Irony defined

[crazed_hoosier2]

I'm not sure why he didn't get credit for speaking his mind from the crowd that loves someone speaking their mind.

Oh, well that's easy. They are wanting everybody to put the primary behind them, at least give the outward appearance of party unity, and be singularly focused on beating Hillary Clinton.

Personally, I don't think his refusal to endorse Trump comes from lingering resentment over Trump's rude comments about Heidi or his (incredibly loopy) father. I agree with UncleMark that Cruz is making a calculation. I think he miscalculated -- but time will tell.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Oh, well that's easy. They are wanting everybody to put the primary behind them, at least give the outward appearance of party unity, and be singularly focused on beating Hillary Clinton.

Personally, I don't think his refusal to endorse Trump comes from lingering resentment over Trump's rude comments about Heidi or his (incredibly loopy) father. I agree with UncleMark that Cruz is making a calculation. I think he miscalculated -- but time will tell.

I think there is both some hatred, and a calculated decision. But it is true we only like people who speak their minds IF their mind is the same as ours. Bill Maher has said some pretty out there things, so has Michael Moore. I don't think anyone at that convention will credit those two for having courage of their convictions. Instead Trump supporter A loves that Trump has the courage of Trump Support A's convictions.

Not to necessarily pick on Trump supporters, this happens elsewhere. Its just that such a big deal is being made of Trump speaking his mind right now. That isn't what has people happy, he's speaking their mind is what has them happy.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I think there is both some hatred, and a calculated decision. But it is true we only like people who speak their minds IF their mind is the same as ours. Bill Maher has said some pretty out there things, so has Michael Moore. I don't think anyone at that convention will credit those two for having courage of their convictions. Instead Trump supporter A loves that Trump has the courage of Trump Support A's convictions.

Not to necessarily pick on Trump supporters, this happens elsewhere. Its just that such a big deal is being made of Trump speaking his mind right now. That isn't what has people happy, he's speaking their mind is what has them happy.

True. But I also think there's some level of satisfaction and relief in seeing a candidate who refuses to play the public outrage/apology game (could you imagine if Trump did? Every public statement would be some kind of mea culpa.) and who refuses to kowtow to political correctness.

Although I'm far from Trump's biggest fan, I will confess that I find that refreshing -- even if he sometimes goes too far with it (ie, the "Mexican" judge). So, I guess that makes you right: I loathe PC, and thus enjoy seeing somebody refusing to abide it.

 

[Sope Creek]

You don't know what you are talking about

see.

My sense is that the Beckett Fund is far from nonpartisan with respect to RFRA.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Because the nominee for VP was the architect behind the bill to deny rights for LGBT in Indiana. So I wouldn't say they are fully accepted yet. Glad they found a gay speaker, they've found a few minorities too!

This is a flat-out lie. Pence was no more 'the architect' behind the bill than Barry was. Homosexuals have a number of extra guarantees of protection in Indiana statutes.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Homosexuals have a number of extra guarantees of protection in Indiana statutes.

Name them please.

 

[nancys1man]

Changing irony for a moment. Some people love Trump because he says what is on his mind. He isn't one to be PC, or say something only because he is supposed to.

This morning those exact same people are mad at Ted Cruz for not saying exactly what he was supposed. Look, I don't like Cruz. But after Trump made fun of his wife's looks and accused his dad of killing Kennedy, I don't blame Cruz for not backing Trump. I'm not sure why he didn't get credit for speaking his mind from the crowd that loves someone speaking their mind.

Another moment of irony. Melanie Trump lifts a few sentences from Michelle Obama's speech and democrats and the liberal media are on the attack. Making fun of her and the Trump campaign with calls of incompetence and carelessness, becoming experts in ethics and morals. At the same time they are supporting very possibly the most unethical and immoral presidential candidate in history.

 

[wiede]

Another moment of irony. Melanie Trump lifts a few sentences from Michelle Obama's speech and democrats and the liberal media are on the attack. Making fun of her and the Trump campaign with calls of incompetence and carelessness, becoming experts in ethics and morals. At the same time they are supporting very possibly the most unethical and immoral presidential candidate in history.

Wrong. Had the Trump campaign owned it, it would've gone away quickly.

