Trump won and the left has totally lost their marbles. To be clear, I believe most of the left who are situated near the center are reasonable and though they don't like Trump, they certainly do not want him to fail; they are willing to accept their loss. They put up a fight and got their asses handed to them. They knew Hillary was risky to run so they are slowly beginning to put the pieces together. Unfortunately, these reasonable liberals are not being acknowledged. Is it because their numbers are becoming fewer and fewer?Or is it because the media is merely showing the public those that reflect their own feelings? Maybe it's a little bit of both.
The media showed their true colors on election night. The mainstream coverage had insisted on a Hillary win and as the night wore on and votes came in, the media all over seemed to be in an unshakable state of cognitive dissonance. The smug looks had all melted into faces of disappointment and disgust. All of them seemingly asking, if not overtly asking, "What happened? How did we not see this?"
It's true, most all the polls had indicated an assured win for Hillary and the Democrats. The New York Times had insisted Hillary would win and rated her chances of winning above 90%. Liberals all over agreed that Trump didn't have a chance at winning. How soon they forgot that they were the same people who laughed and mocked the idea that Trump would win the primary.
In the following clip, we can see Bill Maher and his audience of clapping seals, laughing and mocking Ann Coulter as she declares confidently that Donald Trump has the best chance of winning the presidency.
I am waiting for Ann to go back on Bill Maher's show. The least he could do is give Ann her chance to glow in the light of success. It is likely this will happen considering the two have been friends for years but, as of writing this, she has not been invited back. Maybe she hasn't been back because she has been doing the rounds on so many other shows; it's clear her popularity has risen because of her accurate prediction.
After the Trump presidency was announced and made official, liberal commentators cried and shouted. Some of them seemed to be in such a state of shock that they could not control the words coming out of their mouths. How is it possible they were so wrong this entire time? For conservatives, it's very easy for us to see why - these people live in a bubble. For liberals, they refuse to acknowledge they live in this bubble so the answers are not quite so simple.
Some of the more devoted left, or what has been coined the "regressive" left, have turned to behaving in very sinister ways. Various protests and riots started being reported across the country. Some people have even been physically attacked for supporting Trump. Even more unusual were claims from SJW-types insisting that Trump supporters had attacked them. Most of these stories have been proven to be false, completely made up lies in order to garner sympathy or perhaps hate toward Trump supporters.
Take the case of Kathy Mirah Tu. Kathy took to social media after the election. She claims she's a student at the University of Minnesota. Her original post is below, click on the image to enlarge it.
In a nutshell, Kathy claims she was walking on a bridge when she heard a white male - yes, WHITE male shout at her and told her to, "Go back to Asia!" She continues walking, and he stops her again telling her she was being disrespectful. The two exchange some words involving affirmative action, which is quite hilarious since everyone knows those Asians are smart people. Let's face it, Asians don't exactly fall under the stereotype of being stupid. Kathy also schooled this WHTIE male on the fact that she is a US citizen and told him he should go back to the country where he comes from or I guess where someone came from in his family from years and years ago because she thinks everyone is from elsewhere? This WHITE male then grabs her by the wrist and suggests the two of them fight. She miraculously uses defense moves to undo his firm grip and then punches him in the throat, telling us she doesn't feel bad about doing so. Well, why would you? Seems a bit superfluous of a detail to add, unless of course, you're making the whole the thing up.
The WHITE man was accompanied by a few friends who watched the entire episode go down, doing nothing, and when they realized she was winning the fight, they called the police. The police put her in handcuffs because all these white men lied and blamed her for being the instigator. After some time, she was finally released and set free! Oh hooray! Thank gawd she was able to escape, find her way home, and post this fairytale for the world to see.
