Please, explain to me how we are barreling down this course?
Polls show that the majority of the country does not like Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, nor do they trust either of them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri … d-clinton/
We may be faced with a wtf choice in the general election. Either way, this country will be worse for the wear once the election is over. We will be more divided than we ever were.
What does it all mean, other than it appears that the majority of the electorate may not be thinking clearly at this moment?
It means that there is a level of desparation and frustration in our society not seen in past years. It now overrides evaluation of the qualities that we used to use to determine 'presidential timber'. Depending upon your political perspective, you vote for the lesser of 2 or more evils. While, at one time we all marched basically to the same drummer with both political parties on the same page. The divisions today are more extreme.
During other trying times there are examples in history; Huey Long during the 1930's and George Wallace in the 1960's
That's what I think too. But, desperation and frustration should drive us to either of these?
I don't know. If they get the nominations, I see this as the beginning of the end. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. We have to have a shake up in the way we think and the way we move into our collective future. I suppose one of these schmucks, as president, may make us realize if we don't unify as a people the likes of this is all we deserve.
Would you be comfortable explaining what "wtf" means?
Very descriptive regarding the circumstance, breaking it down might not be appropriate for mixed company.
Sorry for my reaction, but my personal opinion is that the use of the f-term is demeaning to anyone that uses it. I really do get upset when faced with situations where folks think it is a normal part of conversation. If it is so appropriate to the sentiment, why hide behind acronyms and hyphens, why not just say it?
ps. as an ex-Navy guy, I didn't like fubar as a normal part of conversation either. Give me a "damn" and a "hell" anytime, any company, but save your f-words for private times.
You must not be around 20-somethings much. Seems more using "and" or "the" to them. Or maybe "blue" or "big" would be more accurate.
Your second sentence lost me. But yes, it is the common usage and even worse the normalcy of hearing it in the 20-something crowd that set me off on its use in the first place.
It just doesn't seem right that it should be viewed as an acceptable part of general conversation - to me anyway. Guess I am just a 1/2 Repub old fogey - "too white and too uptight"
Or, like me, just too old. It was a curse word when I was young, but seldom used. Too "bad" for common use, and reserved for very special circumstances.
Yep. Just a couple of old geezers, too old to know how to talk right today. Oh well, I'll stick with my version of the Kings English.
But such words do have a very curative value. I mean, just imagine, if you will, hitting the wrong nail when tryiing to join two pieces of wood....the air might turn a shade of blue as well as the tip of your finger, but the healing balm of course language works wonders!
Now that would be an "extreme circumstance" and quite worthy of the word!
Under painful circumstances it would be a perfectly human response, it is the carnally nature of many. But, as for me I choose to the apply the "healing balm" and Psalm 103 is my choice in painful circumstances. "Bless the Lord, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name." Amazing how well the Word works!
Now, the word in question does not bother me to hear or read, I'm natural to it. But, it speaks volumes about the person using it. However, I would inform a person when they are crossing the line in certain company (children, my mom or grandmother for examples...). It in no way means I or anyone is offended if someone needs correcting.
I suppose it is crossing the line in a public forum and might even be considered disrespectful to use in the HubPages Forums. It seems to me that name calling and cursing is used to control a conversation to win an argument or debt often times by some. It diffidently is not the high-road and I would not recommend it if someone is looking to elevate them self in a public debt or conversation.
It will draw some, and it will repel some, and for some its not effective one way or another except for a reflection of the user. Its about comfort level, accountability, and basic respect for all.
I like "cat bubbles".
I think, had you bothered to read the original comment that GA was responding to, you'd see there was no argument involved. So, I wasn't trying to win an argument. I'm glad you think it speaks volumes. I've had to listen to a lot of chatter myself, so I suppose you weren't put out more than I was slogging though those volumes I was forced to be privy to.
Interesting that there are degrees of acceptability there, in your eyes. I would think a curse word was a curse word, was a curse word. I see them all as equally capable of describing a level of frustration, when no amount of logical thought could explain how one would be presented with two such choices, yet a choice must be made. I suppose, each generation has their idea of what word is worse. I only brought up the second because I assumed, from your comments, that you had been in the military of some sort and were somewhat sincere in the question. After, retrospect, I believe you have enough experience on the internet to know what the acronym stood for. Was the question simply an attempt to grandstand?
Perhaps you could share an acronym that might more succinctly describe what a choice such as the one envisioned in this thread would elicit in the voting booth?
