Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 10-05-2019, 09:56 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
Becaise they see no value and no point in attempting to engage in good faith with the mob-mentality of the disingenuous (disingenous in their interaction towards dissent) supermajority of extremely like-minded posters with opposing poligical beliefs. This tiny minority of loud-mothed confrontational jerkish right wingers who dominate the voice of the right, *here* at the "San Francisco" of forums, doesnt represent the broader views of the conservative ideology/movement on a national level, this is true.

But why should those other conservatives who post on this board in non-political forums get sucked into time-wasting, head-bashing foolishness that never produces anything of value for *anyone* involved? Things such as trying to "correct the record" for all the left wingers here who may have been misinformed as to what the full spectrum of conservative ideology really encompassed. Ha. Theze posters may not enjoy seeing their belief/value systems being mis/incompletely portrayed by supposed allies. But it doesn't really make one shit of a difference overall because the *real* kings of mischaracterization and false portrayals of conservative positions *are the liberals here* who don't let legitimate debate ensue which may disrupt hive mind tranquility and equilibrium.

So basically, these handful of loud, not necessarily representative of the larger conservative philosophy posters, arent causing *any fucking harm whatsoever* to the ability of liberals here to gain a clearer, truer perspective on what it means to be conservative, because they were *never actually interested in a genuine discovery of truth in the first place*.
Absolute self-serving bullshit, but I guess it is a convenient excuse not to clean house.
  #102  
Old 10-05-2019, 09:57 AM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Absolute self-serving bullshit, but I guess it is a convenient excuse not to clean house.
Okely dokely neighborino.
  #103  
Old 10-05-2019, 09:59 AM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
Becaise they see no value and no point in attempting to engage in good faith with the mob-mentality of the disingenuous (disingenous in their interaction towards dissent) supermajority of extremely like-minded posters with opposing poligical beliefs. This tiny minority of loud-mothed confrontational jerkish right wingers who dominate the voice of the right, *here* at the "San Francisco" of forums, doesnt represent the broader views of the conservative ideology/movement on a national level, this is true.

But why should those other conservatives who post on this board in non-political forums get sucked into time-wasting, head-bashing foolishness that never produces anything of value for *anyone* involved? Things such as trying to "correct the record" for all the left wingers here who may have been misinformed as to what the full spectrum of conservative ideology really encompassed. Ha. Theze posters may not enjoy seeing their belief/value systems being mis/incompletely portrayed by supposed allies. But it doesn't really make one shit of a difference overall because the *real* kings of mischaracterization and false portrayals of conservative positions *are the liberals here* who don't let legitimate debate ensue which may disrupt hive mind tranquility and equilibrium.

So basically, these handful of loud, not necessarily representative of the larger conservative philosophy posters, arent causing *any fucking harm whatsoever* to the ability of liberals here to gain a clearer, truer perspective on what it means to be conservative, because they were *never actually interested in a genuine discovery of truth in the first place*.
Thank you for answering for me. Meant non-ironically, as especially the second paragraph mirrors what I would’ve said near perfectly. I might have added a “fuck you” to Czarcasm, for the “keeping your hands clean” comment, and the sad worldview which would give rise to such a comment.

Last edited by Isosleepy; 10-05-2019 at 10:00 AM.
  #104  
Old 10-05-2019, 09:59 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
But also, Trump is the social conservative that many have yearned for - someone who will say things like, "Men are discriminated against, Christians are discriminated against, etc." - because, let's be honest, to a certain extent, there is a considerable amount of anti-men-ism or anti-Christian-ism that goes on in America.
Here's the thing: When Trump's followers are so divorced from reality that they believe there is significant "anti-Christian-ism" in America, there's no way that they will deal with actual facts. The sort of 'persecution' that Christians complain about is that they can't put up monuments to their religion on government buildings without letting other religions put them up, can't force kids in school to pray to their religion, can't put up 'no gays' or 'no blacks' signs anymore (at least in some areas), can't refuse to provide lifesaving care to queer people if they're a medical provider, sometimes megachurches get forced to follow tax laws, and so on. Christians aren't stopped from practicing their religion, having their holy books banned or restricted, getting harassed for wearing religious symbols or garb, and the like. But they define 'not being allowed to oppress others as much any more' as some kind of horrible discrimination, and turn to the likes of Trump.
  #105  
Old 10-05-2019, 10:02 AM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Absolute self-serving bullshit, but I guess it is a convenient excuse not to clean house.
Czarcasm: just asking questions, then dismissively waving away the answers, for the better part of 2 decades.
  #106  
Old 10-05-2019, 10:09 AM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
I just want to be clear: i am 100% a full throated liberal. I guess I'd describe myself as maybe not so much a "dyed in the wool" liberal as a "cloaked in the wool as it is the best option to stay warm" liberal. Because if a better, warmer more comfortsble choice becomes available, i will be ready and able to shed that wool in favor of the better option.

Last edited by Ambivalid; 10-05-2019 at 10:11 AM.
  #107  
Old 10-05-2019, 10:12 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
Thank you for answering for me. Meant non-ironically, as especially the second paragraph mirrors what I wouldíve said near perfectly. I might have added a ďfuck youĒ to Czarcasm, for the ďkeeping your hands cleanĒ comment, and the sad worldview which would give rise to such a comment.
Do you know what a sad worldview is? Thinking that you are keeping your hands clean by stepping back and letting come what may because you just couldn't engage the old braincells enough to figure out that one side was most definitely worse than the other and that, if you couldn't find it in yourself to go for one candidate, you might at the very least fight against the other. I've got no more patience for conservatives that having nothing to say but "Don't blame us" when the shit is hitting the fan.
  #108  
Old 10-05-2019, 10:14 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
Czarcasm: just asking questions, then dismissively waving away the answers, for the better part of 2 decades.
I know the difference between an answer and an excuse.
  #109  
Old 10-05-2019, 10:38 AM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Do you know what a sad worldview is?
I would love to answer your questions, but unfortunately I donít feel like it.
  #110  
Old 10-05-2019, 10:45 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,066

For what it's worth...


Quote:
This message is hidden because WillFarnaby is on your ignore list.
WELCOME BACK!

I hope your hiatus was valuable and productive for you.
  #111  
Old 10-05-2019, 10:55 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
Way to read want you want into what ive written. This is silly and it doesn't address any of the points i made in my post. You've also sort of validated what you clearly haven't bothered to do more than briefly skim for buzzwords to latch onto and engage with in your usual provocative, unnecessairly aggressive and confrontational posting style.