One major problem for Kathy is that this story was so powerful with some who became so outraged, they needed to be her voice and reach out the police and question them for putting her in handcuffs! How dare the police side with racist, white men and handcuff her! The police have no record of this incident or ever interacting with her. Kathy has since removed the post and it seems she removed herself from social media as well. Since there is no official report, not much can be done to punish this woman for making a false claim but hopefully, shame in getting caught in such a ridiculous lie will curtail this behavior in the future.Who knows what consequences there will be for Kathy. Google her name and this story is everywhere. Who will want to hire Kathy? What employer could trust her to work alone or work with others for that matter? What happens if Kathy ever does become an actual victim of racism and no one believes her because of this? Not only has Kathy put her own life at risk but she also has made light of any real incidents that may occur. She is not the only one.
Another student at the University of Louisiana decided she was going to tell the world she was attacked and had her hijab removed. Police investigated the claim and the young women finally came clean to admit she had made up the entire story. There have been several Muslim students who have claimed to be victims of hate crimes since the election but, none so far have really amounted to anything. This doesn't mean any legit crimes haven't been committed, only that most of them so far appear to be hoaxes. Many are still under investigation so, in time we will hear if they are fake or not.
One case under investigation can be found in Brooklyn, NY at a small French restaurant called Bar Tabac. I am not convinced this case is real since it sounds ridiculous.
According to the story, a couple was seated next to two women and the topic of the election was brought up. The white male, Trump supporter had asked the restaurant to throw two women out of the establishment because he heard them talking about Hillary? I'm not sure, the article is horribly written, leaving more questions than answers. The restaurant refused to throw the women out but did seat the male and his date elsewhere. They paid cash and left. Moments later the man returns in a state of rage and almost knocks down a child who was seated in a high chair and punches the woman he doesn't like in the face and somehow manages to escape. Some people followed and caught up with him but the white male, Trump supporter managed to escape! No cameras, no cell phones, no license plate, and of course he paid cash, so no record of who this lone Republican in Brooklyn, NY is. The woman had no injuries and refused medical care.
Anyone else having some major problems with this story?
1) It turns out the only witness to what occurred is the bartender. The only other witnesses did not actually see the main event but saw the women upset about what had occurred. One of these witnesses claimed that the victim sobbed uncontrollably and held her. So do these witnesses know the victim? The articles I have read about this do not reflect these people knew one another prior, but for someone suffering no injuries, why would they hold a stranger and sob unless they were with a familiar face?
2) This supposed Trump supporter is dining in Brooklyn, NY. Now anyone with a few working neurons knows and understands that all of NY is highly populated with lefties and liberals galore. Conservatives do exist but they exist in the shadows, in what appears to be small numbers. Conservatives are not going to be loud and vocal about their support for Trump in a public establishment like this. This would be suicide in many ways. According to the story, this conversation must have been loud enough and attention had to have been called to these people when they were seated on the other side of the restaurant.
Now imagine working in a restaurant and a customer asks you to throw out a pair of women because they don't like their politics. In this case, politics that are largely accepted by all in this area. This particular area voted soundly democrat in the presidential election so the people complaining are the outcasts. You decide to move them away to another area - that sounds reasonable but, I'm now expected to believe that all eyes are not directed toward this man for the duration of his meal? Nobody said anything to this man or followed him out originally to ensure he didn't come back?
3) Why on earth would a man who's candidate won the election be so angry as to re-enter a restaurant and physically hit a woman? He supports Trump and Trump won. He has zero reasons to be upset or angry. If anything, he would be laughing or it would be that woman who would feel emboldened to hit him. I cannot imagine a conservative man doing this but really, I cannot imagine a liberal man hitting a women in the face like this either. Sure, we've heard about men beating their wives like O.J. Simpson or Ike Turner, but these are domestic violence situations, where strong feelings are tied to the women who are victims. In this case, we are dealing with two strangers who have no connection whatsoever. It is not likely that any male would do something like this, especially an older one in his late 30's or early 40's as he was described.
4) No injuries? Really? No visible signs of the assault? I'm not buying it. Some guy comes storming in and clocks a woman in the face and she doesn't find herself knocked out cold? No bruises? No redness? No one witnessed this except for someone that was tending the bar? Then she even refuses medical care? Why would you not at the very least, check yourself out in the case of a possible internal injury? Or at least have a record so you can bolster your case when the man is caught? Or did you just not expect him to be caught because there was no attack and this was all just a hoax to help the bar get some publicity? It sure is funny how the local media picked up on this and it reached quite a few other outlets as well. So far, this is just a simple assault where no harm was done. Why would anyone from the press need to cover this story?