Instead, an internal Trump memo showed their initial strategy was to, wait for it, blame Hillary.

And if a scintilla of the Trump university allegations are true- it appears Trump is as bad or worse than Hillary in that regard. But I'll withold judgment on it until the facts come in. But it certainly appears horrible from what's been out there so far. It's the very definition of dishonesty and deceit.

You can't claim superiority in those areas when he's done the things he's done.

This constant strategy of never apologizing for your wrongs, then exacerbating the situation by blaming someone else appears to have caught up with the Trump campaign this time. Can't believe it took that long for it to happen. This story should've been over quickly, and instead it continued to haunt the campaign. And claiming it's not plagiarism just makes you not credible.

And, had the roles been reversed somehow, Michelle Obama and Barack by association would've been crucified by right wing leaning media outlets. And I'm sure they would've tried to find a a way to pin it on Hillary.

This election comes down to a choice of two dishonest candidates. One is competent- the other has demonstrated incompetence throughout his entire campaign. The republican national convention is just the latest example. What should be a crowning moment and unifying event for the party has been reduced to a chit show. Even worse, ALL of the things that have made it a chit show have been almost entirely self-inflicted wounds.

If Trump ran the country like he's run his campaign and the convention, he'd be an unmitigated disaster as president. there's no way in hades that he should ever be allowed near decisions that have ramifications for the entire world. That's not opinion- that's based on his actions to date.

And we've still got several more months to go...

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Wrong. Had the Trump campaign owned it, it would've gone away quickly.

Instead, an internal Trump memo showed their initial strategy was to, wait for it, blame Hillary.

And if a scintilla of the Trump university allegations are true- it appears Trump is as bad or worse than Hillary in that regard. But I'll withold judgment on it until the facts come in. But it certainly appears horrible from what's been out there so far. It's the very definition of dishonesty and deceit.

You can't claim superiority in those areas when he's done the things he's done.

This constant strategy of never apologizing for your wrongs, then exacerbating the situation by blaming someone else appears to have caught up with the Trump campaign this time. Can't believe it took that long for it to happen. This story should've been over quickly, and instead it continued to haunt the campaign. And claiming it's not plagiarism just makes you not credible.

And, had the roles been reversed somehow, Michelle Obama and Barack by association would've been crucified by right wing leaning media outlets. And I'm sure they would've tried to find a a way to pin it on Hillary.

This election comes down to a choice of two dishonest candidates. One is competent- the other has demonstrated incompetence throughout his entire campaign. The republican national convention is just the latest example. What should be a crowning moment and unifying event for the party has been reduced to a chit show. Even worse, ALL of the things that have made it a chit show have been almost entirely self-inflicted wounds.

If Trump ran the country like he's run his campaign and the convention, he'd be an unmitigated disaster as president. there's no way in hades that he should ever be allowed near decisions that have ramifications for the entire world. That's not opinion- that's based on his actions to date.

And we've still got several more months to go...

Five bucks says there are Dem staffers right now googling every line of each speech draft submitted so far just to make sure they don't make the same mistake.

 

[Lucy01]

Wrong. Had the Trump campaign owned it, it would've gone away quickly.

Instead, an internal Trump memo showed their initial strategy was to, wait for it, blame Hillary.

And if a scintilla of the Trump university allegations are true- it appears Trump is as bad or worse than Hillary in that regard. But I'll withold judgment on it until the facts come in. But it certainly appears horrible from what's been out there so far. It's the very definition of dishonesty and deceit.

You can't claim superiority in those areas when he's done the things he's done.

This constant strategy of never apologizing for your wrongs, then exacerbating the situation by blaming someone else appears to have caught up with the Trump campaign this time. Can't believe it took that long for it to happen. This story should've been over quickly, and instead it continued to haunt the campaign. And claiming it's not plagiarism just makes you not credible.

And, had the roles been reversed somehow, Michelle Obama and Barack by association would've been crucified by right wing leaning media outlets. And I'm sure they would've tried to find a a way to pin it on Hillary.

This election comes down to a choice of two dishonest candidates. One is competent- the other has demonstrated incompetence throughout his entire campaign. The republican national convention is just the latest example. What should be a crowning moment and unifying event for the party has been reduced to a chit show. Even worse, ALL of the things that have made it a chit show have been almost entirely self-inflicted wounds.

