Messages

[racist]

Has Donald Trump talking about how he sexually assaults women changed your opinion of him at all?

No, because he stated in the debate that it was all talk, no action. Some off hand comments don't bother me as much as some of the things that have occurred on the Democrat side in the past 6 months or so. I admit that they were wrong and inappropriate, but no, doesn't change my opinion much at all. And in case you haven't noticed, the women that were bothered by those remarks were voting for Clinton anyway; women for Trump weigh those 11 year old private statements against Hillary Clinton and still believe he is the better option.

I think if you actively exploit a loophole in a tax code to avoid repercussions, that says quite a bit about your values...

What, you should be punished for losing $1 billion dollars? I don't understand how following the laws within the tax code says anything negative about his values at all...It's a good thing to follow the law, right?

1) anything Hillary Clinton did with emails was legal but stupid.  She's stupid.

I still question the legality of everything there. I mean, it's very possible that she paid some certain people off to get away with what she did. Plus, government workers know they need her in office to keep their unfair benefits coming in. If Trump gets elected, they may have to do some actual work  .

Even the republican investigators looking into the email scandal concluded that there was no evidence of any serious wrongdoing or enough to warrant serious charges.

As for Donald Trump being worse than us: what we (or at least I) partake in might contain profanity, but it's constitutional profanity. Most of our disagreements (speaking directly to Noc about this) have, I believe, stemmed from how seriously I value and advocate the separation of church and state, and the belief that everyone is entitled to freedom FROM religion just as much as freedom OF religion. If I've said something offensive that's not rooted in logic or constitutional freedoms, I'd really appreciate you pointing it out to me so I can apologize. I try to be logical and fair as much as I can. With Trump, however, it's not the "vulgarities" that anger me. It's the remarks and behaviors that are so blatantly racist or xenophobic (see: literally any comments about Muslims, which directly mirror Hitler's comments about Jews), or more commonly--and currently in more of a spotlight because of the tape from 2005 of a 59-year-old Trump talking about sexually forcing himself on women who can't or won't refuse him because of his wealth and power--incredibly sexist. The way he was circling Clinton during the debate and constantly interrupting her shows a man who not only doesn't respect women, but doesn't respect anyone who opposes him. I legitimately believe he's a dangerous and downright horrible candidate. Clinton is not perfect, of course, and anyone who says she is basically doesn't know what they're talking about. But I trust her infinitely more as a capable leader, and don't believe that the email scandal or her husband's extramarital affairs have anything to do with her ability to lead a country effectively.

There they are. Knew the typical anti-Trump words had to come up eventually. I'll come back to racist in a second because I want to talk about xenophobic first. The definition of xenophobia is an irrational or intense dislike or fear of foreigners. Now you tell me; is it irrational to be afraid of a terrorist group that is decapitating innocent people and bombing cities on a daily basis? I wouldn't care if the group was African-American, Asian, Arab, Mexican, Hispanic, etc. If a group of people is mass murdering other people, it isn't wrong for me to fear them. The problem is that people believe that Trump hates/fears all Muslims because of what happens in the Middle East; this is simply not true. The same could be said about his beliefs about Mexicans. I can be afraid of the drug dealers and rapists that illegally cross the border and steal welfare checks from us without hating everyday Mexican-Americans who are simply trying to better their lives in this country. However, anti-Trump protesters portray him as anti-Mexican, just because he is against the ones who blatantly break the law. If you feel you have a comment or quote that contradicts this, by all means do share. (Actually, racist kind of fits in here, so I don't really need to say it again.)
As for the sexist remark, I covered my basic opinion on the matter earlier when answering shadowkirby; if you want me to go deeper into disproving Trump's sexism in general, just say the word.

Also the most important point.
We aren't running for president.

(Looks like I'll be quoting you a lot.) I'm lost, who was implying that we were?

@TMP

You don't have to be a racist, sexist, or xenophobe to support Trump, but you do have to be okay with those things.

No, you don't. As I've mentioned above, I don't believe that Trump is any of those things. From my standpoint, you can be completely against all three of those things and support Trump (and everyone should be against those things).

I know you were asking Slow, but I'll also take some time to respond since he and I are fairly similar on this (though I'm sure we disagree in certain areas).
Policies/other areas that Clinton is objectively better with:
- Climate Change
- Freedom of (from) Religion
- Gun regulations
- Ending the Drug War- neither of them are likely to end it, I think, but HRC will almost certainly do a better job.
- General international relationships; for all her faults, Hillary can at least act presidential, and has a fair amount of experience as Secretary of State.
- Healthcare
- College tuition + debt
- Police Violence
- All social issues

In addition, consider that Trump wants to appoint the equivalent of Antonin Scalia (who literally said that blacks should go to "slower tracked schools"). While I'm not hugely a fan of Merrick Garland, he's a far better pick.

