Drunkard

I understand. I just don't understand the politicians and voters who are like that (not like your priest friend). It creates a cognitive dissonance in my head that I just can't square.

See I'm a former Catholic and an atheist now but I understand this completely. I don't know your friend but I imagine he wouldn't be in favor of cutting public assistance so that poor single women who find themselves pregnant know that there's help available. This could help persuade other women who find themselves pregnant to be willing to have their babies too. The ones I don't get are the people who are absolutely against abortion in all circumstances (except sometimes in the cases of rape and ) yet lobby and battle to cut public assistance to those in need which is theory would only encourage more women to have abortions.

It depends. Xenophobic rhetoric isn't a deal breaker for everyone. They have other issues to worry about. For my buddy it's defense spending. For some people it's guns. For me personally it's religious influence. I'd rather vote for Trump than Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, or Rick Santorum any day of the week. I'm not racist whatsoever and the fact that I would prefer a President Trump (who worships at the altar of money instead of the altar of an invisible man living in the sky) over one of those religious zealots doesn't make me racist or a racism sympathizer. It just means I worry about other things more, like zealots trying to turn the Bills of Rights into Leviticus.

Of course. No candidate stands for exactly what I stand for or exactly what anyone else stands for. You take the good (in your perception) with the bad (in your perception) and choose whichever candidate checks off the most boxes for you. Some people have lots of boxes, some have only one, some have just a few. Being willing to hold your nose and vote for somebody because of X doesn't mean you agree with everything they stand for though. You may not even have to hold your nose if say the abortion issue is the only one you really care about. If abortion or guns or low taxes was somebody's hot button issues I fully expect them to vote for Trump regardless of their feelings on race and sex. They either agree with his racist and sexist views or they don't care enough to change their vote or they only care about issue x. I don't like a number of Hillary's stances but she'll get my vote and it has very little to do with Trump being a xenophobe. If we lived in an alternate universe where there were no Democrats and the GOP primary was actually the vote for the President I would vote for Trump over Ted Cruz any day even though Trump has said all those racist things and Cruz is smart enough not to. Trump and his racist antics are a lesser evil to me than Cruz and his Evangelical agenda. It's just how I rank the issues. Then use guns or some other issue. A vote for Trump is not necessarily a vote for xenophobia though, even if they happen to coincide is many cases. Like I said earlier I have a friend who is half Mexican and half El Salvadorian and he's voting for Trump because he promises to increase the military budget.

Ok. Say she had a bad experience with clowns growing up and she wanted to make all clowns illegal (grasping at straws here to prove a point). Would voting for her instead of Trump mean you hate clowns or does it simply mean that you value other issues more highly than the plight of those with big shoes and red noses? Some people are single issue voters. The best examples are abortion and guns. Some people will vote for Trump for no other reason than the fact that Trump now claims to be pro-life while Hillary supports a woman's right to choose (baby killers for my right winged friends). Race doesn't even come into play because they see Trump as orange and Hillary as being as beige as a pant suit. I'll stand with you on this one, JJ, but only to get close to the midgets. That's not because I'm dwarfist, though. It's because I'm poor and I heard if you hit them on the head with a stick you get 40 gold coins.

qwk, What if Hillary came out tomorrow with some ridiculous and offensive plank to her platform that had nothing to do with race or gender but was still ridiculous? Say she demanded that dwarf tossing be made an Olympic event. I'm not sure of your stance on dwarf tossing but I imagine you are against it. Given this new information though I imagine you would still vote for her over Trump. Does that mean you are anti-dwarf though? I'd say no, it just means you rank racism and sexism higher on your priority list than heightism, or whatever you call anti-dwarfism in this made up, ridiculous example.

I've very conservative in my views. We white people invented racism so only whites can be racist. All over forms of racism are relegated to reverse racism against the white man. If some group of brown people were racists against other brown people then I just consider that par for the course and them doing their best to emulate the white race and they should be encouraged to do so. /sarcasm But Hillary is going to take my guns and make me marry a gay person. Plus I hear she's going to make abortions mandatory. I can't vote for her. [spits chaw of tobacco into spittoon] Not everyone ranks racism/sexism as a top priority. Plenty of people will vote for Trump without it having anything to do with racism/sexism.