And to answer, what do i think will happen if a bunch of non-existent people start examining and taking personal stock of their non-existent political beliefs? I think nothing will happen. Other a bunch of time will pass and a lot of circles will be jerked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
I took you to be saying there is a hive mind on the left. I don't know your history. Were you?

I find the "hive mind!" accusation more stifling of communication than any supposed hive mind of liberals agreeing with each other, (as if there's something weird about it.) It comes up as the default hive-like conservative response to any rhetorical problem they get into. Meaningless. Anyone can post here for free. People should make it good, and be honest, wherever you come from politically.
I don't care for the term "hive mind" very much. But istm that one doesn't need to be a radical reactionary to have an interest in the SDMB NOT being an echo chamber.
  #112  
Old 10-05-2019, 10:56 AM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
If you had the ability to go back in time to the 2016 election with all the knowledge you have today, would you still have abstained from voting?
So that is an incredibly difficult question. The easy answer is the one about not arguing the hypothetical. But that is a cop out (this time, anyway). I like to think that not voting when neither option is acceptable, could send a message to one or either party that there are a lot of votes to be had by adjusting the platform, ideally towards the center. But the actions on both sides donít especially make that a thought keeping me warm at night. So, the answer is: I might. Knowing what I know now, I might. But despite knowing how incredibly destructive Trump has been, I canít be sure. Thatís the best answer I can give. In 2020, I wonít vote Trump. I most likely wonít vote Pence. I might vote for the Democratic candidate, depending on who they are and what the platform is. Or I might again decide that in the polarized political landscape we have now, my voice gets lost. And that is fairly ironic: because when I first came to the US (from a multi-party constitutional monarchy, with parties ranging from neo-fascist to communist, with some single issue parties thrown in) I found the distinction between Democrats and Republicans largely artificial and not dissimilar to a taste test between Coke and Pepsi. My frame of reference has changed pretty significantly.
  #113  
Old 10-05-2019, 11:14 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
I did not. Not everyone falls neatly into the left/right pigeon holes. Some of the things important to me are traditionally conservative. Some are clearly liberal. I am nominally Republican, but not a very good one. I donít think Iíve ever voted a straight party ticket.

I didnít vote for Hillary either. I left it blank. At the time, neither candidate represented me, so fuck Ďm both.
Congratulations on your naturalization.

That said, have you noticed yet that this is a counter-productive move to make? The name of the game (at this point in history, at least) is to prevent the worst candidate from achieving the office, and NOT to install the one that "represent[s] me."

Welcome to America!
  #114  
Old 10-05-2019, 11:17 AM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
So that is an incredibly difficult question. The easy answer is the one about not arguing the hypothetical. But that is a cop out (this time, anyway). I like to think that not voting when neither option is acceptable, could send a message to one or either party that there are a lot of votes to be had by adjusting the platform, ideally towards the center. But the actions on both sides donít especially make that a thought keeping me warm at night. So, the answer is: I might. Knowing what I know now, I might. But despite knowing how incredibly destructive Trump has been, I canít be sure. Thatís the best answer I can give. In 2020, I wonít vote Trump. I most likely wonít vote Pence. I might vote for the Democratic candidate, depending on who they are and what the platform is. Or I might again decide that in the polarized political landscape we have now, my voice gets lost. And that is fairly ironic: because when I first came to the US (from a multi-party constitutional monarchy, with parties ranging from neo-fascist to communist, with some single issue parties thrown in) I found the distinction between Democrats and Republicans largely artificial and not dissimilar to a taste test between Coke and Pepsi. My frame of reference has changed pretty significantly.
Bolding mine. Um What?

Eh... IMHO, not voting only sends the message that you don't care. Your voice is not lost by voting. It is lost when you don't.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #115  
Old 10-05-2019, 11:25 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Pence is the Scum who forced Indiana women to ultrasound and hold expensive funerals for their fetuses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
What.....??
Mostly FALSE, apparently. The law did mandate treating all fetal tissue as "deceased human remains" rather than as medical waste (irrespective of whether the tissue was generated by an abortion or a miscarriage), but the burden of paying for the cremation or burial was to fall upon the facility that provided the abortion (or treated the woman who had miscarried).

And in the case of miscarriage, the parents were given the choice* of holding, at their own expense, funeral services (apparently based on the presumption that, at least sometimes, the parents had wanted to bring this pregnancy to term and raise a child).

*It often appears that many people (on both sides) either overlook or downplay the fact that having a baby is also a choice.
  #116  
Old 10-05-2019, 11:29 AM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
Or I might again decide that in the polarized political landscape we have now, my voice gets lost.
But this polarization is almost entirely due to the Republicans. First because they've moved to the right far more than the Democrats have moved to the left. Secondly because they don't give any reason to work with the other side because they don't cooperate at all (while of course projecting this intransigence onto the Democrats.) Thirdly because of their gerrymandering, those seats the Democrats do hold are quite safe and so there is no reason to pander to the center.

In the past couple years there has been some movement to the left that cannot be entirely explained by these factors, but since the Democrats don't currently have power to accomplish their agenda and the GOP will not work with them, it doesn't make a difference how far to the left they are: the first thing we need to do is sweep the GOP out of office.
  #117  
Old 10-05-2019, 11:34 AM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Ok. Thanks for the informative answer. I wanted to address one or two things. Maybe im failing to grasp some important abstract pronciple here or something but i am aghast that after living thru the past three years of Trump sinhlehandedly transforming America into the world's bratty 8 year old kid who still breast feeds and shits his pants, a citizen of this country could be indecisive as to whether, if given another chance, they would give zero votes to Trump or 0.5 votes. What are you debating in your head?

You seem to be disappointingly resorting to the old tired Republican tactic of false equivalency. No, there is no room at the responsible adults table for suggestions that a Hillary Clinton Presidency would have somehow interchangeable in terms of the corruption, incompetence and utter thumbing of noses to institutional mores and customs. You say such things, you should get laughed out of the discussion.

And you still arent sure whether you'll give a half of a vote to Trumps reelection or not? What am i missing here? How could you be so seemingly blase about such a historic institutional threat like a Donald Trump second term? How could you be *debating* the merits of being a potential ally or not?