If you go onto their Facebook page, you can see they even made a special meme complete with virtue signals that discuss this incident. Scrolling down through that post you will see calls for opening up a GoFundMe account so that money can be raised. I don't see that they actually did this but, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if they did eventually.
5) Where are the surveillance cameras? Where are any cameras? No one pulled out their phone during any of this occurrence? The articles claim that people followed this man and caught up with him but being the Ninja he was, I guess he escaped in a white car anyway and of course no one got a license plate or a picture? That seems awfully suspicious to me. How likely is it this bar would not have some type of camera security? We aren't talking about upstate NY. We are talking about Brooklyn, NY - a place where a business should most certainly have a camera for their safety, as well as the safety of their customers.
Now, summarizing this all up, we can say that we still do not know for sure because I wasn't there, and neither were most of us. It will be up to the police to investigate and figure out exactly what occurred. I would never say this incident would be impossible to have occurred but, I am very skeptical of this particular claim. Perhaps, we will find out more information later on and until that happens, I'm going to bet this is another hoax.
While the left seems to enjoy engaging in these fake hate crimes and putting on these hoaxes for attention, the right has their share of hoaxes as well. The ones I have been able to find are really easy to debunk. It seems images that were taken from past events (having nothing to do with this election), are recycled and renamed, "attacked from a Hillary supporter." So creativity and complexity points rest firmly on the left when it comes to faux-crimes.
The question still remains - why? Why do people engage in this type of behavior? What good does it do anyone? If you really hate Trump and his supporters, false accusations only reflect poorly on you and other Hillary supporters. Is it purely for attention?
Gad Saad, who is an evolutionary behavioral scientist, who can be found on YouTube, has suggested that these fake cries are very similar behaviors displayed by those who suffer from Munchausen syndrome and Munchausen syndrome by proxy. There appear to be some people who are just looking for ways to seek out attention any way they can. It could be attention from the internet, the media, fellow students or peers, or perhaps looking for attention from friends and family. Playing victim is always an easy, almost no effort way to receive some sort of attention.
This moves us right along to the recount. Jill Stein is now calling for a recount of votes in only certain states she doesn't approve of the outcome where Trump was declared the winner. As with the 2000 election, the left only wants votes recounted in areas of their choosing. I am at a loss for words. We recently heard that Hillary was behind this effort as well. So the same women who criticized Trump for not answering a question about accepting the results, calling him a threat to our "democracy." We live in a Constitutional REPUBLIC, BTW. So not only is she a complete idiot but she is also a total hypocrite. It's not as if we didn't know this before but, these recent events only firmly confirm these characteristics.
Now onto the right, because I have some beef with my side as well. Let's talk Pizzagate. Oh boy. A perfect example of confirmation bias run amuck. I'll get into this in my podcast so be sure to join me.
Some sources:
http://gopthedailydose.com/2016/11/27/hillary-clintons-pizzagate-dnc-pedophile-ring-exposed-by-podestas-emails/
http://rightwingnews.com/racism/sjw-wonder-woman-turns-hate-hoaxer/
Fake crimes
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/18/election-hate-crimes-hoaxes-hyperbole#comment
Making fun of a disabled reporter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueCdV_wCVrc
2017-01-06
Delusional, Mentally Ill Left
Labels:
Ann Coulter,
attacks,
delusional,
election 2016,
fake,
Gad Saad,
hoax,
Kathy Mirah Tu,
left,
mentally ill,
right,
Trump,
win
Posted by
Tuesday
2016-12-08
2016-11-26
2016-11-08
Come On Trump!
I swear I think these news stations carry this election stuff on just to frustrate us. I have been up and down all night. I don't pray much these days but I did tonight - not for Trump, not for me, for our country. I just want what is best for all of us and we need to heal.
