Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

The Randy Riverbeast

While it isn't a great poll, anyone who supports it has to be a bit stupid, bloodthirsty or both. I don't expect anyone to know it is a fictional city but if you agree with bombing a place you know nothing about then it does make you look stupid.

You could have a poll about building a wall around new mexico and you would get people supporting it, even some of them living there.

pH

Nodin wrote: »

Missing the point, I think. Doesn't it strike you as even slightly worrying that people would "support" automatically bombing a place they knew absolutely nothing about?

No, because as I explained, a rational reading of the question isn't "bombing a place" as you say, and try to make it sound like a WWII saturation bombing of "Agrabah" and its inhabitants - a more reasonable interpretation would be strikes against "enemy combatants"/military targets in "Agrabah". Given the current climate and debates, you could even go one step further than I did and assume that the question was about bombing ISIS in this location - personally I think that's a little bit of a stretch for a neutral reading of the question, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone thought it.

So no, if some people feel that these "enemies" need attacking/killing (and it's a view that you may well disagree with - but I personally would support military action against ISIS anywhere/anytime) - it seems a pointless subdivision to keep repeating the question "ahh but what about attacking them here ... " If I support military action against a group like ISIS, you can take it that I'd still support it, even if they've moved to a location I've never heard of.

Nodin

pH wrote: »

No, because as I explained, a rational reading of the question isn't "bombing a place" as you say, and try to make it sound like a WWII saturation bombing of "Agrabah" and its inhabitants - a more reasonable interpretation would be strikes against "enemy combatants"/military targets in "Agrabah". Given the current climate and debates, you could even go one step further than I did and assume that the question was about bombing ISIS in this location - personally I think that's a little bit of a stretch for a neutral reading of the question, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone thought it.

So no, if some people feel that these "enemies" need attacking/killing (and it's a view that you may well disagree with - but I personally would support military action against ISIS anywhere/anytime) - it seems a pointless subdivision to keep repeating the question "ahh but what about attacking them here ... " If I support military action against a group like ISIS, you can take it that I'd still support it, even if they've moved to a location I've never heard of.

As somebody who has no problem with armed struggle in many contexts, I have to say that I would, were somebody to suggest that (x) was to be bombed and would I support same, ask what/where (x) was rather than say "yes", regardless of what group or state was involved or being targeted. And I am far from a shrinking violet on such matters.

KomradeBishop

pH wrote: »

Bloodthirsty how? If the question was "should we bomb X" then I'd agree, the the framing wasn't like that.

The problem is that as humans, so everyday conversations don't have to be legal contracts we read a lot of hidden meaning into statements, if someone from a reputable polling company asked that me that question I'd presume:

A/ "Support" here means "agree with" or possibly "wouldn't object to" -
B/ support who? again without more information I'd take it that the "bombing" would be done by my democratically elected US government - we're not talking about supporting bombing of Agrabah by ISIS or a militia
C/ All things being equal my democratically elected government isn't doing it for sh1ts and giggles - they have military reasons for the bombings.
D/ "bombing" - again without further information I'd assume it was was usual planes/missiles vs command/control/military targets - NOT carpet bombing the city with Incendiary a la Dresden or nuking it like Hiroshima.

So yes I can see how many would view this stupid "trick" question in terms of supporting their governments decisions and troops as opposed to "oh! any chance to kill muslims should be taken", but like I said if you don't make the same assumptions as me you can read it as:

"I'd be personally willing to join a militia and carpet bomb the civilians of Agrabah for no other reason than they're Muslims" - which is indeed is bloodthirsty but is an unreasonable reading of what's being asked.

Come off of it pH - you know this isn't a triviality comparable to "precision strikes on military targets vs carpet bombing of an entire city, civilians and all" - that's completely disingenuous.

Obviously, the problem with the results of this poll, is not 'precision strikes vs carpet bombing', it is that a fair portion of GOP supporters (and the US public overall) would support any kind of bombing against a target, if it sounds Arab enough (which is a perfectly reasonable reading of this poll).

Nobody with any sense thinks that once a government is democratically elected, it is free to engage in whatever wars they like - there are international laws against that, and (post-Nuremberg) illegal wars of aggression are considered one of the greatest evils out there.

pH

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Come off of it pH - you know this isn't a triviality comparable to "precision strikes on military targets vs carpet bombing of an entire city, civilians and all" - that's completely disingenuous.

Obviously, the problem with the results of this poll, is not 'precision strikes vs carpet bombing', it is that a fair portion of GOP supporters (and the US public overall) would support any kind of bombing against a target, if it sounds Arab enough (which is a perfectly reasonable reading of this poll).

No it isn't a reasonable reading of that poll, it's an entirely uncharitable and "worst case" interpretation of what these poll respondents were actually responding to.

have you considered for a second that only in *your* prejudice is there any evidence at all that a fair proportion of the US population would support the wholescale annihilation of muslim cities in WWII type bombing raids.