I dont mean to spund like im coming down so hard on you. Ive always respected you as a poster, even if half the time we're on opposite sides of an issue. You usually have reasons that make sense for why you hold the pisitions you hold. So im not rushing to the judgment that you *are* necessarily uninterested or blase about the threat of a Trump re-election. Im going to assume that you are fully informed of these threats. I just dont see a path i can follow from that knowledge to your words here. So i assume i must be missing something pr misunderstanding part of your post.
  #118  
Old 10-05-2019, 12:01 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Double enchilada

Last edited by Ambivalid; 10-05-2019 at 12:02 PM.
  #119  
Old 10-05-2019, 12:20 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Here's the thing: When Trump's followers are so divorced from reality that they believe there is significant "anti-Christian-ism" in America, there's no way that they will deal with actual facts. The sort of 'persecution' that Christians complain about is that they can't put up monuments to their religion on government buildings without letting other religions put them up, can't force kids in school to pray to their religion, can't put up 'no gays' or 'no blacks' signs anymore (at least in some areas), can't refuse to provide lifesaving care to queer people if they're a medical provider, sometimes megachurches get forced to follow tax laws, and so on. Christians aren't stopped from practicing their religion, having their holy books banned or restricted, getting harassed for wearing religious symbols or garb, and the like. But they define 'not being allowed to oppress others as much any more' as some kind of horrible discrimination, and turn to the likes of Trump.

The impression I get is that the anger stems from a perception that there is a "punch-up vs. punch-down" double standard. For instance, if a politician or Hollywood celebrity were to make fun of Christianity, there are few, if any consequences that such a person would suffer - but if that same politician or celebrity were to make fun of Islam, they'd be instantly lambasted as "Islamophobic."
  #120  
Old 10-05-2019, 12:31 PM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
Ok. Thanks for the informative answer. I wanted to address one or two things. Maybe im failing to grasp some important abstract pronciple here or something but i am aghast that after living thru the past three years of Trump sinhlehandedly transforming America into the world's bratty 8 year old kid who still breast feeds and shits his pants, a citizen of this country could be indecisive as to whether, if given another chance, they would give zero votes to Trump or 0.5 votes. What are you debating in your head?

You seem to be disappointingly resorting to the old tired Republican tactic of false equivalency. No, there is no room at the responsible adults table for suggestions that a Hillary Clinton Presidency would have somehow interchangeable in terms of the corruption, incompetence and utter thumbing of noses to institutional mores and customs. You say such things, you should get laughed out of the discussion.

And you still arent sure whether you'll give a half of a vote to Trumps reelection or not? What am i missing here? How could you be so seemingly blase about such a historic institutional threat like a Donald Trump second term? How could you be *debating* the merits of being a potential ally or not?

I dont mean to spund like im coming down so hard on you. Ive always respected you as a poster, even if half the time we're on opposite sides of an issue. You usually have reasons that make sense for why you hold the pisitions you hold. So im not rushing to the judgment that you *are* necessarily uninterested or blase about the threat of a Trump re-election. Im going to assume that you are fully informed of these threats. I just dont see a path i can follow from that knowledge to your words here. So i assume i must be missing something pr misunderstanding part of your post.
The easy answer wouldíve been that I would vote for Hillary. But unlike some (many) I believe voting for someone is an expression of agreement with them as a person and (much of) the platform they run on. And at the time, Hillary didnít clear that bar for me. So then it becomes deciding between the concept of needing to agree to a decent extent with the person you vote for, or some strategy to minimize damage. Fortunately, in this country I can still, for now, make that determination and act on it as I see fit. In this particular (still hypothetical) example, going back with hindsight, Iím saying I donít know. If you were to ask me to choose between eating a shit sandwich and being castrated with a rusty chainsaw, Iíd probabl give the same answer, even if one of them has fewer long-term consequences and is at first sight less severe.
  #121  
Old 10-05-2019, 12:59 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
The easy answer would’ve been that I would vote for Hillary. But unlike some (many) I believe voting for someone is an expression of agreement with them as a person and (much of) the platform they run on. And at the time, Hillary didn’t clear that bar for me. So then it becomes deciding between the concept of needing to agree to a decent extent with the person you vote for, or some strategy to minimize damage. Fortunately, in this country I can still, for now, make that determination and act on it as I see fit. In this particular (still hypothetical) example, going back with hindsight, I’m saying I don’t know. If you were to ask me to choose between eating a shit sandwich and being castrated with a rusty chainsaw, I’d probabl give the same answer, even if one of them has fewer long-term consequences and is at first sight less severe.
But to characterize the choice betweeen Clinton or Trump as a choice between eating a shit sandwich or being castrated with a rusty chainsaw is *more bogus false equivalence* and you know that. I cannot accept that as a good faith position. Cannot.

A more apt comparison would be deciding between being castrated with a rusty chainsaw, or developing a mild UTI for a couple weeks. Or in other words, *no decision necessary*, because not a single person, if no other outside influences were present, would *ever* choose to permanently, grotesquely and painfully disfigure themselves rather than deal with 10-14 days of *potential* mild unpleasentness.

And correct me if im wrong but arent you still undecided as to whether you are going to participate in the upcoming 2020 election, even tho you know for pretty much a certainty that Trump will be seeking re-election? I dont understand how you wouldnt feel a bit of individual responsibility,, as small as it may be, to do all thst is in your piwer to ensure that Trump is by one means or another, a one term President.

Last edited by Ambivalid; 10-05-2019 at 01:01 PM.
  #122  
Old 10-05-2019, 01:00 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The impression I get is that the anger stems from a perception that there is a "punch-up vs. punch-down" double standard. For instance, if a politician or Hollywood celebrity were to make fun of Christianity, there are few, if any consequences that such a person would suffer - but if that same politician or celebrity were to make fun of Islam, they'd be instantly lambasted as "Islamophobic."


Am I to understand that punching up and punching down are morally identical? If not, please clarify.* TIA.

*(and if so, please explicitly state so, and provide the reason(s) you believe this to be the case, and why I would be ethnically and morally justified in also believing it. TIA )
  #123  
Old 10-05-2019, 01:19 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
The fundamental error here is trying to figure out the conservatives who support Trump. Trump got elected because a lot of rust-belt blue collar workers, who until then had been one of the most reliable Democratic voters (and vote organizers!) voted for him.
They voted for him not out of deeply held conservative beliefs (beliefs the man doesnít have anyway). They voted for him because their way of life was (is!) under threat. They will likely not retire from a job paying 40 bucks an hour and with Union protection. Their kids certainly will not have that opportunity. Their way of life is evaporating. At the same time, the white middle aged male subsection of that contingent (a significant portion of the group) is being told they are and have been quite privileged, and it is implied or outright said, that it is time for them to hand over some of that privilege. Trump, by pushing every doorbell on the 50 floor apartment building of politics, hit on these issues, and rode them home.