G-d Bless us all! G-d Bless America!
To whoever becomes president (please be Trump!), may we get behind them and wish the best for them - for all of us!
~Tooz
G-d Bless us all! G-d Bless America!
To whoever becomes president (please be Trump!), may we get behind them and wish the best for them - for all of us!
~Tooz
Posted by
Tuesday
2016-11-07
It's About That Time...
Yes, I'm anxious and ready for this Tuesday to be over. I'm excited and nervous and happy and overjoyed. I cannot look at polls. I don't even care. I'm ready to vote FOR Trump. I'm not voting against Hillary - I'm voting FOR a man who I see as being the best opportunity America has for healing this nation. For all his flaws, the man is a winner and I believe he's determined to set the country moving in a positive direction that will ultimately lift all of us up and not collectively bring us down.
Whoever you vote for, make sure you are voting FOR that person.
If you haven't figured out who you will vote for...
Make the decision based on facts and not conspiracies. I know both the left and right has been hammered with one conspiracy after the next - I urge you to pay no mind to that gibbering. Focus on what has been laid out for you, the facts that you can verify, and discover which candidate agrees with you the most on what you believe.
You really should vote. I know many of you out there might be saying, "I'm not voting because I can't vote for either of these two clowns," or some other similar phrase. I understand but at the same time, your apathy is what allows the system to stay the same. Trump has at least a realistic shot at winning and a vote FOR him will at the very least shake things up in Washington. I urge you not be discouraged. Many people would love for you to feel this way and to feel hopeless but don't. We are not going to fix everything overnight and there will never be a candidate that will fill the role of Calgon's promise to take you away. This isn't Oz. There are no red slippers for heel-clicking. This is reality and you must deal with it - one step at a time.
For me, I know Trump is not this nation's savior. He will not get into the Oval Office and fix every problem. There's no human being that will do such a thing but, I do believe he will be able to at least accomplish a few of the goals that he has proposed and for me, that's good enough. I'm not seeking a hero; I'm just looking for a leader who believes in America.
I haven't been this excited since Reagan!
Trump 2016 "Let's do this!"
Labels:
Donald Trump,
election,
for,
hillary clinton,
vote
Posted by
Tuesday
2016-11-06
Hillary Cleared by FBI Again - Questions Still Not Answered
Forgive me for writing this quickly but I have to get this all out. I'm still trying to catch up on all the information and make sense of it so everything I write here now has the potential of changing in the following months.
The FBI apparently cleared Hillary from any wrong doing again, concerning e-mails found on Anthony Weiner's laptop.
For months conservatives have ben told via the internet that bombshells were going to be dropped concerning Clinton's alleged ties to child sex crimes and smuggling of children. The Wikileaks were able to confirm Bill Clinton's trips to pedo-island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Hillary is said to have also gone to this same island.
Now, we are finding out that there were indeed some US citizens that were involved in some illegal orphanage and child smuggling but Hillary, as head of State Department, was obligated to defend this person because of her citizen status.
Laura Silsby was arrested in Haiti. From the cable:
The FBI apparently cleared Hillary from any wrong doing again, concerning e-mails found on Anthony Weiner's laptop.
For months conservatives have ben told via the internet that bombshells were going to be dropped concerning Clinton's alleged ties to child sex crimes and smuggling of children. The Wikileaks were able to confirm Bill Clinton's trips to pedo-island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Hillary is said to have also gone to this same island.
Now, we are finding out that there were indeed some US citizens that were involved in some illegal orphanage and child smuggling but Hillary, as head of State Department, was obligated to defend this person because of her citizen status.
Laura Silsby was arrested in Haiti. From the cable:
Laura Silsby, the leader of the U.S. missionaries, had claimed she planned to build an orphanage in the Dominican Republic, but authorities in the country said she never submitted an application for this purpose. Pagina 12 appeared more objective; however, it reported that while the Americans claimed to be on a humanitarian mission, "it transcended that the children were not orphans and that most were delivered to the U.S. missionaires with their parents' authorization."