Isn't it strange that we often here a swear word uttered in some way to disguise it? It might just an initial letter, or a slightly different sound/shaped word, but we all know what was meant.
Even more strange is that even the most outwardly offended person also knows what word was implied and, presumably knows the meaning of the word.....yet is not allowed to own up to knowing!
Who is going to punish us for using such words? And what is the punishment likely to be? Do we hurt anyone by swearing? Maybe....I don't know.
And, as has been asked, are there any substitute words that don't cause offense, yet convey our meaning precisely?
The word manure was once not allowed in mixed company here in the states. The history of language allowed in mixed company would be a fascinating topic.
I don't believe there is a substitute acronym that would fully describe the jaw dropping nature of the end of the journey we appear to be headed for. Perhaps GA can share one. Something short enough to be thought in the voting booth by the average citizen. It would have to be some type of acronym. Not too long a train of thought to make those in line waiting for the booth suffer any irritation.
Either way. We do all enjoy a high horse from time to time. I'm certainly not innocent of using the forums to share reactions to other people's posts when I think their comments have offended my sensibilities, or my sense of propriety. However, I never expected either of these two to be taken seriously either.
Not an attempt to grandstand, just an attempt to get you to think about the usage. Hence the qualifier "comfortable." Of course you could explain, but would you feel comfortable doing it? Yes, there are degrees in my mind.
As for the voting booth choice... hmm... a couple descriptive phrases come to mind, but no acronyms.
In reverse I think it means, "fun to watch."
For any Hubbers in Australia, this could be a very valuable time for reflection.
Here we have a Head of State who is, at the same time, also Head of State of The United Kingdom. It's not that the Sovereign has any internal influence over our affairs. Just the final signature when decisions about our lives are made.
It's a Statutary Office, held strictly above politics, there in order to give "Royal Ascent" to Acts presented and agreed to by and within Parliament (The People). It's also above the popular rancor of "Hollywood Style" theatricals like we get loaded with by the media.
It is not our Prime Minister who is Head of State. He or she holds an elected Office and must be answerable to one who is (ideally) impartial and a-political.
This makes for a much more stable and resilient process, in my opinion.
I hope those who push for a republic in Australia, with a popularly-elected Head of State, take note of the events evolving in the United States.
Our system in Australia is not perfect but it's got a lot to benefit us if we keep cool, calm and consential heads. At least we have a wealth of history and experience, plus protective processes in place, that can be brought to bear in all manner of situations ---- without spending billions of dollars on olligarchy evry 4 years.
I am as perplexed as you, but I don't think it's the "majority of the electorate" who would choose either Hillary or Trump. I stated this somewhere else, but I think once the GOP field narrows to Trump vs. one candidate, Trump will lose. I think he appeals to that 35% that's always pissed off about something (oops, I said "pissed"), but doesn't hold much appeal for the thinking conservative.
As far as Bernie vs. Hillary, I'm not sure who will end up on top, but I have a feeling too many people feel uneasy about Hillary and Democratic voters will eventually swing to Bernie, just like they did to Obama in 2008. Bernie versus Trump or Cruz would be an easy Bernie win. Bernie versus Rubio or Kasich would be harder for Bernie to pull off. Hillary versus any one of them would be trouble for Hillary. Just my opinions based on looking at the polling and likability factors of all the candidates.
Just watch the nightly news and you will be privy to the distortions and ridiculous reasoning's that form many opinions and fear. I don't know how many times I have heard a news anchor say "let us tell you what all of this means". NO! Don't tell me what it means! Give me the facts so I can deduce the meaning on my own. But we plod along listening and believing what they report and never hear what they don't report.
I read the whole thread, and was not suggesting that GA or yourself was arguing. If that was the case I would have been direct or stayed out of it completely. Sorry you took that as saying something that I did not.
"I've had to listen to a lot of chatter myself, so I suppose you weren't put out more than I was slogging though those volumes I was forced to be privy to."
I have no idea what you are talking about there...you lost me, m'dear.
All this over the use of "wtf."
Sometimes the F bomb is the perfect expression of a feeling or thought. Words have power, though, as evidenced by this thread.
You'd think some haven't been on the internet, except in here. I spent most of last night in a 'wtf' fact site amazed at some of the stuff I was reading. I'm glad I wasn't put off by the name.
On the up side, just using the acronym allowed one hubber to learn volumes about me. How cool is that?