Now itís 3 years later. These people identified with him. They have been listening to media so thinly sliced that they will only ever hear stuff that aligns with their thinking. It is natural to have an us-vs- them mindset, especially if the other side is helping with the rhetoric for same. They may genuinely believe that the alternative to Trump is the end of the world. Good luck getting them back: moving further left isnít going to get it done.

Another portion of the Trump voters are the religious right, they will vote for whoever the republican candidate is, no matter what, unless they advocate pro-choice policies.

Conservatives or Republicans who see Trump for what he is, donít have much of an alternative. Some of us will write-in Bob Dole next election, if the man is still alive. And some of us will vote D, depending on the candidate.
How do attach voting for trump with union protections that are under threat, or lost?

The Rs and cons have been attacking unions for decades with great success and publicity. It was never a secret. Their union position is in the basic DNA of each party.

Why do you think that moving left is impossible? What is the factor that fixes them to their spot?
  #124  
Old 10-05-2019, 01:39 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The impression I get is that the anger stems from a perception that there is a "punch-up vs. punch-down" double standard. For instance, if a politician or Hollywood celebrity were to make fun of Christianity, there are few, if any consequences that such a person would suffer - but if that same politician or celebrity were to make fun of Islam, they'd be instantly lambasted as "Islamophobic."
This highlights what I mean about people being divorced from reality, despite the constant claims by conservatives that they're the level-headed 'real world' people. Politicians who make fun of Christianity generally don't get elected. Can you name anyone holding national office who makes fun of Christianity and holds their seat? Or even State level office (I'm sure there are some in local offices, but that's a really low bar)? Meanwhile there are plenty of (mostly Republican) congresspeople who denigrate and make fun of various non-Christian groups routinely, and the president of the US constantly denigrates Islam.

The weird double standard where on one hand politicians up to the president don't just 'make fun of' non-christians, but actively discuss how they're bad (in addition to the occasional mockery) and attempt to implement laws and policies to hurt them, exclude them, and prevent them from practicing their religion, but on the other hand Christians are the real opressed group because, a politician might be able to make a joke about them and still get elected.

Also cranking the snowflakeness up to 10 to whine that you're oppressed because someone might call you Islamophobic when that's how you act while telling other people they're snowflakes if they object to actual slurs is similarly impressive. Especially when your original post and their position is that the libs are a bunch of whiny snowflakes who should stop with all of this PC bullshit and are glad to have someone in the White House 'telling it like it is'. It appears that what you and your ilk really want is 'to be able to insult queers, gays, muslims, foreigners, and all of those people whenever and however we want, to discriminate against them, assault them, kick them out of the country without anyone ever objecting, while forbidding people saying anything at all untoward about our sick, twisted perversion of Christianity, and to call ourselves oppressed if someone ever complains about anything we do'.
  #125  
Old 10-05-2019, 01:54 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post


Am I to understand that punching up and punching down are morally identical? If not, please clarify.* TIA.

*(and if so, please explicitly state so, and provide the reason(s) you believe this to be the case, and why I would be ethnically and morally justified in also believing it. TIA )
How about donít punch?
  #126  
Old 10-05-2019, 02:46 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The impression I get is that the anger stems from a perception that there is a "punch-up vs. punch-down" double standard. For instance, if a politician or Hollywood celebrity were to make fun of Christianity, there are few, if any consequences that such a person would suffer - but if that same politician or celebrity were to make fun of Islam, they'd be instantly lambasted as "Islamophobic."
A Hollywood celebrity - or one from anywhere else, I suppose - might get away with it, but a politician? In the United States? Not a chance.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #127  
Old 10-05-2019, 04:06 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
How about donít punch?
You hippy.
  #128  
Old 10-05-2019, 04:22 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
How about donít punch?
No potty fists *or* potty mouths.
  #129  
Old 10-05-2019, 05:21 PM
anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Thank you divemaster ! You and I would find much to agree on — I also thought TPP was a good idea — even though I'm an agnostic social moderate. I support Women's Choice but would rather leave this to the states than have the Federal Roe v Wade. We'd find much to disagree on, but it sounds like we'd unify against putting criminals in charge!

You support Pence. What do you think of allegations that Pence participated in the criminal dialog with Ukraine?



Thanks anomalous1 ! I think many of your ideas are mistaken, but you seem righteous and sincere. It would be good to have a polite debate with you. Your comments confirm what I and others worry about — that social progressivism is pushing some voters into the arms of the right-wing.

Even some R's now agree that Trump's call to Ukraine was criminal, and that he should be removed from office. How do you feel about that?


Hive mind? Gulags? Oh right, you're the oaf that Googled "left-wing" and found a Biden=Stalin equation or some such.

You're welcome to make posts which aren't content-free, if you're capable of it, commenting on the Ukraine criminal or whatever. Meanwhile: how's the weather where you are? Got your doorknob fixed yet?



In the 0.99999... = 1 debate you'd be the guy arguing that 0.99999... = 43. In a physics thread you'd complain that quarks are enslaving leptons and that Van der Waals force wouldn't exist if the statists hadn't used violence. Welcome back!

Thank you! I am sincere. Trump's call was of questionable legality (fancy for he should not have done it) but behavior was questionable on the other end as well, but the ends do not justify the means in any case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeweyLogan View Post
Damn fine Post #84, anomalous1. I was reading along going '..yep, yep, yep. Nailed it'.

For me at least. Thanks!
Thanks. It really is just how it went. How it was interpreted for myself and which way the wind blew.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
Except that's a right wing propaganda line, deliberately created during the Reagan administration to deflect attention from their lies. The media is and always has been overwhelmingly right wing, and more so all the time.

Ah, libertarians; "anarchists who want police protection from their slaves". Parasites who feed off of society and expect that society to protect them from their victims, who think the only proper function of government is to serve as iron boots to stomp the underclass down.

Like the rest of his supporters, your motivation is malice. You support bigotry, rape, torture, tyranny and murder. Every time somebody browner than you suffers, it is a victory for you. You are the exact opposite of fair minded; you are cruel and bigoted.

Not a single decent human being voted for Trump, because voting for Trump automatically disqualifies someone as a decent human being.
How many times must we have this discussion? Your reply is the exact attitude that is pushing people toward the Right, and the absolute reason why so many loathe the new Left Wing. Thank you for making my point. FYI Your stereotyping of a large group of people is contraindicated for your progressive political disposition. You completely made Shodan's point, telling someone else what they believe. He is absolutely correct. I really don't understand how you have really lost your sense of reality. Your post is frighteningly ignorant, stereotypical, disparaging and illogical to the point that it almost seems contrived and issued just to make my point. Give the propaganda a rest, please.

