Clinton vs Trump, Trump vs Clinton

Eventhorizon said:
Im trying to reply and its showing multiple quotes coming up. I had to switch over to a computer because I couldnt correct it all on a phone.

I already answered that. Its not "my" conception. I will try to explain it in an easier to understand way.

I have a conversation with someone. I state that I see an apple as being red. They say it is green. I tell them that the majority of the world sees the apple as red. I may ask them why they see it as green and get any number of responses or none. In the end if they insist it is green, I tell them they are entitled to their own opinion but they are wrong. I have a few choices now. I can explain to them they are wrong and tell them they need help. I can ignore them and never listen to them again. I can... wipe the drool from their lip and pat them on the back.

People are entitled to see things how ever they want and in a way that deviates how I perceive those same things. I hope this clears it up.
Click to expand...

In terms of the example you provided, the following is an example of an explanation that would lead me to consider your case.

Visible light waves consist of different wavelengths. The colour of visible light depends on its wavelength. These wavelengths range from 700 nm at the red end of the spectrum to 400 nm at the violet end.

White light is actually made of all of the colours of the rainbow because it contains all wavelengths, and it is described as polychromatic light. Light from a torch or the Sun is a good example of this.

Objects appear different colours because they absorb some colours (wavelengths) and reflected or transmit other colours. The colours we see are the wavelengths that are reflected or transmitted.

For example, a red shirt looks red because the dye molecules in the fabric have absorbed the wavelengths of light from the violet/blue end of the spectrum. Red light is the only light that is reflected from the shirt. If only blue light is shone onto a red shirt, the shirt would appear black, because the blue would be absorbed and there would be no red light to be reflected.

White objects appear white because they reflect all colours. Black objects absorb all colours so no light is reflected.
Click to expand...

You seem satisfied to stop well short of questioning your own perceptions though, like it's not even an issue to consider what wavelength is being bounced back. The person who sees the apple as green is obviously wrong because you see red.

That observation is not really about politics. It's just food for thought.
 
Sloe Djinn said:
In terms of the example you provided, the following is an example of an explanation that would lead me to consider your case.



You seem satisfied to stop well short of questioning your own perceptions though, like it's not even an issue to consider what wavelength is being bounced back. The person who sees the apple as green is obviously wrong because you see red.

That observation is not really about politics. It's just food for thought.
Click to expand...
Very cool that you would go this far. Because you are right. A majority does not make them right just because they are a majority.
However we can take what we know and come within a certain amount of certainty with which we can state "this is the way it most likely is". Einstein has been proven wrong on a few accounts and yet it was his initial theories that got us to a place where we could see that. Not to mention the advances in science and understanding that we never would have had with those theories that have since been proven wrong.
 
Keep poking the bear and see what happens.
 
Eventhorizon said:
Keep poking the bear and see what happens.
Click to expand...

63634445.jpg


Because he’s just a moron in a bear costume.
It’s not even realistic...just look at the hair...
 
Damn. Kind of just want to live my life without threat of being murdered... be it by terrorists or by conservatives who believe they need to cleanse the nation of liberals. What's the difference again?
 
Guccifer 2.0: More hacked DNC documents revealed at cyber conference
Published time: 13 Sep, 2016 21:08

Another round of hacked Democratic National Committee documents have been released. Provided by an anonymous representative of a hacker, Guccifer, the 500 megabytes detail the DNC’s information technology infrastructure and internal reports on donors.

[...]

In July, just as the Democratic National Convention was getting underway, WikiLeaks released the results of the first DNC hack carried out by Guccifer. That hack revealed signs of bias in favor of Hillary Clinton over her primary opponent Bernie Sanders, and consequently led to the resignation of the DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as well as several other top officers.

The DNC responded to the latest hack claim Tuesday through its Interim Chair Donna Brazile, who stated that the "DNC is the victim of a crime," which she blamed on "Russian state-sponsored agents," while also cautioning that the hacked documents were still being authenticated by the DNC legal team, as "it is common for Russian hackers to forge documents."


https://www.rt.com/usa/359233-dnc-guccifer-second-hack/
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/ne...cked-dnc-documents-revealed-cyber-conference/


This will be interesting. The storm is gathering pace before the election. And it cannot be contained in a tea cup. Anticipation is that it will be much larger than that.
 
acd said:
Damn. Kind of just want to live my life without threat of being murdered... be it by terrorists or by conservatives who believe they need to cleanse the nation of liberals. What's the difference again?
Click to expand...
Murdered? Dont take up arms against the United States. Dont try to undermine or destroy the United States and you will not be considered an enemy that needs to be dealt with. Its really very simple.
 
ImaginaryBloke said:
Guccifer 2.0: More hacked DNC documents revealed at cyber conference
Published time: 13 Sep, 2016 21:08

Another round of hacked Democratic National Committee documents have been released. Provided by an anonymous representative of a hacker, Guccifer, the 500 megabytes detail the DNC’s information technology infrastructure and internal reports on donors.

[...]

In July, just as the Democratic National Convention was getting underway, WikiLeaks released the results of the first DNC hack carried out by Guccifer. That hack revealed signs of bias in favor of Hillary Clinton over her primary opponent Bernie Sanders, and consequently led to the resignation of the DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as well as several other top officers.