If Trump ran the country like he's run his campaign and the convention, he'd be an unmitigated disaster as president. there's no way in hades that he should ever be allowed near decisions that have ramifications for the entire world. That's not opinion- that's based on his actions to date.

And we've still got several more months to go...

You must get paid by the Word!

 

[Rockfish1]

Five bucks says there are Dem staffers right now googling every line of each speech draft submitted so far just to make sure they don't make the same mistake.

If they weren't already doing this, they're also incompetent. There are free software tools that detect plagiarism. Hell, Google can detect plagiarism.

 

[nancys1man]

Wrong. Had the Trump campaign owned it, it would've gone away quickly.

Instead, an internal Trump memo showed their initial strategy was to, wait for it, blame Hillary.

And if a scintilla of the Trump university allegations are true- it appears Trump is as bad or worse than Hillary in that regard. But I'll withold judgment on it until the facts come in. But it certainly appears horrible from what's been out there so far. It's the very definition of dishonesty and deceit.

You can't claim superiority in those areas when he's done the things he's done.

This constant strategy of never apologizing for your wrongs, then exacerbating the situation by blaming someone else appears to have caught up with the Trump campaign this time. Can't believe it took that long for it to happen. This story should've been over quickly, and instead it continued to haunt the campaign. And claiming it's not plagiarism just makes you not credible.

And, had the roles been reversed somehow, Michelle Obama and Barack by association would've been crucified by right wing leaning media outlets. And I'm sure they would've tried to find a a way to pin it on Hillary.

This election comes down to a choice of two dishonest candidates. One is competent- the other has demonstrated incompetence throughout his entire campaign. The republican national convention is just the latest example. What should be a crowning moment and unifying event for the party has been reduced to a chit show. Even worse, ALL of the things that have made it a chit show have been almost entirely self-inflicted wounds.

If Trump ran the country like he's run his campaign and the convention, he'd be an unmitigated disaster as president. there's no way in hades that he should ever be allowed near decisions that have ramifications for the entire world. That's not opinion- that's based on his actions to date.

And we've still got several more months to go...

I respect your opinion, obviously I view things differently, you may say that the Trump University situation is as bad or worse but it did not end in the death of Americans. You can claim that Hilary is competent, but the way she handled her emails does not scream competency to me. The Clinton Foundation is anything but competent. You say that the Trump campaign should have owned the plagiarism mistake and it wouldn't have been a big deal. I agree with you but, the person you claim as competent did no such thing when facing her own mishaps(Benghazi, Emails, etc.). Instead she repeatedly lied on TV on numerous occasions trying to deceive the public of her mishandlings. Just look at her experience on the WaterGate commission to know she's been doing these things for a long time. Peoples opinions differ, obviously our views on competency in the candidates do. I've decided on who I'm voting for in November, it's sounds like you have as well. I respect your opinion and appreciate you being respectful and not being a condescending Dick like a lot of the liberal posters on this board tend to be when they disagree with someone.

 

[Rockfish1]

I respect your opinion, obviously I view things differently, you may say that the Trump University situation is as bad or worse but it did not end in the death of Americans. You can claim that Hilary is competent, but the way she handled her emails does not scream competency to me. The Clinton Foundation is anything but competent. You say that the Trump campaign should have owned the plagiarism mistake and it wouldn't have been a big deal. I agree with you but, the person you claim as competent did no such thing when facing her own mishaps(Benghazi, Emails, etc.). Instead she repeatedly lied on TV on numerous occasions trying to deceive the public of her mishandlings. Just look at her experience on the WaterGate commission to know she's been doing these things for a long time. Peoples opinions differ, obviously our views on competency in the candidates do. I've decided on who I'm voting for in November, it's sounds like you have as well. I respect your opinion and appreciate you being respectful and not being a condescending Dick like a lot of the liberal posters on this board tend to be when they disagree with someone.

As is the case with all Trump supporters, incompetents can't recognize incompetence in others. If pointing that out makes me a "condescending Dick," then I point out that incompetents vastly overestimate their own competence.