It appears that 10 citizens in total were originally arrested. Silsby was charged and served about 6 months in prison. It is being reported that the communications concerning the possible charge of child smuggling were then turned into Clinton being involved but again, this would have been part of her job - protecting US citizens charged for crimes in other countries.
So, let's back up a bit...
After the earthquake, Laura Silsby and some other Christians from a Baptist Church went down to Haiti and gathered up some children and attempted to cross the Haiti-Dominican Republic border, to take to a hotel being converted into an orphanage. There were 10 people who were arrested for child trafficking. Eventually, all but Silsby were released and she did end up with a conviction and given time served.
It is quite unfortunate that so many of us were misled to believe this was much more nefarious than what it truly was. On the other hand, it is a relief to know that it does appear everyone is doing fine and no one was harmed; it was a case of people not doing things in a proper, legal way.
Yet, we still don't have any answers concerning Epstein and there are still rumors circulating that there is more to be released once certain people get out of the country for their personal safety. It's Sunday before the election and still nothing. Also, why hasn't NYPD followed up on their claim of releasing everything they have? Was most of this a misunderstanding or have we all been trolled?
Let's just say we have been trolled, why? What good did this accomplish? If they were trying to stir trouble up with Trump supporters, they played their hand so long that it seems to have still worked against Hillary, not for her.
Annonymous is claiming that there is still more but cannot be released for another few months because there is still so much to review and archive.
There is also the issue concerning The Clinton Foundation. Was there pay to play involved or not? Can this even be proven and where is Huma Abedin? How did the FBI manage to go through all 650,000 e-mails in less than 5 days? Even if they were mostly duplicates, that's still quite a few more e-mails than before and what were they doing Weiner's laptop? Isn't Hillary responsible for that information? How can she not be? How is it she has been allowed to be so reckless with e-mails? You can hardly blame people for thinking something disastrous considering we know who Weiner is and his pedophile nature.
The answers to these questions will not be answered anytime soon, if ever. Will it be too late? Are there some more tricks up the sleeves of crooked Hillary?
Tell me what you think.
So, let's back up a bit...
After the earthquake, Laura Silsby and some other Christians from a Baptist Church went down to Haiti and gathered up some children and attempted to cross the Haiti-Dominican Republic border, to take to a hotel being converted into an orphanage. There were 10 people who were arrested for child trafficking. Eventually, all but Silsby were released and she did end up with a conviction and given time served.
It is quite unfortunate that so many of us were misled to believe this was much more nefarious than what it truly was. On the other hand, it is a relief to know that it does appear everyone is doing fine and no one was harmed; it was a case of people not doing things in a proper, legal way.
Yet, we still don't have any answers concerning Epstein and there are still rumors circulating that there is more to be released once certain people get out of the country for their personal safety. It's Sunday before the election and still nothing. Also, why hasn't NYPD followed up on their claim of releasing everything they have? Was most of this a misunderstanding or have we all been trolled?
Let's just say we have been trolled, why? What good did this accomplish? If they were trying to stir trouble up with Trump supporters, they played their hand so long that it seems to have still worked against Hillary, not for her.
Annonymous is claiming that there is still more but cannot be released for another few months because there is still so much to review and archive.
There is also the issue concerning The Clinton Foundation. Was there pay to play involved or not? Can this even be proven and where is Huma Abedin? How did the FBI manage to go through all 650,000 e-mails in less than 5 days? Even if they were mostly duplicates, that's still quite a few more e-mails than before and what were they doing Weiner's laptop? Isn't Hillary responsible for that information? How can she not be? How is it she has been allowed to be so reckless with e-mails? You can hardly blame people for thinking something disastrous considering we know who Weiner is and his pedophile nature.
The answers to these questions will not be answered anytime soon, if ever. Will it be too late? Are there some more tricks up the sleeves of crooked Hillary?
Tell me what you think.