Last edited by anomalous1; 10-05-2019 at 05:23 PM. Reason: Things and Stuff
  #130  
Old 10-05-2019, 05:34 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The impression I get is that the anger stems from a perception that there is a "punch-up vs. punch-down" double standard. For instance, if a politician or Hollywood celebrity were to make fun of Christianity, there are few, if any consequences that such a person would suffer - but if that same politician or celebrity were to make fun of Islam, they'd be instantly lambasted as "Islamophobic."
Pray tell who has made fun of Christianity - which is not the same as making fun of creationist fundamentalist morons, who don't own Christianity.
I think people make fun of Saudi restrictions on women's liberty, which is also not the same as making fun of Islam.
  #131  
Old 10-05-2019, 05:41 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
How about donít punch?
Fox News is becoming a good safe space. They are reminding their audience every 10 minutes or so that there are people who are really being mean to the president and they are punching him so much that it's not fair.

"Not fair..."

"Stop punching him and being so mean!!"

Can conservatives reflect on this reality having something to do with their movement? Or are they afraid to be real for even one second?
  #132  
Old 10-05-2019, 05:42 PM
anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
But, what it is looking to be then is that the swing actually ended confirming a lot of what the ones on the other side (and even conservatives that looked at Trump) warned you about.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevede.../#425561922713


Turns out that one point of accusing others of crying wolf, (the critics of economic injustice, racism, etc) misses one point of the story. That there was a wolf, just like in the original tale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

H. L. Mencken

Thanks for the link, but it is filled with fallacies that ignore typical economic cycles, and how one decision has a cascading effect that may rebound as well. Even the arguments against a wall are poorly constructed and are outright based on weasel words. The entire segment about immigration and it's impacts is unbelievably short sighted.

Just a small example of fallacious argument from just one small paragraph. "There is no significant evidence of terrorists or drugs entering illegally through the Southern border. Most of the illegal immigrants and drugs coming into the country come in through legal points of entry."

I highlight two weasel words. and the last part about legal points of entry... now if that is true, what is the alternative? Criticize it without doing anything? Or improve the barrier and system as a whole. Legal entry or not, illicit goods/smuggling are invariably coming from one direction in majority. It is not as much Canada or from The Pacific or Atlantic, So is the article suggesting we do nothing? Do not try to improve the situation? Leave it as is, with all of its flaws and restrict security through legal points so nothing comes through but have no wall? Where do you think it will wind up coming through? If people cannot get in legally, where would they come in? What is the purpose of the statement (of the likes, the article is filled, in respect to illogical arguments).

The author of that article should be ashamed of himself.


As for the Mencken quote, it works both ways.
  #133  
Old 10-05-2019, 05:49 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The OP is rather vague, I'm not quite sure what you are wanting here. As a fiscal liberal but social conservative who voted third party in 2016, I'll give it a stab:


Many Republicans have yearned for someone like Trump, but what they really want is someone like him, but not quite him (but even they themselves don't realize it.) They want someone who boldly stands up and tells the politically incorrect offensive truth. But Trump isn't the 3D chess player they want - he is not a highly intelligent, cunning, savvy strategist - his brain's thought process is "six fireflies blinking randomly in a jar," as a NY Times editorial put it. But he sounds close enough to what they want, that they thought he was what they want.

But also, Trump is the social conservative that many have yearned for - someone who will say things like, "Men are discriminated against, Christians are discriminated against, etc." - because, let's be honest, to a certain extent, there is a considerable amount of anti-men-ism or anti-Christian-ism that goes on in America. And when conservatives found someone who actually scratched that mental itch for them - Trump - the relief and joy he gave them was so intense that they'd go to any extent and do anything for him. It was almost indescribable delight - finally, someone who speaks for us! Many liberals are utterly baffled and confounded by the zeal of this passion - why Trump scratches the itch of these conservatives so satisfyingly. Because everyone wants a leader who they think speaks for them. But even Trump isn't a truly zealous social conservative; he more or less figured out how to scratch these people's itch for political gain.
The nature and extent of that itch is the thing to explore. anti-menism and anti-christianism is something that needs explanation to say the least.

If the itch is based on identity then, well that's identity politics. If those on the right can partake of this identity politics while basing their politics on anti-indentity politics, well doesn't it need more study?
  #134  
Old 10-05-2019, 05:54 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius View Post
I am a small c, New England, William F. Buckley conservative.
I have no fucking idea what the current Republican party is thinking. Their actions do not align with anything I have held to be conservative values.
Tax cuts, extreme law and order, right wing judges. They are chasing the same conservative gold rings they have forever.

There was no body snatcher moment when the party switched. It became this while conservatives watched.
  #135  
Old 10-05-2019, 05:57 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Not on the SDMB, no. You guys can't stand to read it - you feel the immediate need to substitute what you think (so to speak) and then rant against that.

Besides, it isn't necessary - there is no shortage of posters who will tell me what I think no matter what I say.

Regards,
Shodan
This is illogical to me. You can write it no matter what we do with it. and secondly, telling you what you think is not what you want from others, so it is sarcastic, but not to the OP.
  #136  
Old 10-05-2019, 05:58 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
But it's what the OP was gonna get no matter what.

Like I said, threads like the OP get mostly two kinds of responses - liberals telling other liberals what conservatives really think, and liberals telling conservatives what conservatives really think.

If thoughtful reflection were going to come from such a poisoned well as the OP, Bone would not have moved it to the Pit. Yet here we are.

Regards,
Shodan
Can you cite another thread like this one? (Check the title)
  #137  
Old 10-05-2019, 06:33 PM
D_Odds is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queens
Posts: 12,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Bolding mine. Um What?

Eh... IMHO, not voting only sends the message that you don't care. Your voice is not lost by voting. It is lost when you don't.
In many parts of the US, that's BS. Certainly it is in my part. Because I don't register with either party, I don't get to vote in primaries, and after the primaries, the general election in my area is simply a rubber stamp. I still vote - despite thinking "there had to have been better choices than Clinton and Sanders", I pulled the knob for Clinton, but it didn't give me a voice. And NYC is not unique in this. If one is a liberal in Wyoming or Oklahoma, one's voice isn't being heard when one votes blue. Voting or not voting will have the same effect, even often at the most local levels.
__________________
The problem with political jokes is that they get elected
  #138  
Old 10-05-2019, 07:18 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
I would also like to say I actually wholly endorse and echo nearly everything Velocity said. Very well said!