Those of us who point and laugh may be "condescending Dicks," but Trump supporters are still clueless wonders. If I could help you with that I would, but since I can't, I point and laugh.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I respect your opinion, obviously I view things differently, you may say that the Trump University situation is as bad or worse but it did not end in the death of Americans. You can claim that Hilary is competent, but the way she handled her emails does not scream competency to me. The Clinton Foundation is anything but competent. You say that the Trump campaign should have owned the plagiarism mistake and it wouldn't have been a big deal. I agree with you but, the person you claim as competent did no such thing when facing her own mishaps(Benghazi, Emails, etc.). Instead she repeatedly lied on TV on numerous occasions trying to deceive the public of her mishandlings. Just look at her experience on the WaterGate commission to know she's been doing these things for a long time. Peoples opinions differ, obviously our views on competency in the candidates do. I've decided on who I'm voting for in November, it's sounds like you have as well. I respect your opinion and appreciate you being respectful and not being a condescending Dick like a lot of the liberal posters on this board tend to be when they disagree with someone.

I get the email point, someone in that position should be much more concerned about the security.

But Beghazi itself, what is the incompetence? Compare and contrast whatever answer one provides to sending unarmed Marines into Beirut.

 

[zeke4ahs]

This is a flat-out lie. Pence was no more 'the architect' behind the bill than Barry was. Homosexuals have a number of extra guarantees of protection in Indiana statutes.

He didn't write it, but he was certainly glad to get his pic taken with all the looney tunes that insisted on having it, even after all the business leaders told him that it would harm Indiana businesses. Who would you blame for it, if not the person that signed it and made clear he was proud to do so? Oh I know. The President? Or Hillary maybe?

 

[zeke4ahs]

Another moment of irony. Melanie Trump lifts a few sentences from Michelle Obama's speech and democrats and the liberal media are on the attack. Making fun of her and the Trump campaign with calls of incompetence and carelessness, becoming experts in ethics and morals. At the same time they are supporting very possibly the most unethical and immoral presidential candidate in history.

Another irony....Chris Christie, who is currently under investigation, leading a witch trial at the convention. No wonder the comedians are having a field day!

 

[zeke4ahs]

You don't expect these posters to actually READ the legislation, do you? They read the Star - which always has an agenda - and believe what's in the newspaper. The General Assembly does not vote on newspaper articles. It votes on black words on white paper legislation. Some posters apparently don't bother reading bills they discuss.

Oh right, that darn liberal media The Indianapolis Star again. The comedy never ends.

 

[zeke4ahs]

This scares Democrats because they have had a monopoly on the LGBT vote up to this point. As being gay has become fully acceptable, that will be a voting bloc that will erode for Democrats. They're likely to be frothing at the mouth tonite. Meanwhile Hillary is taking money from countries that execute people suspected of being gay.

On your Islam comments, I couldn't agree more. I've never understood how a party could have a platform of civil rights and political correctness, yet waive all that when dealing with a particular subset of people?

Right, because LGBT community is so stupid, they will forget who fought against equal rights for them. Not likely anytime soon.

 

[nancys1man]

As is the case with all Trump supporters, incompetents can't recognize incompetence in others. If pointing that out makes me a "condescending Dick," then I point out that incompetents vastly overestimate their own competence.

Those of us who point and laugh may be "condescending Dicks," but Trump supporters are still clueless wonders. If I could help you with that I would, but since I can't, I point and laugh.

You've proved the point I was making exactly. People like you are incapable of arguing with words due to your lack of intelligence so instead you belittle and demean people with opposing views. You sit there and laugh as if because you posted an article from politico you have proved me wrong and thus have won something. I could post articles contradicting the politico article but why would I waste time, it wouldn't change your opinion on anything. Sit there and be naive and think your somehow better and smarter than every Trump supporter. You're the perfect example of liberal hypocrisy, you are so PC and are Progressive and open minded about everything unless it is someone who has a differ opinion than you. You are a hypocrite, You are very wrong about labeling all Trump supporters incompetent and there are plenty of us that are far from incompetent. We view the direction of the country differently than you and that pisses you off because everyone should think the same as you and if they don't, they're idiots.