Don't you know? You can say a lot of hateful things on these forums as long as you say them politely. It works especially well if you use pretty words and indirect innuendo. You can tell outright lies, too. Just make sure you spread your falsehoods with refined and deferential language. Then, when you get called on it, you can claim that you treat everyone with respect and deserve the same in return. ;-)
Unfortunately, I've seen a lot of that here.
Whoa! Are you telling me that people tell outright lies and say hateful things on these forums??? I find that hard to believe. ;-)
Hi Quill, whenever I am being sarcastic or "disrespectful," I think of you and how good you are at patiently cutting through people's BS, in a nice way. Then, I think, screw it, I could never be as good as Quill. LOL
How nice of you to be so kind. Thank you. Your voice adds persuasive, sound reasoning when it is most needed. The liars will never apologize nor will the shills acknowledge their real agenda. But, never underestimate the positive impact you have on the readers who never make their presence known.
In REALITY, the differences between Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton are nearly INFINITE, but in short, here is a brief summary ~
Donald Trump is a Publicity Starved Crazy Bigot with Racist Tendencies, I don't think anyone would deny that assessment and it really shouldn't make much of a difference in the Republican Primary Race but it will in the General Election, while on the FLIPSIDE, Hillary Clinton is Intelligent, Wise & The Most QUALIFIED to be President of the United States ~
Agree on the assessment of Trump. To the rest
And yet I don't see Trump as "publicity starved" - he has enough for 10 people. Nor is he "crazy" or, with that publicity, he would be locked away by now. I don't think he is particularly racist or a bigot - it's a part of his publicity program to garner attention (and works!) and not him. I hope.
These two lovely ladies are at most of Donald Trump's events.
They go by Diamond and Silk and are a special treat and a real joy.
Cute as cute can be!
Wilderness, there are exceptions to every rule. This has got to be a piece of photoshop fakery. For every two people like this there are a thousand that are not amused, and find the candidate troubling.
Pretty pictures do not replace his policy positions and declared statements.
A quick search shows the two as avid Trump supporters, but did not mention any other connection. Still, I stand by what I said - that I haven't seen any real reason to declare Trump a racist. Trump has presented himself as a redneck idiot, which he most definitely is NOT, so why would anyone think that his supposed racism is any better?
I will try to avoid throwing the term 'racist' around in a cavalier fashion. Here is an op-ed from the Washington Post, about as mainstream as it gets.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … story.html
Here is an article from the otherside have a look...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … -down.html
Nice! The first one makes a lot of vague (and irrelevant) claims, but the only action they provide details for is when Trump called for the death penalty for “criminals of every age”, and then when cleared by DNA called their arrest a "disgrace". If this is your definition of racism, you have a lot to learn.
The article also complains that he doesn't like illegal aliens or Muslims. Again, if this is racism, you have much to learn. Or even that Mexico sends their rapists to the US - nothing whatsoever to do with racism.
It says he's "vulgar" to women - more racism? And "had high-profile spats with prominent Latino journalists and news outlets" (just as he has had with nearly every other journalist) - does treating them all the same make him racist? Must he become a racist by being careful to attack only his own race in order not to be racist?
While the author certainly doesn't like Trump, his vague but vitriolic rhetoric is at least as bad as what Trump does - why then take ANY of it to heart?
But the second link is even worse: the only racism in the article came from Emmanuel Cleaver, not Trump.
Diamond and Silk get their own time at Donald Trump events, the crowds love those two. There are lots of photos online of them at Trump events. The photo I posted above was taken backstage after his big win in South Carolina. They have become famous, and their business is prospering!
Did you forget, it came up about D&S in another thread maybe two months ago?
This is a photo of a Jewish man who actively participated in Hitler's war. (second row second from right) He even got an Iron Cross for his service). If I were to submit this as proof that Hitler didn't hate Jews would that change your opinion of the Holocaust? Or would you simply think I was being willfully obtuse.
Here is a link reporting that David Duke supported a black man for office. Does that prove David Duke isn't racist?
http://thegrio.com/2012/06/21/former-bl … avid-duke/
I could provide more. One picture or one act in direct contrast with repeatedly stated things does nothing but allow waters to be muddied for those who want to pretend reality is not what it is. Or, allow them to ignore the fact that people are in jeopardy of getting hurt. 'I told you so' after this chump gets elected won't help.