Ambivalid makes a very strong and good argument as well.


Well I'll keep up with the OP here.

I'll start out with personal anecdotes, and a little history. I had been left leaning for most of my life, most of the friendships I've had throughout my life were with left-leaners/Democrats. While I've always payed attention to the political arena, and wanted some change, the complacency and ineptitude of career politicians bothered me. I voted for Obama in his first term hoping for that. I was very disappointed. More ineffectual, what was I thinking voting for some Chicago Politician, I should've known better being born and raised in the same city.

I started getting disturbed about how many people I knew personally and of that were voting left-wing because it was the "cool thing to do" rather than actually knowing anything even elementary about politics. I wondered where they got their ideas from, what motivated them. TV. Media. 90% of it was left wing. The teachers, the bands/concerts, the college instructors, the newspapers.

This was saturating people with only one sided ideas. I decided to think for myself, look up different media sources, as well as those from other countries, read different books and compare fact vs. fiction, plausible vs. implausible, and perhaps most importantly, common sense. and I came to find myself as a libertarian. I believe in charity, but towing your own weight, less regulation, free thinking, free speech, right to defense. I decided that the policies conjured by the left were in the realm and fantasy and were not feasible, repeating the same mistakes repeated elsewhere in the 19th century. I decided that I didn't like Democracy as they defined it. I realized that I live in a Republic. Then I decided I do not like many Conservatives for their evangelical on sided thinking that infringed on free speech, I did not like Republicans (the NeoCon RINO's) who caved to the pressures of the other side of the aisle and wanted to push shit like the PATRIOT ACT. I found where I fit, libertarian ("Don't fuck with me, I won't fuck with you, and I don't owe you SHIT!")

As for voting for Trump, I never thought I would.

It was fully reinforced and pushed me further to the right when the Obama era racial obsessions of the media began to unnerve me. It culminated with them almost saying outright "White Male Heterosexuals Are Evil" to today where it is plainly said without reservation, where illusions and logical fallacies such as "white privilege".

I noticed what it started to become, using race to start arguments and calling someone racist to end them/when the argument wasn't going as intended. I noticed that the media (not just the news) and college professors were actually supportive of radical ideas such as forcefully taking money from those who earned it, and giving it to those who did not. I noticed that Merit was no longer existent. I started noticing people could not take a joke, so bored with their lives they look for a reason to complain. Political Correctness, a poison to society, went unchecked.

This is where I, a normally fair minded person, one who would actually get along with everyone on this message board, who would give the "shirt off his back" (if you can accept that cliche) to someone in need and always practiced being an egalitarian....... voted for Trump. The pendulum had to swing the other way to even it out.
If you would say that 90% of the media is left wing and that people vote that way because it's cool, then you probably would not be inclined to reflect about the conservative/trump nexus. You already are on record here as saying or else implying that the real problems in the US in 2019 are liberals, Obama, and political correctness. Is this really a deep enough dive into your own state of mind? That's the end of it?
  #139  
Old 10-05-2019, 07:44 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
But to characterize the choice betweeen Clinton or Trump as a choice between eating a shit sandwich or being castrated with a rusty chainsaw is *more bogus false equivalence* and you know that. I cannot accept that as a good faith position. Cannot.
Indeed, it cannot be good faith, and there will be a moment of truth in this country when there is a test of righteousness, at which time we shall decide who is worthy of citizenship and liberty, and who is not, and those who posit such anti-factuals should be incarcerated and reeducated.
  #140  
Old 10-05-2019, 08:00 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
Thanks for the link, but it is filled with fallacies that ignore typical economic cycles, and how one decision has a cascading effect that may rebound as well. Even the arguments against a wall are poorly constructed and are outright based on weasel words. The entire segment about immigration and it's impacts is unbelievably short sighted.

Just a small example of fallacious argument from just one small paragraph. "There is no significant evidence of terrorists or drugs entering illegally through the Southern border. Most of the illegal immigrants and drugs coming into the country come in through legal points of entry."

I highlight two weasel words. and the last part about legal points of entry... now if that is true, what is the alternative? Criticize it without doing anything? Or improve the barrier and system as a whole. Legal entry or not, illicit goods/smuggling are invariably coming from one direction in majority. It is not as much Canada or from The Pacific or Atlantic, So is the article suggesting we do nothing? Do not try to improve the situation? Leave it as is, with all of its flaws and restrict security through legal points so nothing comes through but have no wall? Where do you think it will wind up coming through? If people cannot get in legally, where would they come in? What is the purpose of the statement (of the likes, the article is filled, in respect to illogical arguments).

The author of that article should be ashamed of himself.


As for the Mencken quote, it works both ways.
Do you want a wall on the whole southern border?

I can't help but think of the gun situation as a comparison. People make the arguments all the time that: knives kill too; and most of all that: criminals will get guns anyway, so ergo there should not be an atttempt to reduce the guns in the street. They avoid the issue of trying to make the situation better at all. For instance in making it harder to get a gun, that may reduce incidents. They just deny this aspect of reality. This is because they are against any law around guns no matter what, period.

Here you seem to be saying that there is such a big problem on the SB that the wall is critical to the nations security. (You are placing it up with the emergency of having trump in the white house itself for instance to someone like me, I am assuming? You won't truck with lies about it.) I honestly don't see it. What state are you in? How much are you focused on illegal immigration in your world view?

Where are you on regulating firearms?
  #141  
Old 10-05-2019, 08:39 PM
anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Do you want a wall on the whole southern border?

I can't help but think of the gun situation as a comparison. People make the arguments all the time that: knives kill too; and most of all that: criminals will get guns anyway, so ergo there should not be an atttempt to reduce the guns in the street. They avoid the issue of trying to make the situation better at all. For instance in making it harder to get a gun, that may reduce incidents. They just deny this aspect of reality. This is because they are against any law around guns no matter what, period.

Here you seem to be saying that there is such a big problem on the SB that the wall is critical to the nations security. (You are placing it up with the emergency of having trump in the white house itself for instance to someone like me, I am assuming? You won't truck with lies about it.) I honestly don't see it. What state are you in? How much are you focused on illegal immigration in your world view?

Where are you on regulating firearms?
That was actually not my stance per se, I was just showing how ineffective and illogical that article was by pointing out flaws in the logic of the arguments.