 

[Rockfish1]

You label all in to a group by saying that all Trump supporters are incompetent

Maybe not all are. But those who post here demonstrably are.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Several Indiana cities, including Indianapolis, had laws barring discrimination based on sexual discrimination. It was those places where the new law would give business owners permission to refuse service based on sexual orientation. " What the RFRA does is potentially give a defense to a business owner that wants to discriminate against a gay customer." Sam Bagenstos, Law Prof U of M.

 

[Rockfish1]

As is the case with all Trump supporters, incompetents can't recognize incompetence in others. If pointing that out makes me a "condescending Dick," then I point out that incompetents vastly overestimate their own competence.

Those of us who point and laugh may be "condescending Dicks," but Trump supporters are still clueless wonders. If I could help you with that I would, but since I can't, I point and laugh.

For those who didn't read the linked material:

Psychological research suggests that people, in general, suffer from what has become known as the Dunning-Kruger Effect. They have little insight about the cracks and holes in their expertise. In studies in my research lab, people with severe gaps in knowledge and expertise typically fail to recognize how little they know and how badly they perform. To sum it up, the knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is not good at that task—and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at that task. This includes political judgment.

We have found this pattern in logical reasoning, grammar, emotional intelligence, financial literacy, numeracy, firearm care and safety, debate skill, and college coursework. Others have found a similar lack of insight among poor chess players, unskilled medical lab technicians, medical students unsuccessfully completing an obstetrics/gynecology rotation, and people failing a test on performing CPR.

. . . In voters, lack of expertise would be lamentable but perhaps not so worrisome if people had some sense of how imperfect their civic knowledge is. If they did, they could repair it. But the Dunning-Kruger Effect suggests something different. It suggests that some voters, especially those facing significant distress in their life, might like some of what they hear from Trump, but they do not know enough to hold him accountable for the serious gaffes he makes. They fail to recognize those gaffes as missteps.
​

There is nothing inherent in Republicans that makes them peculiarly vulnerable to the Dunning-Kruger effect. All of us are vulnerable to confirmation bias, as David Dunning notes in the linked piece. But today, in this election, with this comically unfit candidate, it's Republican Dunning-Krugers who are putting us all at risk.

Again, I favor policies that would reduce the economic distress of Trump supporters. But that isn't fundamentally what's driving Trump's support, and those who imagine that Trump is fit to serve aren't amenable to persuasion.

​

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You've proved the point I was making exactly. People like you are incapable of arguing with words due to your lack of intelligence so instead you belittle and demean people with opposing views. You sit there and laugh as if because you posted an article from politico you have proved me wrong and thus have won something. I could post articles contradicting the politico article but why would I waste time, it wouldn't change your opinion on anything. Sit there and be naive and think your somehow better and smarter than every Trump supporter. You're the perfect example of liberal hypocrisy, you are so PC and are Progressive and open minded about everything unless it is someone who has a differ opinion than you. You are a hypocrite, You are very wrong about labeling all Trump supporters incompetent and there are plenty of us that are far from incompetent. We view the direction of the country differently than you and that pisses you off because everyone should think the same as you and if they don't, they're idiots.

"I could prove you wrong, but won't bother" has always been code for "I can't prove you wrong." You're very quickly going to show yourself to be a fool in this thread.

 

[cosmickid]

I respect your opinion, obviously I view things differently, you may say that the Trump University situation is as bad or worse but it did not end in the death of Americans. You can claim that Hilary is competent, but the way she handled her emails does not scream competency to me. The Clinton Foundation is anything but competent. You say that the Trump campaign should have owned the plagiarism mistake and it wouldn't have been a big deal. I agree with you but, the person you claim as competent did no such thing when facing her own mishaps(Benghazi, Emails, etc.). Instead she repeatedly lied on TV on numerous occasions trying to deceive the public of her mishandlings. Just look at her experience on the WaterGate commission to know she's been doing these things for a long time. Peoples opinions differ, obviously our views on competency in the candidates do. I've decided on who I'm voting for in November, it's sounds like you have as well. I respect your opinion and appreciate you being respectful and not being a condescending Dick like a lot of the liberal posters on this board tend to be when they disagree with someone.

OK I'll bite.Just what was her "experience" on the Watergate Commission"? Or more to the point,exactly what email mantra regarding HRC's "experience" on the Watergate Commission have you blindly swallowed?And in turn what are you trying to claim as "factual" and force feed us here?