For climate change, I understand that it is important that we don't intentionally worsen the conditions (that would just be stupid), but at the same time we don't need to be spending billions of dollars on it like we do.
Ah, for religion I assume you're referencing the Roe v. Wade stuff. That one we'll have to disagree on, as I am pro-life (and Catholic, for that matter). No sense arguing that one because we won't get anywhere.
Well...I'm completely for the Second Amendment. My family has never owned a gun, but I don't see why any law abiding citizen should be deterred from having one if they so choose. Gun control doesn't stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals.
Hmm...I haven't considered the drug war that much (other than obviously we need to stop it). To echo my climate change belief, we shouldn't waste a lot of government money on it.
Hmm, let's see...Secretary of State experience...Benghazi, Iran...good times. In all seriousness, my belief is that no political experience is better than 4 poor ones. Besides, its not like Trump has never negotiated with foreign countries before. I'll agree 100% that Hillary can act presidential...key word ACT. She is not very presidential behind the scenes...Noc mentioned her potty-mouth before.
Seems like I'm repeating myself here...I do not believe that government should be in complete control of healthcare. I am all for the idea of privatizing it and removing the invisible borders between states. I just believe it will be better for us economically.

Now for the Supreme Court Justice. Of course, you pick out one bad instance in this guy's career and apply it to his entire career. That is not what Trump was implying; he just wants to nominate a good, conservative judge that will interpret the Constitution like he or she should.

Not exactly.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/09/fact-checks-second-presidential-debate/

I guess I'll give you that. Still says he was half true on the topic I was referring to (emails).

Possibly. It's also possible that it was because that 25 minutes into the first debate, there were no discussions on policy substance.

Fair enough.


So, you're proud to be a supporter of someone who you admitted earlier is probably a bully, and who was caught on tape talking about how he sexually assaults women?

Probably a bully? That's not how I remember saying it...If that's what you got out of it, what I meant was that I more or less understood where people were coming from with that argument. Still didn't necessarily agree, but I get it.

Preferably by not moving it backwards.

Just depends on who you believe will move it forward. Or perhaps combining the modern system with a few ideas from about 25 years ago wouldn't be such a bad idea. We'll see what happens.

The supreme court interprets the constitution.  Conservative justices will naturally interpret it more literally.  That's all I mean.

Literal Supreme Court Justices. That's something we need.

Why do you feel a more literal interpretation is important? I'm not necessarily disagreeing (though I do think that the correlation you propose is incorrect), but I'm curious as to why the literalist view is the one you seem to prefer. If you want to go completely literal 1776 style, then we should be only counting 3 votes for every 5 black voters.

Ahem, I believe you mean 1787. Anyway, that's kind of extrapolating there. Noc is definitely not implying that we interpret the Constitution exactly how it was written almost two and a half centuries ago. However, when an amendment says citizens have "the right to bear arms," that should be taken as it is written. There's no argument like "That was at a time of war" or "Well handguns are ok but these ones aren't." That's the kind of thing that should be taken literally. And if you take it literally, you will notice that the Three Fifths Compromise is no longer applicable. So it doesn't matter.

I'm not anti-Hillary. Very pro-Hillary. just filled out my absentee ballot today! Can't wait until that clown that republicans consider a potential leader loses the election.

I'll try to disregard the second half of that comment.....I guess it's better than the typical racist, sexist, xenophobic, [insert something here]-ophobic comments that I normally hear (which I would be willing to debunk at some point). As I said before, I'm quite curious as to what motivates people to select one candidate or the other. Would you mind if I asked you what particular policies draw you to Secretary Clinton? While I may compare and contrast your views with mine afterwards, I am certainly willing to respect your opinions/reasons, as long as it is not "She's not Trump." To me, that's not a real reason and it demonstrates lack of research on the other candidate. However, your enthusiasm suggests that you are not one of those people, so please, I'm all ears! (Well, this is on a screen, so eyes...whatever. XD)

Namely his taxes and potential history of being a sexual predator.

Regarless, my point isn't that he's a criminal; it's that if I wanted to make him out to be one there's other ways of doing so that would be much more fruitful. Unfortunately, I could care less whether the candidates are technically classified as a criminal or not (which neither currently are.) I'll be my own judge of their character and actions.