Again, I'd support the bombing of ISIS militia units anywhere, even if they set up a base in a fictional land.

I'm just saying that taking the most uncharitable interpretation of your opponents position and statements is good for only one thing - being on the "right" side in today's internet outrage culture and virtue-signalling your "righteousness" to your peers.

The most "charitable" interpretation of that statement you could give your political opponents would be to read it as:

"Given our existing military efforts against Islamic terrorists, would you have any objections to extending the bombing campaign against military targets to "Agrabah"?

Nodin

pH wrote: »

No it isn't a reasonable reading of that poll, it's an entirely uncharitable and "worst case" interpretation of what these poll respondents were actually responding to.

have you considered for a second that only in *your* prejudice is there any evidence at all that a fair proportion of the US population would support the wholescale annihilation of muslim cities in WWII type bombing raids.

Again, I'd support the bombing of ISIS militia units anywhere, even if they set up a base in a fictional land.

I'm just saying that taking the most uncharitable interpretation of your opponents position and statements is good for only one thing - being on the "right" side in today's internet outrage culture and virtue-signalling your "righteousness" to your peers.

The most "charitable" interpretation of that statement you could give your political opponents would be to read it as:

"Given our existing military efforts against Islamic terrorists, would you have any objections to extending the bombing campaign against military targets to "Agrabah"?

You seem to be throwing up a lot of speculation here. They were asked a question and gave an answer. A minority gave an answer in the affirmative, so why you're arguing I don't know. The inclusion of terms like
"outrage culture " and "virtue-signalling" doesn't help.

KomradeBishop

pH wrote: »

No it isn't a reasonable reading of that poll, it's an entirely uncharitable and "worst case" interpretation of what these poll respondents were actually responding to.

have you considered for a second that only in *your* prejudice is there any evidence at all that a fair proportion of the US population would support the wholescale annihilation of muslim cities in WWII type bombing raids.

Again, I'd support the bombing of ISIS militia units anywhere, even if they set up a base in a fictional land.

I'm just saying that taking the most uncharitable interpretation of your opponents position and statements is good for only one thing - being on the "right" side in today's internet outrage culture and virtue-signalling your "righteousness" to your peers.

The most "charitable" interpretation of that statement you could give your political opponents would be to read it as:

"Given our existing military efforts against Islamic terrorists, would you have any objections to extending the bombing campaign against military targets to "Agrabah"?

Your attempt to make this about the 'type' of bombing is a red herring, and your attempt to make it about ISIS is about as fictional as the imaginary city people were asked if they supported bombing.

You don't get to make crap up after the fact, to support your argument.

Overheal

Celebrities who have both a) Supported Donald Trump and b) suffered brain trauma

http://www.starwipe.com/slideshow/6-celebrities-who-have-suffered-head-trauma-suppor-1595#3

Samaris

“Would you support or oppose bombing Agrabah?”

It's a straight-forward question. One can -assume- it's a military base and not a city (or country!). One can -assume- that it's specific targets in the city. One can -assume- that the US government never makes mistakes. One can even assume it's to do with ISIS or Saddam Hussain or someone else with weapons of mass destruction.

Thus, if one doesn't bother to ask the questions, look at a map, google it or otherwise show a modicum of common sense and intelligence, one should not be recommending bomb strikes on anything.

Or else one looks an absolute tit for advocating the bombing of Narnia.

JPNelsforearm

Samaris wrote: »

“Would you support or oppose bombing Agrabah?”

It's a straight-forward question. One can -assume- it's a military base and not a city (or country!). One can -assume- that it's specific targets in the city. One can -assume- that the US government never makes mistakes. One can even assume it's to do with ISIS or Saddam Hussain or someone else with weapons of mass destruction.

Thus, if one doesn't bother to ask the questions, look at a map, google it or otherwise show a modicum of common sense and intelligence, one should not be recommending bomb strikes on anything.

Or else one looks an absolute tit for advocating the bombing of Narnia.

I dont think any true Republican would advocate for the bombing of Narnia.
http://the-toast.net/2015/08/19/ayn-rands-narnia/

pH

Samaris wrote: »

Thus, if one doesn't bother to ask the questions, look at a map, google it or otherwise show a modicum of common sense and intelligence, one should not be recommending bomb strikes on anything.

Or else one looks an absolute tit for advocating the bombing of Narnia.

The "survey" was done as part of a "robocall" - your phone rings and a recording starts asking you questions and you press a number on your phonepad as a response. The question was in the middle of a long list of questions, mainly to do with US republican presidential nominees and their policies.

