Carl Lewis blasts president Donald Trump as "misogynist and racist" at the Pan American Games

Go take a stroll over to the Official Donald Trump thread and look at which side of posters more commonly uses facts and reason vs. which use emotion.

The term "liberal" as used on this site is largely meaningless; it is simply a term of abuse to describe anything or anyone the user doesn't like. It has become an empty slogan, demonstrating poverty of intellect, and showing that differences in others are perceived as a threat. It would be just as easy to apply the label to those using it, because it can mean anything you want it to mean. But its purpose is to express the all-too-typical violent animosity that passes now for public discussion. El Paso has shown - yet again - where that leads.

I was a registered republican for 25+ years - until just year. I just could not take Trump any longer. The serial lying, the narcissism, the pure stupidity, the utter lack of a moral core. I am not a registered independent.

He is possible the worst human being to ever be a President of our country. The fact that he conned so many people to believe in him astound me.

Look, I get not liking many ideas coming from the left wing. I am a capitalist. I'm a believer in personal liberty. But the republican party has lost their mind over the past decade (or more), and Trump has taken it up to the point I just can not consider myself a republican any more.

Of course, the democrats are not any better. All they need to do to defeat Trump is be reasonable. Instead they are pandering to the worst traits of their party. The nanny state taken to the nth degree. The moral superiority gone berserk.

It 's not all that complicated. We've become too ideological. We don't talk to each other any more. We talk at each other. We don't listen. We don't even think about things any more or consider that our long held beliefs might be wrong.

While I'm a capitalist, I'm not blind to it's faults. We need regulation, and not every industry should be in private industry. We need to protect our borders, but we don't need to demonize people just trying to find a better life. I'm for lower taxes, but lets not fool ourselves that taxing Jamie Dimon, or Warren Buffett (both of whom I admire a lot) less is creating jobs. Lower taxes for business creates jobs. Lower taxes for the up and coming businessman creates jobs. Lower taxes on the uber wealthy does not. I have no problem with a 50% tax rate with incomes over 1 millions dollars. Maybe be 70% on something like 20-30 million.

Both sides have a point on issues, but instead of listen to ideas we don't agree with, we just head back into the echo chamber. That is the single worst thing I think Trump has done. He's made the division into our tribes a point of pride.

If you can't see that Donald J Trump is a liar, who is amoral, and completely corrupt, then you are lost in your own echo chamber. If you can take a step back and see Trump for what he is, then I fear for the future of our country.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The term "liberal" as used on this site is largely meaningless; it is simply a term of abuse to describe anything or anyone the user doesn't like. It has become an empty slogan, demonstrating poverty of intellect, and showing that differences in others are perceived as a threat. It would be just as easy to apply the label to those using it, because it can mean anything you want it to mean. But its purpose is to express the all-too-typical violent animosity that passes now for public discussion. El Paso has shown - yet again - where that leads.

It's not meaningless at all. Quite the opposite. Liberalism, just like conservatism, is a set of beliefs. You can go down the line on each issue and identify the position / opinion / value. Obviously there is not 100% consensus on every issue, but that hardly makes it invalid. The categories generally hold true for most issues, especially important issues of public policy.

As current liberal beliefs/opinions/values drift further and further away from traditional norms (for this country) there is more disagreement in terms of establishing or changing public policy.

Libs want to turn out county into a s$ithole. We are not going to just let you.

LRC says otherwise wrote:

Go take a stroll over to the Official Donald Trump thread and look at which side of posters more commonly uses facts and reason vs. which use emotion.

Go take a stroll into life and talk to a lib. That should answer your question. It's a disturbing exercise, but sometimes you have to open your eyes to the ugly side of life.

Oh, ok. Lets think about moral, amoral, and immoral... a party that screws its own candidate for another (Hillary over Bernie), and therefore screws its voters, but claims to be 'for the people' is totally moral... am I right?

A party that conspires with the media to create what is possibly the biggest hoax in American history, is moral... am I right?

I can go on and on, but this is suffice for the point.

blort wrote:

I was a registered republican for 25+ years - until just year.

Yeah right.

This scam is often used by libs. My nutter lift winger relative likes to play this little game of self-delusion. Reality check: nobody is buying it.

I work with 'educators' who believed that Stormy Daniels was going to bring down Trump. They are that stupid and gullible.

I work with 'educators' who truly believe Trump is a Russian agent. They are that stupid and gullible.

When one fake narrative falls apart, they shift to the next. It's a pattern that we have witnessed continually for the past three years.

The modern 'liberal' is a epic fool.

Sadly, here you are in a sentient minority.

Speaking of fools ^^^

It is the emotional content of the term, and its predominant use to disparage and attack, that gives it its meaning here, not the glad-bag of loose characteristics that you or political studies students might attribute to it as a term of ideological description. It is no more neutral than the term "Juden", as used in 1930's Germany.

I can't believe this thread is still going.

Again, any comments from Lewis are meaningless.

VirtueSignaler wrote:

I can't believe this thread is still going.

Again, any comments from Lewis are meaningless.

So you attack the messenger.

Armstronglivs wrote:

VirtueSignaler wrote:

I can't believe this thread is still going.

Again, any comments from Lewis are meaningless.

So you attack the messenger.

He's attacking the hater who is attacking the president.

Ok, I got it. It's like calling someone a racist.

now i get it . wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It is the emotional content of the term, and its predominant use to disparage and attack, that gives it its meaning here, not the glad-bag of loose characteristics that you or political studies students might attribute to it as a term of ideological description. It is no more neutral than the term "Juden", as used in 1930's Germany.

Ok, I got it. It's like calling someone a racist.

Exactly. But don't hold your breath that they will understand this.

Nail, meet hammer wrote:

now i get it . wrote:

Ok, I got it. It's like calling someone a racist.

Exactly. But don't hold your breath that they will understand this.

Critical thinking is not really their strong suit.

Nail, meet hammer wrote:

now i get it . wrote:

Ok, I got it. It's like calling someone a racist.

Exactly. But don't hold your breath that they will understand this.

It is you who have failed to understand the point. "Liberal" has become little more than a "f*ck you" term for those you don't like, whereas "racism" retains the meaning of "prejudice towards others on the basis of their race". Hardly ambiguous or meaningless - and fairly easy to identify. Except perhaps to the intellectually challenged. And the prejudiced.

Sounds like you're a fool wrote:

Oh, ok. Lets think about moral, amoral, and immoral... a party that screws its own candidate for another (Hillary over Bernie), and therefore screws its voters, but claims to be 'for the people' is totally moral... am I right?

A party that conspires with the media to create what is possibly the biggest hoax in American history, is moral... am I right?

I can go on and on, but this is suffice for the point.