The DNC responded to the latest hack claim Tuesday through its Interim Chair Donna Brazile, who stated that the "DNC is the victim of a crime," which she blamed on "Russian state-sponsored agents," while also cautioning that the hacked documents were still being authenticated by the DNC legal team, as "it is common for Russian hackers to forge documents."


https://www.rt.com/usa/359233-dnc-guccifer-second-hack/
http://www.theeventchronicle.com/ne...cked-dnc-documents-revealed-cyber-conference/


This will be interesting. The storm is gathering pace before the election. And it cannot be contained in a tea cup. Anticipation is that it will be much larger than that.
Click to expand...
Assange has indicated he has proof Clinton lied to the FBI but, critical thinkers already know thats what took place. Even so he also has her medical records. Her world is about to fall from under her. It really seems like karma is real doesn't it?
 
acd said:
Is that a threat? Come at me bro!
Click to expand...
I dont suppose I really need to explain but the "bear" here is referencing patriotic Americans who want their country to remain intact from how it was designed and founded. They are peaceful people. .unless you poke them and get all up in their face while they are trying to hibernate.
 
Eventhorizon said:
Murdered? Dont take up arms against the United States. Dont try to undermine or destroy the United States and you will not be considered an enemy that needs to be dealt with. Its really very simple.
Click to expand...

Eventhorizon said:
I dont suppose I really need to explain but the "bear" here is referencing patriotic Americans who want their country to remain intact from how it was designed and founded. They are peaceful people. .unless you poke them and get all up in their face while they are trying to hibernate.
Click to expand...

You use a lot of generalities and make a lot of assumptions about people's motives. Not everyone is either traitor/patriot because they don't fit your criteria. Who are you even talking about? Who should be killed in your civil war? You don't quantify anything you say, and yet you are the only harbinger of truth. No wonder a demagogue like Trump appeals to you. It's easy. The world is not as simple as you would like to believe. People are not as simple as you like to imagine. You aren't right and everyone else is not wrong. And it's frightening that you think that people should die because they disagree with you; the only true patriot... someone voting for Trump who has demonstrated no understanding/respect of the Constitution or laws whatsoever. But as long as he tells you he does, then that covers it! You pretend that he and Clinton are not just as corrupt. He won't save you from Hillary Clinton.
 
acd said:
You use a lot of generalities and make a lot of assumptions about people's motives. Not everyone is either traitor/patriot because they don't fit your criteria. Who are you even talking about? Who should be killed in your civil war? You don't quantify anything you say, and yet you are the only harbinger of truth. No wonder a demagogue like Trump appeals to you. It's easy. The world is not as simple as you would like to believe. People are not as simple as you like to imagine. You aren't right and everyone else is not wrong. And it's frightening that you think that people should die because they disagree with you; the only true patriot... someone voting for Trump who has demonstrated no understanding/respect of the Constitution or laws whatsoever. But as long as he tells you he does, then that covers it! You pretend that he and Clinton are not just as corrupt. He won't save you from Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
Doesnt really relate to anything you quoted but ok.
Just so long as you dont go around poking bears you should be ok.
 
Eventhorizon said:
I dont suppose I really need to explain but the "bear" here is referencing patriotic Americans who want their country to remain intact from how it was designed and founded. They are peaceful people. .unless you poke them and get all up in their face while they are trying to hibernate.
Click to expand...
acd said:
You use a lot of generalities and make a lot of assumptions about people's motives. Not everyone is either traitor/patriot because they don't fit your criteria.
Click to expand...

It's a good point @acd , and that's what I was trying to reference earlier when I was asking you @Eventhorizon to hash out your attitude towards those who may not share your concept of what the US should be. The constitution and related documents were written for the time in which they were created. Things change, including the very idea of what America is. Not only that, but saying that your concept is based upon the constitution is not an end-all. Like anything else, the bible for example, people can interpret such material in a million different ways and for equally good reasons. I could kill people who have wronged me, and claim that I'm being a good Christian based upon the fact that in the bible, god killed people who sinned against him (her/it/whatever). My interpretation of what should be done was based upon the Bible, and was thus correct. You see how easily I can claim that, but how wrong it may be to millions of other people who see themselves as devout and adherent to tenets in the same book.

The rest is as an aside, and not directed towards anyone in particular:

My best friend identifies as a conservative. He often opens my eyes to the logic behind conservative ideals and policy as he sees it. He is big on political philosophy, and as such he is able to explain to me why people might be angry or lose out when more liberal policies and legislation are successfully passed. While I might not always agree, it is often a very enlightening discussion. He takes time to explain his stance and he is humble though his explanations often have me dropping my jaw at his level of knowledge. Even then, we don't always agree, but it doesn't affect our relationship.

Liberals and conservatives drive each other crazy when they give up trying to understand each others' viewpoints or examine their own. You can tell when this has happened because it just devolves into flinging propaganda or insults at each other, which is so unfortunately common in these threads. As @ruji mentioned elsewhere, no figurehead is going to save anybody from whatever the US is becoming. They are just lightning rods for us to direct blame as an excuse for being ignorant of our own contributions to our predicament, which is sadly exploited more and more every day by special interests and big money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top