Her photo posted as evidence of Trump not being racist reminds me of the "but I have a black friend" rebuttal. LOL
Edited to add: I actually think Trump might not be racist, but he does like to make crazy, racist statements, which is bad enough. If he doesn't mean them, why does he say them? Either way, it's evidence of an extreme lack of character.
I do see the man as having mental problems. He does crave publicity and he does appear to me to be churlish if he doesn't feel that he has received it when he wants it.
And, that picture of him standing with two black women and claiming that proves a lack of racism. All that proves is that those two women support Trump. Of course he would be willing to take a photo with them. He'd take a photo with anyone who furthered his bid to be president. Either way saying he isn't racist is little more than arguing about the difference in meaning of racist, prejudiced and bigot.
Until recently, I've always tried to remain IMPARTIAL / Neutral regarding Donald Trump, but sooner or later the truth must be known ~ This kind of NEWS probably won't hurt him a bit in the Republican Primary anyway ~ As a matter of FACT it might even GAIN him a ballot or two in certain upcoming states ~
As usual, I urge you to conduct your own SEARCH on the subject ~ There are several "Media Bits" just like the following published by CNN, HP, etc ~
https://news.vice.com/article/white-sup … l-campaign
LIVE Stream of Donald Trump's ally tonight in Las Vegas, Nevada. He just walked on stage. I can feel the energy! 10,000 people.
Trump is #1 with the military and vets.
There are 22 veterans committing suicide per day.
Veterans need the best care possible to man.
Trump = Nationalist
Clinton = Globalist
U.S. JUDGE ORDERS DISCOVERY TO GO FORWARD OVER CLINTON’S PRIVATE EMAIL SYSTEM
Right about now I think all the other candidate might feel a little happier.
Kind of sad it has to come to this, but she cannot be trusted as President.
Judaical Watch gets some amazing things done that no one else seems to be able to do, or they maybe don't care to... might be closer to the truth.
* http://www.infowars.com/u-s-judge-order … il-system/
CNN is calling Donald Trump the GOP nominee winner after the Nevada win. They are kind of making fun of the Trump haters and the GOP establishment I think, but hey they get what they deserve, right.
The truth hurts...
They are calling it a Trump vs Clinton race to the White House. Well, maybe Hillary will be going to the Big House instead.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/24/opinions/ … index.html
Only Donald can beat Hillary, and I believe he will get it done!
It will be interesting to see what tactics Trump uses as his aim swings from republican voters to democratic ones.
And, of course, all of this is predicated on the assumption that the ruling party elite can't eject him. We've seen Clinton's party take steps to assure her nomination: can the Republican Trump haters prevent his? Stay tuned...
Trump is breaking all the taboos, wrecking the insiders, and changing the system forever as an outsider. Its just a manifestation of a larger political uprising of populism supporting Trump because people are sick and tried of the elites controlling everything in their favor and the favor of those who have bought them, and radical special interest groups they use and support.
Trump cannot be bought!
Let everyone else be a liar... Its what they do best!
“I think the media is among the most dishonest groups of people I’ve ever met,” he said. “They’re terrible.” --- I totally agree... Disembowel them, Trump! People deserve to hear the real news, truth.
by Susie Lehto2 weeks ago
After THUMPING Clinton in Monday night’s debate, Trump headed to the sunshine state for a YUGE RALLY in Melbourne, Florida. (National poll has Trump 46.7% and Clinton 42.6%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/ )...
by Credence28 months ago
I reference the title as that of a book written by Dale Carnegie in the middle of the last century and was mandatory reading at our household when I was a kid. Folks are running away from being associated with the Trump...
by Susie Lehto4 months ago
O’Keefe went undercover at the DNC as a Hillary supporter that wants to break the glass ceiling, and Democrats were outraged with hate. I don't blame them one bit. You won't see anything like this on MSM,...
by Mike Russo3 months ago
Trump is not your normal candidate nor is he running a normal campaign. I know the word normal is relative, but in the world of campaigns, it is based on previous campaigns that had some sense of being normal with...
by Catherine Mostly11 months ago
I am really curious about what other women think; because I've only recently started paying attention to politics since the media is ramping up Trump so much, lately. Before that, I'm sorry... I was not even SORT of...
by GA Anderson15 months ago
I was not a Ben Carson cheerleader. I liked what I saw, but things were just starting.Now, I think his recent revelations about his violent actions when he was a kid have doomed him. Not necessarily because of the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.