I'll save you the embarrassment of posting the most ridiculous (and most easily debunked) assertion,that Zeifman "fired" HRC from the Watergate Commission.I know he claimed he did,and apparently he didn't like her.But the reality is he was not her boss,and IIRC he had no authority to fire anyone...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

 

[nancys1man]

OK I'll bite.Just what was her "experience" on the Watergate Commission"? Or more to the point,exactly what email mantra regarding HRC's "experience" on the Watergate Commission have you blindly swallowed?And in turn what are you trying to claim as "factual" and force feed us here?

I'll save you the embarrassment of posting the most ridiculous (and most easily debunked) assertion,that Zeifman "fired" HRC from the Watergate Commission.I know he claimed he did,and apparently he didn't like her.But the reality is he was not her boss,and IIRC he had no authority to fire anyone...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

I understand your point that's why I chose to say experience instead of saying she was fired for flat out lying. But, with all the other cases that it's been proven she has been dishonest and deceitful, you think it's out of the realm of possibility that she lied in this situation too. When she talked about being under sniper fire was that just an honest mistake at not remembering correctly. Wouldn't you think that you would remember something like that. I understand trump isn't a saint and he's made mistakes, but I don't honestly get how with her record of lying not including Watergate, you can say she is so much more competent than Trump. If Bernie was the candidate I could believe he was but with Hilary it don't see it. It's my opinion, you have yours, I'm sure we both believe ours is right.

 

[nancys1man]

"I could prove you wrong, but won't bother" has always been code for "I can't prove you wrong." You're very quickly going to show yourself to be a fool in this thread.

I was implying all mighty GOAT that I can post an article from the daily caller saying that republicans are smarter than democrats but considering the daily caller is a conservative outlet it doesn't have much credence. Just as Mr. Dunning is a liberal and has bias to right the article and use his research to shed bad light on the party he disagrees with. You're a smart person and I'm sure we can agree and say that there are very few media outlets and journalists and to a lesser extent college professors that are unbiased in their work. On both liberal and conservative sides.

 

[Rockfish1]

I was implying all mighty GOAT that I can post an article from the daily caller saying that republicans are smarter than democrats but considering the daily caller is a conservative outlet it doesn't have much credence. Just as Mr. Dunning is a liberal and has bias to right the article and use his research to shed bad light on the party he disagrees with. You're a smart person and I'm sure we can agree and say that there are very few media outlets and journalists and to a lesser extent college professors that are unbiased in their work. On both liberal and conservative sides.

So you claim could do what you conspicuously didn't do, but you don't do that because you make baseless claims against the author of the piece you don't rebut. Obviously, you are a Trump supporter.

 

[nancys1man]

Several Indiana cities, including Indianapolis, had laws barring discrimination based on sexual discrimination. It was those places where the new law would give business owners permission to refuse service based on sexual orientation. " What the RFRA does is potentially give a defense to a business owner that wants to discriminate against a gay customer." Sam Bagenstos, Law Prof U of M.

Bagenstos is a civil rights lawyer, of course he is going to say that. That's how he makes his living.

 

[nancys1man]

So you claim could do what you conspicuously didn't do, but you don't do that because you make baseless claims against the author of the piece you don't rebut. Obviously, you are a Trump supporter.

You're saying Dunning is not a liberal?

 

[Rockfish1]

You're saying Dunning is not a liberal?

I have no idea what Dunning's politics may be, but the point remains that you have nothing but your own blinkered preconceptions, which you stupidly regard as all the proof you need -- which, by the way, establishes Dunning's thesis. Do you really not comprehend this? If not . . .

 

[nancys1man]

I have no idea what Dunning's politics may be, but the point remains that you have nothing but your own blinkered preconceptions, which you stupidly regard as all the proof you need -- which, by the way, establishes Dunning's thesis. Do you really not comprehend this? If not . . .

Do you not realize that this is a never ending hyperbole. Doesn't the article itself contradict his research. It claims people that people that suffer from it fail to realize it. If he's writing an article talking about how dumb Trump supporters are, based on his research couldn't he be the one himself that is failing to see the cracks in his views or "expertise". You can spin anything to make it sound good and work to your views. It doesn't mean this article is scientific fact. Why do you keep coming back to this article like its Einsteins theory of relativity, do you want to believe it's the truth that bad?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

More irony: unregistered Ivanka talking about her own voting history.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

As is the case with all Trump supporters, incompetents can't recognize incompetence in others. If pointing that out makes me a "condescending Dick," then I point out that incompetents vastly overestimate their own competence.