Simply put, I do agree with a wall,limited capacity. In that respect the article may have been right about symbolism. The wall means to secure our borders (plural) much more than they were before and/or upgrade existing infrastructure. If there was as much of an issue on the coasts or toward Canada, I would be for this as well. This is for purely economic reasons and reasons of merit more so than for security. Let me reinforce that, unlike the media portrayal and Trump saying dumb shit, it actually has nothing to do with race. Simply put, The U.S. economy may or may not be helped by it, but it will absolutely help people who are legal american citizens get employment opportunities first. This is better due to a more thorough collection of taxes, better measurement of GDP, and economic stimulus from within. Second point. Why should those who enter illegally get to stay, when those with more skills and therefore would stimulate the economy more so than not, have to wait years to emigrate? Nobody likes cutting in line. Third, Security risks and drug flow issues, those speak for themselves. That is it, cut and dry. I've been offered theories countering those arguments but they absolutely cannot gain independence from being a theory. Not convinced otherwise.

As my stance and many conservatives on Gun Control its absolute in most cases, the same reason we abhor political correctness, because it inhibits the First Amendment, we Abhor excessive gun control because it counters the 2nd Amendment. The Amendments are absolute and one could debate about the space or commas between the rest and "BEAR ARMS" but it is widely agreed now and throughout U.S. history that is the proper interpretation. I do believe in background checks and prohibition in cases of mental illness, criminal behavior etc.

The rest is up to local and state level Law Enforcement on how to proceed with prevention of suicides, and to find and punish those who use firearms illicitly. They are kept for Personal/Home/National Defense (Local and Nationally, Ready for a State or Federal Militia to utilize them and the citizens who own them in case of Insurrection or Invasion) as well as hunting, and sport, collectible hobbies.

That being said, very open to sets of restriction if one can absolutely prove that Help will arrive immediately during a home invasion, complete assurance of an infallible military, no invasion potential, no potential or civil insurrection or a government who turns on its citizens. If those could be ruled out and if Gun Control laws could be proven very effective (Take Chicago for example...very ineffective just like other major gun control areas) then I would absolutely agree with more restrictions, otherwise I must take a utilitarian/assurance stance on the matter.

I hope that helps. I really do like these types of conversation, as I've said, the best discussions go on in The Pit, because it is largely uninhibited thought, no formality. Real.
  #142  
Old 10-06-2019, 01:18 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
Just a small example of fallacious argument from just one small paragraph. "There is no significant evidence of terrorists or drugs entering illegally through the Southern border. Most of the illegal immigrants and drugs coming into the country come in through legal points of entry."

I highlight two weasel words. and the last part about legal points of entry... now if that is true, what is the alternative? Criticize it without doing anything? Or improve the barrier and system as a whole. Legal entry or not, illicit goods/smuggling are invariably coming from one direction in majority. It is not as much Canada or from The Pacific or Atlantic, So is the article suggesting we do nothing? Do not try to improve the situation? Leave it as is, with all of its flaws and restrict security through legal points so nothing comes through but have no wall? Where do you think it will wind up coming through? If people cannot get in legally, where would they come in? What is the purpose of the statement (of the likes, the article is filled, in respect to illogical arguments).

The author of that article should be ashamed of himself.
What to do about it is pretty obvious. Take the money that was asked for for the worthless wall and use it to better interdict drugs at legal crossings. I suspect that both parties would agree to that.
Building a wall, and making it harder for legitimate refugees to come, shows what is really behind the Trump position - racism.
I rather suspect if white people were fleeing oppression he'd have no problem letting them in.
  #143  
Old 10-06-2019, 01:47 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,799
Hi, anomalous1 ! The Wall seems to be one of the major points for which you appreciate Donald Trump. I'd be interested in your comments on the claim that Trump didn't like the idea of a Wall until he heard an uproarious crowd applaud it. (Sorry, I'm not going to Google for specific cites that prior to 2014 Trump thought Wall a stupid idea, though IIRC they exist.)

The link above briefly summarizes and links to a N.Y. Times article.
Quote:
President Trumpís promise to build a wall on the southwestern border was a memory trick for an undisciplined candidate.

As Mr. Trump began exploring a presidential run in 2014, his political advisers landed on the idea of a border wall as a mnemonic device of sorts, a way to make sure their candidate ó who hated reading from a script but loved boasting about himself and his talents as a builder ó would remember to talk about getting tough on immigration, which was to be a signature issue in his nascent campaign.
...
Talk Mr. Trump did, and the line drew rapturous cheers from conservative audiences, thrilling the candidate and soon becoming a staple of campaign speeches. Chants of ďBuild the wall!Ē echoed through arenas throughout the country.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On a separate matter, many are disappointed by Trump's crimes and frauds: Trump University etc. What about illegal use of the now-shuttered Trump Foundation? (While others focus on the millions of dollars stolen from that Foundation, I'm more struck by the pettiness of using that charity to pay Donald Junior's $7 Boy Scouts registration fee.)

I'm interested, anomalous1, in whether you think Trump is a criminal. If so, what are your views on his crime? So far, we've seen this:
Quote:
Trump's call was of questionable legality (fancy for he should not have done it) but behavior was questionable on the other end as well, but the ends do not justify the means in any case.
Ambiguous. Anyway, who is "the other end"?
  #144  
Old 10-06-2019, 05:17 AM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,657
Conservatives can and will run whomever they chose in the next election. If they run Trump, that will be their informed choice that they want a populist goon rather than an Eisenhower conservative. The next election will be their chance to re-set their party. If they chose not to do so, they will be confirming the worst.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #145  
Old 10-06-2019, 11:32 AM
Guest-starring: Id!'s Avatar
Guest-starring: Id! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,215
divemaster mentioned that his family were Trump supporters and got me wondering if conservative friends/other relatives/co-workers/other people around him have gotten increasingly Trumpy over the past couple years.

Also curious what takes other posters like Bone or aruvqan might have on OP.

Um,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
...and those who posit such anti-factuals should be incarcerated and reeducated.
Damn rights they'll get taken care of.
  #146  
Old 10-06-2019, 12:06 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
Thanks for the link, but it is filled with fallacies that ignore typical economic cycles, and how one decision has a cascading effect that may rebound as well. Even the arguments against a wall are poorly constructed and are outright based on weasel words. The entire segment about immigration and it's impacts is unbelievably short sighted.

Just a small example of fallacious argument from just one small paragraph. "There is no significant evidence of terrorists or drugs entering illegally through the Southern border. Most of the illegal immigrants and drugs coming into the country come in through legal points of entry."