I won't go too much into this because you don't seem to be worried about this topic, but what Donald did with his taxes was perfectly legal. He was able to avoid some tax payment due to the fact that he took a loss of nearly $1 billion dollars in his company. If you wanted to sit down and read the tax code, you could find in there the loophole that allowed him to do this. Is that a messed up situation? Absolutely. The man is not the problem; it's the code. Oops I said I wouldn't go too much into this...sorry.

On a side note, since you are another Clinton supporter, I guess I'll ask a different question. Have any of the email scandals change your opinion of her at all? Did you trust that the decision that was made about the whole thing, or are there still some grey areas in that situation?

(I tried to answer as many people as I could in here; I got too lazy to try to quote stuff on my iPad. If I missed anything, ask again and I'll answer.)

Man, I must really be in the minority in my belief that yesterday was actually a somewhat decent debate. It was better than the first, at least imo. (I'm used to people disagreeing with what I believe, so go for it.) The fact that Donald was able to rattle a career politician who gives some of the most scripted answers you've ever heard was actually impressive. I mean come on, even that fly didn't phase her when it landed on her face mid-response. Many people have called Trump a bully in the past, and I can't exactly disagree with that. However, the material he used to rock Secretary Clinton last night was pure truth. The fact that she stuttered and asked the moderator to move on from the email questions was a pretty big hint that whatever is hidden in those deleted emails is pretty bad.

It is fair to say that a decent percentage of voters this year consider themselves anti-Trump or anti-Clinton, rather than actually supporting the other candidate. Although I will miss the chance to vote by a few months, I am proud to be a supporter of Donald Trump (as is the great majority of my family). I am not here to attempt to convince you to change your votes; rather, I am more curious to see why those that talk politics on this forum support the candidate that they do. By the same token, I am open to honestly answering any questions about my stances on issues. I leave you with one final thought: The purpose of the presidential election is to allow its citizens to choose who they believe is the best man or woman to lead and represent the United States. Voting is a responsibility, and it is imperative that the citizens of this country take the time to thoroughly research all options and to choose based on reason, not emotion. Whether we choose to Make America Great Again, or contend that America will remain great if we are Together with Her, let us hope that our choice moves the country forward.

(trust me there's a lot of other things he did if you wanted to go that route...)

I'd like to hear more about this...(not saying you're wrong, I'm just not sure exactly what you're referring to).

Yeah, I know he was being sarcastic at the time. The reason why I'm not laughing is because they actually went and hacked some American networks and stole information.

Did they? Or did Hillary just say they did? I know Obama officially accused the Russians, but I'm still not certain if that accusation was justified. I guess I'll have to take their word for it for now, but I'm remaining skeptical about the whole thing.

She put us at risk indirectly; Trump straight up told the Russians to hack us over in the US- AND THEY DID!
So, who's the bigger criminal?

Uh, that was sarcasm? He definitely would not be legitimately asking the Russians to hack us. Last time I checked, sarcasm (even with bad timing) is not criminal. Sending loads of private emails and then destroying the evidence when investigations start? Yeah, that's a crime. So to answer your question, Hillary remains the bigger criminal. 


(For the record, here's the link to the tweet about asking Russia to hack us.)

[91% Donald Trump]

Little late on that little quiz thing, but my results were:

92% Darrell Castle
91% Donald Trump
74% Gary Johnson
0% Jill Stein

Is it a bad thing if I hadn't even heard of that Castle guy until this test? Anyway, most people here that have talked to me at all about politics know my support goes to Donald Trump, and the test definitely showed it (Castle's policies are very similar, and 1% is not much of a difference at all). So yeah, this was pretty accurate for me.

In the case of this sheet, using 3 measures per system was passable, but in order to keep 2 pages total, you had to use 4 measure systems occasionally in spots filled with 16th note runs, resulting in, at those places, an unclean layout due to excessive horizontal clutter.

Ben, how many times do we have to remind you that paper and computer ink are not for ingesting? Especially when you have the option of one of Braix's delicious steaks.

Guys I caught a Weedle I'm so proud of me

My area was infested with those; I caught like 9...

So uh...I caught 40.


Man, I should really get a life. If you want details I'll share some more when it's not 1am.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqXQp2OXZOk

Here's a nice short one for a (hopefully) short review. Then again, TMP arrangements magically attract excessive numbers of revisions/comments. We'll see.

Here's the fixed version and here's the empty template. Lemme know if you need anything else!

Happy birthday, Sir Benjamin of Bespin!

Hey, can you put my name down for the Staff Credits too? Just kinda decided I really wanna do that.

Is it just me or does it seem like this song is in swing tempo?

Also, here is the sheet to see the note structure.
mus

Uhh...I'm definitely getting swing outta this...