they really are.
The ones who use personal attacks are the ones who have no credible arguments.

I agree with you on this one. If I see a stupid comment, I ignore it. But even the most reprehensible hereabouts sometimes say something worth hearing, on the "even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while" principle.

There's some folk I never respond to, for fear of encouraging the raft of bullsh*t that accompanies their rare pearls of wisdom. But I don't refuse to see anybody's posts.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Well, it has to be a conspiracy. Clearly Trump should win given all the intelligent things to come out of his mouth in the last year.

Why not, eh?

...a creepy clown for President ...

Zeitgeist, man ...

 

[Corduroy]

I agree with you on this one. If I see a stupid comment, I ignore it. But even the most reprehensible hereabouts sometimes say something worth hearing, on the "even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while" principle.

There's some folk I never respond to, for fear of encouraging the raft of bullsh*t that accompanies their rare pearls of wisdom. But I don't refuse to see anybody's posts.

I do the same thing. What I find interesting is that there are certain people I never reply to and yet they keep replying to me thinking they might get a reaction.

This forum is like 90% trolls and but they are really ****ty trolls. Only two people have figured out how to decently troll anyone around here. Walter, whose erratic negative voting is the perfect little annoyance that drives the less stable posters nuts and mentalfloss, who doesn't even need to post to get people angry about him.