Yep. I've got a buddy who will be voting for Trump and he's half Mexican and half El Savadorian. He's pretty much a single issue voter though and always votes Republican because he works on base and he's worried the Democrats will close the Commissary he works at. Plenty of other people will vote Trump because of certain issues as well whether it's abortion, guns, taxes, or whatever. I've met a few people who want to vote for him simply because of the wall and his promise to round up all the illegals, even though it'll never happen. Not everyone in a group can be painted with a broad brush though and plenty of people who aren't racist will vote for him. It's like the old saying goes "not all Republicans are racist, but most racists vote Republican".

Fair enough. Thanks for the responses. Gin has always tasted like pine to me, but I've never really had top shelf gin so I assume it has more to do with the fact I was swigging beefeater or seagrams gin straight from the bottle rather than something of higher quality in an Old Fashioned glass on the rocks.

Interesting. I knew they were out there. You're the elusive white rhino so I've got a couple of follow up questions if you don't mind. Would you say you hate it the most? Like if you were determined to tie one on and they lined up shots of every major type of booze (vodka, gin, whiskey, tequila, and rum) and you had to drink 4 out of the 5 would rum be the one you leave off? Also, does clear vs dark rum matter?

Would it be fair to classify it as indifference then? That's how I feel about it (I love beer, I like whiskey and vodka, I'm indifferent to rum, I don't like gin, and I hate tequila). I've met a number of people who like rum, a few who love it, and a number who are indifferent, but nobody I've ever met hates it. Again it's just anecdotal, but it's something I've learned from my drunken youth. If you're buying a round of shots and you want everyone to take them but don't want to make a laundry list (2 shots of vodka, 3 whiskey, 1 gin, 2 tequila, and a shot of Jager or whatever depending on the group) then just order everyone a shot of rum and you'll get the least amount of bitching on average.

I personally can't stand tequila, even just the smell of it makes my stomach churn. I always figured it was due to a few bad incidents with that particular spirit that was the cause of it but I've had way more bad experiences off vodka and whiskey, although plenty more good experiences with them as well, so it's probably the ratio of bad experiences to good ones that steers me clear of tequila. I love my beer and I've had way more bad experiences from drinking too much beer than I've had with any other type of alcohol, even if the percentage of bad experiences is way lower. The other bit of anecdotal evidence I'll drop here is with rum. I've never met anyone who says they hate rum. Some people hate beer (crazy people for sure but they're out there), some people hate tequila (myself included), some hate gin, some hate vodka. I've never met anyone who despises rum though. The law of averages says they've got to be out there but I've never met one.

Yep. Nothing I read was anywhere near ground breaking. I wouldn't say it's predominantly self interests though. Sometimes principles override self interests. To me the best example is non-millionaires who cry about the estate tax even though they'll never have enough assets to have to pay it. I'm not sure how the rich have suckered people into fighting this battle on their behalf for decades but it's gotta be the principle of it. Another somewhat example is Bible thumpers who want to make abortion illegal but also want to cut welfare subsidies for those same kids they want to force these women to have. In a way it's a perfect example of self interests because they want to claim moral high ground while also taking their natural position of budget tight wad, but assuming they've read the Bible they seem to love so much, you gotta figure they'd realize Jesus wouldn't be ok with that. Then again he'd probably frown on the obsession with guns and the constant state of war we seem to find ourselves in as well.

Oh yes. The above the fray Yoda master of impartiality hath spoken. For the record I read the article on Haidt's book that you linked to this thread however many pages back. We all see things through the prism of our own belief structures and that's a big part of why people cry foul when the other side does something and defend it tooth and nail when our side does the same thing. The key is to try to frame your argument in ways that the other side may find value in (such as appealing to reducing budgetary spending when discussing the military instead of just being a peacenik or to talking about alternative energy solutions in terms of energy independence rather than the environment benefits). Due to those same prisms though, it doesn't really help and both sides end up talking past each other anyway. Yay team.