I highlight two weasel words. and the last part about legal points of entry... now if that is true, what is the alternative?
You actually think that it is weaseling because it does not point at an alternative? The point stands, it is true.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ll/2591279002/

Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
Criticize it without doing anything?
As the guy from a conservative magazine points out:

"The explanation of the problems [from Trump] is inevitably that some groups, in conspiracy with a corrupt elite, are responsible for them."

And that is one of the main items in the article, you are actually trying to assume that there are no implications on that, such as asking experts on the matter on what to do instead of real weasels that do mislead the president.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news...-staying-power

Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
Or improve the barrier and system as a whole. Legal entry or not, illicit goods/smuggling are invariably coming from one direction in majority. It is not as much Canada or from The Pacific or Atlantic, So is the article suggesting we do nothing? Do not try to improve the situation? Leave it as is, with all of its flaws and restrict security through legal points so nothing comes through but have no wall? Where do you think it will wind up coming through? If people cannot get in legally, where would they come in? What is the purpose of the statement (of the likes, the article is filled, in respect to illogical arguments).

The author of that article should be ashamed of himself.
Nope, the real shame is seeing using one's intelligence to concentrate on a red herring, and that avoidance of the points made by just looking at a straw man is the real weaseling here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
As for the Mencken quote, it works both ways.
And with many anomalous guys...

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-06-2019 at 12:07 PM.
  #147  
Old 10-06-2019, 12:34 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
That was actually not my stance per se, I was just showing how ineffective and illogical that article was by pointing out flaws in the logic of the arguments.

...
I hope that helps. I really do like these types of conversation, as I've said, the best discussions go on in The Pit, because it is largely uninhibited thought, no formality. ...

Real.
Well that was what is known as a "tell" isn't it?
  #148  
Old 10-06-2019, 07:47 PM
divemaster's Avatar
divemaster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Gainesville, VA
Posts: 3,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Thank you divemaster ! You and I would find much to agree on ó I also thought TPP was a good idea ó even though I'm an agnostic social moderate. I support Women's Choice but would rather leave this to the states than have the Federal Roe v Wade. We'd find much to disagree on, but it sounds like we'd unify against putting criminals in charge!

You support Pence. What do you think of allegations that Pence participated in the criminal dialog with Ukraine?
It's not so much that "I support Pence." I'm pointing out what type of conservative I could support. A "pre-Trumo Pence" I believe I said. And that was based on cursory knowledge. I'm not in his state and have had no reason to really delve into hie entire political history/philosophy. But on the face of it, what I know, I could support such a conservative. Again, "pre-Trump." Any Republican carrying water for Trump in the last couple of years won't get my vote. FWIW, I voted for Rubio in the last primary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest-starring: Id! View Post
divemaster mentioned that his family were Trump supporters and got me wondering if conservative friends/other relatives/co-workers/other people around him have gotten increasingly Trumpy over the past couple years.
My family is still behind him. I can get them to admit that he's not really stable or trustworthy, but then they point to the Supreme Court and some of the other "wins" for the Conservative movement. I think they know they are being used. But they (we) are getting something out of the deal, so as long as that part of it still checks the boxes, they will ride with him. And part of it, for sure, is the "common enemy" aspect.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
If they are so tiny a handful why are they the voices being heard the most? If the supposed majority of Conservatives didn't like they way they have been represented nothing stops them from grabbing Mr. Mike and taking control of the stage...unless of course that "tiny handful" is not as tiny as you say they are. I'm not noticing much (if any) backlash towards this "tiny handful" of spongebrains from the supposed majority of conservatives that don't think the same way. Could it be because you get to keep your hands clean while they do the dirty work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
Becaise they see no value and no point in attempting to engage in good faith with the mob-mentality of the disingenuous (disingenous in their interaction towards dissent) supermajority of extremely like-minded posters with opposing poligical beliefs.

But why should those other conservatives who post on this board in non-political forums get sucked into time-wasting, head-bashing foolishness that never produces anything of value for *anyone* involved? Things such as trying to "correct the record" for all the left wingers here who may have been misinformed as to what the full spectrum of conservative ideology really encompassed. Ha. ...
it doesn't really make one shit of a difference overall because the *real* kings of mischaracterization and false portrayals of conservative positions *are the liberals here* who don't let legitimate debate ensue which may disrupt hive mind tranquility and equilibrium.
Ambivalid gets it.

And regarding post #89?. I have to tip my hat. If I wanted to bolster my point, I could not of posted a missive any better to make my point than that.
  #149  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:38 AM
Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
...
Hive mind? Gulags? Oh right, you're the oaf that Googled "left-wing" and found a Biden=Stalin equation or some such.
...
No need for hypotheticals, one needs only to look at what is said here to support the idea that, yes, some people on the Left really do want to send people to prison for thinking differently than them:

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Indeed, it cannot be good faith, and there will be a moment of truth in this country when there is a test of righteousness, at which time we shall decide who is worthy of citizenship and liberty, and who is not, and those who posit such anti-factuals should be incarcerated and reeducated.
  #150  
Old 10-07-2019, 02:30 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus
Hive mind? Gulags? Oh right, you're the oaf that Googled "left-wing" and found a Biden=Stalin equation or some such.
No need for hypotheticals, one needs only to look at what is said here to support the idea that, yes, some people on the Left really do want to send people to prison for thinking differently than them:
"Hive mind" implies like-minded thinking. Surely you've noticed the Board's liberals often condemning asahi's excesses?

Anyway, I agree with asahi that criminals should be incarcerated. When asahi goes beyond that I'm pretty sure it's just anger driving him to hyperbole.

The Biden=Stalin linkage that right-wing oafs here make is utter nonsense; surely you understand that, Ale ?

It's very interesting that a not a single right-winger here, AFAICT, has dared to comment on Trump's criminality ó they're still sputtering mad about something, but, in the face of such blatant crimes, are now unable to answer simple questions so just lash out viciously and senselessly.

We need a Poll question:
"[Right-wingers only please] Which of the following comes closest to your views on the alleged crimes(*) of Donald J. Trump? (* - So many to choose from, so little time! For definiteness let's focus on the phone call to Ukraine.)
.... (a) Extortion and bribery are not crimes when the President does it.
.... (b) What about the Clinton blow job? What about Benghazi? It's the libtards who are the criminals.
.... (c) Trump should be removed from office, and power turned over to Pence. Sure, Pence was an accessory to the same Ukraine extortion, but he ó like so many of us ó was just hypnotized by Donald Trump's great charisma and charm. Who can blame him?"
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017