Samaris

pH wrote: »

The "survey" was done as part of a "robocall" - your phone rings and a recording starts asking you questions and you press a number on your phonepad as a response. The question was in the middle of a long list of questions, mainly to do with US republican presidential nominees and their policies.

So?

Honestly, who says "yeah, sure I would!" to wanting to bomb some place that they've never heard of?

A -sane- reaction would be "Where?"

joseph brand

Arizona GOP taps creationist chemtrail truther to lead Senate education committee.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiW0kMktt5s

Is anyone really surprised that she is a Republican?

JPNelsforearm

joseph brand wrote: »

Arizona GOP taps creationist chemtrail truther to lead Senate education committee.

Dolores Umbridge is doing well for herself

joseph brand

Ted Cruz campaign rally morphs into creepy ‘prayer revival’ so everyone can pray for him to be president

Cruz opened his Nashville rally by vowing to make the Department of Justice investigate Planned Parenthood and promising an end to what he called “religious persecution.”

After the normal slate of campaign promises, the event took an odd turn when Cruz introduced “the man who led my father to Jesus,” Pastor Gaylon Wiley of Clay Road Baptist Church in Houston.

Over the course of the next five minutes, Cruz told a story about how his father had been a scientist and an atheist when he agreed to meet Wiley after attending a Bible study.

“My dad describes that hit him like a sledgehammer and he dropped to his knees and he gave his life to Jesus,” the Texas senator explained. Several years later, Cruz said he was also baptized by Wiley.

“By passing on the Good News, not only did you transform his life, not only did you transform my mother’s life, but it transformed my life, it transformed the lives of my two little girls,” Cruz said. “The impact of one faithful servant spreading the Good News ripples for generations.”

The lesson I took from Ted's speech is that: Cruz senior was an a$$hole until he discovered there was money to be made from brainwashing 'servants of christ'. Then he became a pastor himself and is still currently an a$$hole, just like his son Ted. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

My dad says that politicians treat us like mushrooms; "they keep us in the dark and throw $hit on us." The clergy are no different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlI2rjPIRI0

JPNelsforearm

Those atheist conversion stories...smh, Trump is going to destroy this clown

MrPudding

joseph brand wrote: »

Ted Cruz campaign rally morphs into creepy ‘prayer revival’ so everyone can pray for him to be president

Cruz opened his Nashville rally by vowing to make the Department of Justice investigate Planned Parenthood and promising an end to what he called “religious persecution.”

After the normal slate of campaign promises, the event took an odd turn when Cruz introduced “the man who led my father to Jesus,” Pastor Gaylon Wiley of Clay Road Baptist Church in Houston.

Over the course of the next five minutes, Cruz told a story about how his father had been a scientist and an atheist when he agreed to meet Wiley after attending a Bible study.




The lesson I took from Ted's speech is that: Cruz senior was an a$$hole until he discovered there was money to be made from brainwashing 'servants of christ'. Then he became a pastor himself and is still currently an a$$hole, just like his son Ted. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

My dad says that politicians treat us like mushrooms; "they keep us in the dark and throw $hit on us." The clergy are no different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlI2rjPIRI0

So there was my atheist scientist father, minding his own business at a bible study group and BOOM! Next thing you know he's religious what are the chances. Isn't that amazing?!

Walter Bishop

Still waiting for a photo of Cruz where he doesn't look like a mannequin.

Hotblack Desiato

Least convicing "I was an atheist, but..." story ever.

robindch

A Republican lawmaker from Virginia has put forward an amendment which would require anybody going to a public toilet to attend a facility according to the "person's anatomy" - something which could potentially require schoolkids (who appear to be the main target of this amendment) to be "examined" by adults.

https://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2016/hb663/fulltext/
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/virginia-gop-bill-would-require-schools-to-verify-childrens-genitals-before-using-restroom/

robdonn

robindch wrote: »

A Republican lawmaker from Virginia has put forward an amendment which would require anybody going to a public toilet to attend a facility according to the "person's anatomy" - something which could potentially require schoolkids (who appear to be the main target of this amendment) to be "examined" by adults.

https://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2016/hb663/fulltext/
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/virginia-gop-bill-would-require-schools-to-verify-childrens-genitals-before-using-restroom/

I can imagine part of the school enrolment form will ask for gender and then below have a diagram of a penis and a vagina asking which bits they have.

Although it would be great for hermaphrodites, they could use whatever toilet they wanted.

Samaris

robindch wrote: »

A Republican lawmaker from Virginia has put forward an amendment which would require anybody going to a public toilet to attend a facility according to the "person's anatomy" - something which could potentially require schoolkids (who appear to be the main target of this amendment) to be "examined" by adults.

https://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2016/hb663/fulltext/
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/virginia-gop-bill-would-require-schools-to-verify-childrens-genitals-before-using-restroom/

..Yeah, that's a dumb idea. Although really, I don't see why restrooms can't be for either gender with stalls. I don't know if American schoolkid loos have urinals or not, but ...urinals are weird anyway. I mean, as a general group, we're paranoid about public nudity and particularly genitals being on show - except for boys urinating. Why on earth is that? It seems to be a very odd exception to the general paranoia. And given boys need stalls -anyway- for defecating, it seems a tad pointless.