Labels:
Anthony Weiner,
Bill Clinton,
e-mails,
FBI,
hillary clinton
Posted by
Tuesday
2016-10-31
Yes, Stereotyping and Broad Brush Strokes Are Real and Here's Why
As someone who has studied politics and has followed politics for over 20 years, I can tell you that every time the presidential election comes along, an influx of people always barge their way into the conversation and then become upset whenever they are actually challenged. It's like being at a party and you're talking to a small group of people for a few hours and someone comes along, they hear a few lines, and then they proceed to lecture the group on all of what they think they know. Everyone tries to be polite, some may even try to correct this newcomer but, in the end, it never seems to smooth out. When it comes to politics, it's even worse because too many are led by emotions and not facts.
In modern times, the internet has made it extremely easier for these "newbies" to get involved and in some cases, these people find their own soap box to stand on. Their audiences are equally unaware of what is going on and it just seems to be a case of the blind leading the blind.
One problem I always run across is the anger that people have when you paint with broad brush strokes or label using stereotypes. To the newcomer, these very common ways of having a discussion are considered rude or "wrong" and should be somehow avoided, not realizing they themselves often engage in the very same tactic. The point is, when discussing politics, in confined amounts of time, we cannot use Pointillism. We must grab that very broad brush and get to painting. The broad brush is akin to using an average or mean in mathematics. Those of us who regularly engage in political discussion understand that we are not talking about "all" people in a certain category. Of course, we mean "not all" and quite frankly, I'm a bit tired of having to explain this constantly but, if it's not done, you end up with lunatics resorting to calling you a racist or some other bizarre ad hom.
Most all people who involve themselves in American politics fall somewhere in the middle - maybe a little left or right but, generally certain views on issues will fall to the right or left side. This is just how politics works. There's no reason to take offense to this. Of course, you can be on the left and be a person who is against abortion. We all understand this but, generally speaking, when discussing pro-life, we are talking about an issue supported by the right. Generalizations are what moves the conversation forward. When someone has to continually disrupt and demand everyone talk about the anomalies, the conversation is stalled and tension begins to fill the air. One side is trying to discuss something in a way that has always been previously accepted, while another side is demanding the rules be changed because they are "offended" and do not truly understand the general rules.
It's not a matter of a logical fallacy when the general understanding has already been established. So when you turn on the news and you see a political pundit talking in very broad definitions, understand that there is a REASON they do this. They are merely trying to get out as much information as they can and discuss things in a way that allows the listener or viewer to develop a full picture quickly without being bogged down by too much detail. This isn't to say details should be ignored, it's to say that when it comes to general political discussions, we must be focused on the averages and not the deviations.
While I enjoy watching new people become more interested in politics, since this is a very important area that affects everyone who lives in this world, I also would like to encourage people to learn a little bit more about how discussions take place and how to navigate through them without so much emotion and without becoming so offended.
If there is an issue you are interested in learning more about, take the time to really research that topic from all of the different angles you can find. Learn about the history of that issue as well as why it's important to either side. Keep in mind that everyone is very different and we all should know that not every person on the right is the same, just like not every person on the left is the same. These are concepts that are already implied and should not need to be explained.
Political discussion should be fun and passionate but, things really turn sour when some people just don't quite understand the rules. This election has really brought out some disturbing behavior that I have never witnessed in prior elections. I really do believe part of the problem stems from people, 1) not knowing the very basics of political discourse, and 2) not having an understanding of historical reference concerning the issues.
To summarize everything:
1) The general views of issues tend to fall on the right or left.
2) We should all understand that most individuals believe in a combination of views. Some are on the left, some on the right.
3) Stereotypes or generalities are used in politics, just like means or averages are used in math and science for the purposes of moving along a conversation and not used in a way to demean others.
4) Politics is a science and while emotion and passion can come into play, they should be generally avoided when you analyze an issue.
In modern times, the internet has made it extremely easier for these "newbies" to get involved and in some cases, these people find their own soap box to stand on. Their audiences are equally unaware of what is going on and it just seems to be a case of the blind leading the blind.