Those of us who point and laugh may be "condescending Dicks," but Trump supporters are still clueless wonders. If I could help you with that I would, but since I can't, I point and laugh.

That's not what made you a condescending dick.

 

[zeke4ahs]

You've proved the point I was making exactly. People like you are incapable of arguing with words due to your lack of intelligence so instead you belittle and demean people with opposing views. You sit there and laugh as if because you posted an article from politico you have proved me wrong and thus have won something. I could post articles contradicting the politico article but why would I waste time, it wouldn't change your opinion on anything. Sit there and be naive and think your somehow better and smarter than every Trump supporter. You're the perfect example of liberal hypocrisy, you are so PC and are Progressive and open minded about everything unless it is someone who has a differ opinion than you. You are a hypocrite, You are very wrong about labeling all Trump supporters incompetent and there are plenty of us that are far from incompetent. We view the direction of the country differently than you and that pisses you off because everyone should think the same as you and if they don't, they're idiots.[/QUOTE


Many people are open to a difference of opinion. As many Republicans that actually put country first, instead of party, many find it impossible to believe that an intelligent person could find the Donald qualified in any way, shape , or form to be president. He cannot give specifics about a single thing he is going to do. And that's because he is ignorant about the entire process. What specific has Trump given that leads you to believe he will do anything ruin our economy and our relationships with other countries. ( NATO allies are scared to death, and rightly so of a Trump presidency. ) The Economist ranked a Trump presidency as the third greatest threat to the global economy. So what exactly is it you think the Donald will accomplish, besides insult everyone that isn't a white male?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

My sense is that the Beckett Fund is far from nonpartisan with respect to RFRA.

So?

The history is accurate. RFRA legislation was not passed because of gays. It is not anti-gay legislation as twenty alleged.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So?

The history is accurate. RFRA legislation was not passed because of gays. It is not anti-gay legislation as twenty alleged.

Federal RFRA and Indiana RFRA are not the same law. Indiana RFRA was absolutely an anti-LGBT law.

 

[twenty02]

So?

The history is accurate. RFRA legislation was not passed because of gays. It is not anti-gay legislation as twenty alleged.

Indiana RFRA, not the federal law. There was a subtle, but significant difference.

 

[Sope Creek]

So?

The history is accurate. RFRA legislation was not passed because of gays. It is not anti-gay legislation as twenty alleged.

I disagree with your assertion, largely because of the reasons stated by Goat and twenty.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I disagree with your assertion, largely because of the reasons stated by Goat and twenty.

We went all through this when the Indiana RFRA was in the news

Despite the scare mongering of the left, the Indiana RFRA did not materially change things. It spoke to standing to make a claim, which is different from the federal law, but the practical legal effect of that was nil in terms of anti-gay sentiment. Fact finders still need to find facts. That said, I readily acknowledge that some fundamental Christians conspicuously supported the Indiana RRFA. Most of the hand wringing came from this factor. Of course who supports a law as nothing to do with what the law does.

 

[Rusty G]

This is a flat-out lie. Pence was no more 'the architect' behind the bill than Barry was. Homosexuals have a number of extra guarantees of protection in Indiana statutes.

Na

We went all through this when the Indiana RFRA was in the news

Despite the scare mongering of the left, the Indiana RFRA did not materially change things. It spoke to standing to make a claim, which is different from the federal law, but the practical legal effect of that was nil in terms of anti-gay sentiment. Fact finders still need to find facts. That said, I readily acknowledge that some fundamental Christians conspicuously supported the Indiana RRFA. Most of the hand wringing came from this factor. Of course who supports a law as nothing to do with what the law does.

There's the legal perspective which I defer to you on, and there's optics. The "idea" that a person can refuse service to somebody based upon the second person being part of the LGBTQ community, seems to be anti-that community. Especially to its members.

So perhaps the law was not anti-LGBTQ in terms of legal impact, in terms of perceived and practical impact, it appears to be the case.

And perception matters.