Yeah I know, I've heard this song before. Haidt blah blah Haidt. My point is that you are just as guilty of it as the other partisans, even though you seem to claim to somehow be above the fray by being a conservative that isn't a card carrying member of the GOP. I know this thread/board has a liberal slant overall but it's no secret what camp you consistently (and almost exclusively) take up with. You take issue with all kinds of liberal points, issues, or whatever and when you criticize the right wing it tends to be when you criticize both sides at the same time. Maybe I'm just missing it, but other than a disparaging comment towards George W Bush you never seem to take any issue with the GOP side of things unless you are throwing dirt on both sides at the same time. I may not be explaining this well but here's how I see your disparaging posts: Both sides suck Both sides suck Liberal bashing Both sides suck Liberal bashing Liberal bashing Both sides suck Both sides suck Liberal bashing Both sides suck Both sides suck Both sides suck Both sides suck Both sides suck Both sides suck GWB sucked Liberal bashing Liberal bashing Both sides suck Both sides suck Both sides suck Both sides suck Both sides suck Both sides suck Liberal bashing

It's fortunate for the GOP for sure. I can't believe the race is as close as it is but I guess I shouldn't be surprised given the partisan nature of politics and the disapproval ratings for both candidates. As much as both of them are hated it's still a head scrathcher that they advanced. Still can't wait for the debates.

I also find it funny that Claude, nfreeman, and Neo all seem to be getting worked up over PA and Hillary over generalizing an entire group or signifcant percentage of a group. Isn't that exactly what Trump did with his "they are rapists, they are murderers" diatribe on Mexicans? Yay team indeed. For the record I don't really care either way. I lean towards Hillary but I wouldn't consider myself her supporter by any means. I think her statement will end up costing her some votes akin to Romney's 47 percent of the population are takers gaffe. Luckily for her though, she facing the poster child for alienating entire groups of voters so it shouldn't really matter.

I also find it funny that Claude, nfreeman, and Neo all seem to be getting worked up over PA and Hillary over generalizing an entire group or signifcant percentage of a group. Isn't that exactly what Trump did with his "they are rapists, they are murderers" diatribe on Mexicans? Yay team indeed. For the record I don't really care either way. I lean towards Hillary but I wouldn't consider myself her supporter by any means. I think her statement will end up costing her some votes akin to Romney's 47 percent of the population are takers gaffe. Luckily for her though, she facing the poster child for alienating entire groups of voters so it shouldn't really matter.

I'm not certain of the exchange rate of Stanley Nickels vs Schrute bucks but I am going to act outraged all the same. This evaluation is a travesty and just for the record I don't give two shits about Hillary's private server or the Russkies hacking whatever medical records. It's all about the feigned outrage for me.

Could he be any worse than Reggie Bush?

You've gotta watch the office, man. Binge watch a chunk of it over a weekend when the weather is crappy or something. It's worth a watch. Edit: The US version, not the original. Ricky Gervaise does pretty good stand up but the British version of the office is no where near as entertaining and doesn't have Dwight Schrute.

This post is worthy of 50 Schrute bucks. Can we get a ruling Eleven?

It's a double edged sword. I'm happy to see her stance change over time, at least when it shifts to the left because that's my political preference. Unfortunately it doesn't give me much hope that she'll stick to the newly adopted liberal platform. She can claim that she supports stronger wall street regulations and a $15/hr minimum wage until the cow comes home but I won't believe it until it happens. At the end of the day she's still a pro wall street, chicken hawk centrist and I expect much of it to get thrown by the wayside, some of it happily (like reinstating Glass Steagall). She'll likely get my vote if it doesn't go to Ash Williams and his chainsaw hand but that's far from an endorsement of her, it's just because the other choices are so poor.

I agree. She plays whatever side of the coin is convenient at the time and her positions on immigration, crime, and gay marriage have shifted over time as majority opinion has shifted to the left but what is the alternative? Trump is a whack job with a bigger sense of entitlement than old Dubya, Gary Johnson wants a zero percent corporate tax rate, and Jill Stein has absolutely no chance of winning or even getting ino the debates. Bernie couldn't win any demographics but uber liberal white people and college kids and I'd still rather have Trump than the rest of the anti gay, pro life, gun obsessed, Evangelical War mongers so all we are left with is a career politician who claims liberal values who is a really just a chicken hawk centrist with questionable judgement.

You've got consider the age gap here. Ray hasn't played for the Sabres since 02-03. Depending on Flagg's age he may have been around 10 years old (or even younger) the last time Ray wore blue and gold. He may only know him from youtube videos and from saying things like "acrost" and "no, you're right" while talking to Jeanneret on broadcasts.