One problem I always run across is the anger that people have when you paint with broad brush strokes or label using stereotypes. To the newcomer, these very common ways of having a discussion are considered rude or "wrong" and should be somehow avoided, not realizing they themselves often engage in the very same tactic. The point is, when discussing politics, in confined amounts of time, we cannot use Pointillism. We must grab that very broad brush and get to painting. The broad brush is akin to using an average or mean in mathematics. Those of us who regularly engage in political discussion understand that we are not talking about "all" people in a certain category. Of course, we mean "not all" and quite frankly, I'm a bit tired of having to explain this constantly but, if it's not done, you end up with lunatics resorting to calling you a racist or some other bizarre ad hom.
Most all people who involve themselves in American politics fall somewhere in the middle - maybe a little left or right but, generally certain views on issues will fall to the right or left side. This is just how politics works. There's no reason to take offense to this. Of course, you can be on the left and be a person who is against abortion. We all understand this but, generally speaking, when discussing pro-life, we are talking about an issue supported by the right. Generalizations are what moves the conversation forward. When someone has to continually disrupt and demand everyone talk about the anomalies, the conversation is stalled and tension begins to fill the air. One side is trying to discuss something in a way that has always been previously accepted, while another side is demanding the rules be changed because they are "offended" and do not truly understand the general rules.
It's not a matter of a logical fallacy when the general understanding has already been established. So when you turn on the news and you see a political pundit talking in very broad definitions, understand that there is a REASON they do this. They are merely trying to get out as much information as they can and discuss things in a way that allows the listener or viewer to develop a full picture quickly without being bogged down by too much detail. This isn't to say details should be ignored, it's to say that when it comes to general political discussions, we must be focused on the averages and not the deviations.
While I enjoy watching new people become more interested in politics, since this is a very important area that affects everyone who lives in this world, I also would like to encourage people to learn a little bit more about how discussions take place and how to navigate through them without so much emotion and without becoming so offended.
If there is an issue you are interested in learning more about, take the time to really research that topic from all of the different angles you can find. Learn about the history of that issue as well as why it's important to either side. Keep in mind that everyone is very different and we all should know that not every person on the right is the same, just like not every person on the left is the same. These are concepts that are already implied and should not need to be explained.
Political discussion should be fun and passionate but, things really turn sour when some people just don't quite understand the rules. This election has really brought out some disturbing behavior that I have never witnessed in prior elections. I really do believe part of the problem stems from people, 1) not knowing the very basics of political discourse, and 2) not having an understanding of historical reference concerning the issues.
To summarize everything:
1) The general views of issues tend to fall on the right or left.
2) We should all understand that most individuals believe in a combination of views. Some are on the left, some on the right.
3) Stereotypes or generalities are used in politics, just like means or averages are used in math and science for the purposes of moving along a conversation and not used in a way to demean others.
4) Politics is a science and while emotion and passion can come into play, they should be generally avoided when you analyze an issue.
Labels:
broad brush,
paint,
politics,
stereotype
Posted by
Tuesday
2016-10-28
The Alternative Conservative Podcast - Episode #7 - Trump Tales
In this episode, I discuss Donald Trump and the allegations made toward him.. Enjoy.
E-mail from Summer Zervos:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/trump-images/screen_shot_2016-10-14_at_10.38.59_pm.png
Picture Trump Tower:
https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/trump-tower.jpg
E-mail from Summer Zervos:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/trump-images/screen_shot_2016-10-14_at_10.38.59_pm.png
Picture Trump Tower:
https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/trump-tower.jpg
Labels:
allegations,
Donald Trump,
sexual assault,
Women
Posted by
Tuesday
2016-10-24
The Alternative Conservative Podcast - Episode #6 - The 3rd Presidential Debate
In this episode, I discuss the final debate between Hillary and Trump. Enjoy. Share.
Labels:
debate,
Donald Trump,
hillary clinton,
podcast
Posted by
Tuesday
2016-10-09
Faux Outrage From Left Concerning Trump
Labels:
conservatives,
democrats,
Donald Trump,
hillary clinton,
leaked tape,
liberals,
outrage,
sexual assault,
Trump
Posted by
Tuesday
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Alternative Conservative