Also, in the very rare case that a student might be a transitioning transgender person, are they going to insist on checking their genitals every few days to see what their plumbing is?

Links234

Samaris wrote: »

Also, in the very rare case that a student might be a transitioning transgender person, are they going to insist on checking their genitals every few days to see what their plumbing is?

The entire point of the proposed legislation is to target transgender students. While things are certainly getting better for gay people in general in the US, a lot of those far right anti gay types are turning their ire towards transgender people now that their fight against marriage equality is lost. What is being proposed is downright nightmarish though, as any system that requires adults to routinely inspect children's genitals is open to rampant abuse (a sarcastic "what could possibly go wrong?" feels woefully inadequate a response to this legislation), not to mention the issues of privacy.

recedite

Samaris wrote: »

...urinals are weird anyway. And given boys need stalls -anyway- for defecating, it seems a tad pointless.

But highly efficient. When did you last see a queue in the corridor outside the gents jax?

recedite

Links234 wrote: »

.. any system that requires adults to routinely inspect children's genitals is open to rampant abuse (a sarcastic "what could possibly go wrong?" feels woefully inadequate a response to this legislation), not to mention the issues of privacy.

But that's not really what is being proposed.
In the event that a person was undergoing a surgical sex change operation, they could present a doctors letter.
In the event that somebody say of male anatomy decided to use the ladies toilets, on the grounds that they were feeling feminine, it could cause upset to other people.
In the event that somebody say of male anatomy decided to use the ladies toilets, simply because they were a pervert, but claiming to be transgender, it could cause upset to other people.
Or vice versa.

Custardpi

recedite wrote: »

But highly efficient. When did you last see a queue in the corridor outside the gents jax?

Without wanting to indulge in simplistic stereotypes I suspect that the more efficient throughflow in that case may be less to do with the facilities themselves than the pretty strong taboo against chatting during the act of male urination, which I'm reliably informed is not as strong for females.

Back on topic, interesting article from a Muslim observer of a Trump rally recently. As a non religious person I probably wouldn't agree with her on a lot of things but you'd have to say fair play to her for going in with an open mind to the event & trying to see things from their perspective, even in the face of feeling demonised by the Trump machine.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/13/i-went-to-donald-trump-rally-in-my-hijab-supporters-arent-just-racist-caricatures

Shrap

recedite wrote: »

But highly efficient.

Custardpi wrote: »

the pretty strong taboo against chatting during the act of male urination, which I'm reliably informed is not as strong for females.

Both of you are right. Slightly off topic, but ye have a lot less to be doing in the jax than we. Takes all of 0.5 seconds or less to undo a zip - somewhat longer to determine if the door locks and if there's toilet paper, find somewhere to place your bag/coat, wipe the seat, get half nekked, do the business, get redressed, etc.. You'd be all done by the time we've wiped the seat, which is why there are also massive queues for the ladies in places with no chat.

Excuse digression. As you were.....

JPNelsforearm

Custardpi wrote: »

Back on topic, interesting article from a Muslim observer of a Trump rally recently. As a non religious person I probably wouldn't agree with her on a lot of things but you'd have to say fair play to her for going in with an open mind to the event & trying to see things from their perspective, even in the face of feeling demonised by the Trump machine.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/13/i-went-to-donald-trump-rally-in-my-hijab-supporters-arent-just-racist-caricatures

And nothing bad happened to me at the rally: there were some hard stares and dirty looks, but no outright rude behavior. I spoke to several lovely people and had the type of informative and substantive discourse that one should expect at a political event.

I understood that I was a guest at their rally, and that I had a duty to them to be a good guest; in return, I felt like they were good hosts. And whether they engaged me directly or not, many of them had to acknowledge the presence of someone who disagreed with them, but who did not fit their stereotypes by being disagreeable.

What was she expecting? White hoods and swastika's lol.

Custardpi

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

What was she expecting? White hoods and swastika's lol.

That wouldn't be a completely outlandish expectation, given some of Trump's hard right positions. Not necessarily accurate of course, but understandable. For me, the usefulness of the article is in showing that even if some people's ideas are fundamentally opposed to your own, that doesn't have to make them bad people. This is something that we (regardless of where you sit on the left-right spectrum) can sometimes lose sight of in the back & forth mud-slinging & name-calling of political debate.

Hotblack Desiato

^ OK so they're (mostly) not bad people, but doesn't that mean that we should reserve particular contempt for the demagogue who would try to lead decent people down a bad path?