Uh, acknowledging the 21s century. Forums really are not just opinions, there is an audience that one is also informing about an issue in a message board that is geared against ignorance. Facts and more expert opinions should be looked at, not frowned upon.
It would be as if that scene in Annie Hall is not happening many times in real life thanks to the internet, better opinions or facts are what I agree with, forgive me for assuming others would not realize that what I cite are opinions and facts (with better grammar ) that me as poster in this message board agrees with.
No one says “both sides do it” in real life in order to convey that meaning. It’s to massage into the infosphere a nihlilistic message of ambient guilt and cynicism. Those messages always move towards antidemocracy and authoritarianism, while claiming “centerness”. If you’re not doing it from the “center” you’re not doing it right. Right?
Both sides do it is willfully ignorant of the assymetric war between Rs and Ds. This war is out in the open and public and inarguable. To acknowledge it is to act like an adult. But that is beyond many of us now.
Saying this over and over doesn’t make it true. Sometimes one side really is worse than the other. That really happens in history. You’ve presented nothing that suggests otherwise - only your opinion.
Nooooo…the argument is that when, on a scale of 1 to 10, one side is a “2” and the other side is a “17”, your weak “Both sides do it!!” excuse sounds rather silly if you don’t immediately add “but of course our side is MUCH worse!”.
It’s that having a “side” is to be guilty of ambient corruption. Only those who have no side can be pure.
Having no side means white patriarchy takes all pushes in society, and yes, even close calls. So it’s not having a side in a kind of limited specific way.
I would defend either side but only one side is under constant attack on this site.
Only one side claims to be coming to the fight with clean hands.
I think I am saying that the extreme elements of both sides suck and both sides should take the more extreme elements of their side and put them at the kiddy table and ignore their tantrums for the sake of your country ignore them.
You are effectively citing the columbia professor.
I believe this is the first time I’ve said it. And I think I have agreed with everyone that says that the right is worse than the left… right now. but there is plenty of shittiness on the left. Especially eh extreme left. And yes that is my opinion.
Which side is “our side”? I don’t really think I have a side in this debate. I feel like I am pretty solidly in the “pox on both your houses” category. Sure I vote democratic but I think there are elements of the left the party would be better off ignoring and seating at a kiddy table in a corner of the tent only to trot them out around election time so that the other extremists will realize that there is really only one tent where they can ever have any sort of seat at all.
If you want to make a silly argument and miss the point of the joke. The point stands, not all opinions made to impress a date of a Columbia Professor are impressive or good when the horse’s mouth or an expert is available.
This is different than what you said before. What you said before was that Democrats would tolerate or support just as much corruption as Trump in order to defeat him. That’s a baseless statement.
My worldview, based on my personal experience is that one should buy a lottery ticket, and then sit back and reap the rewards of a 7 figure win. This is clearly the best way to plan for retirement. Worked for me! Other people are just bad planners if they don’t follow my lead.
So if democrats could have come up with someone worse than Trump, more corrupt than Trump, they would have won. You might be right. Might have been able to swing some GOP votes.
The columbia professor is an expert. In fact he is the sort of expert you are relying on to determine how asians feel about this, when the majority of asians are telling you you are wrong.
How do you feel about Democratic support for Bill Clinton in the wake of all the sexual harassment allegations?
So Democrats would have stayed home or voted for trump if a far left candidate with similarly sketchy activity was running against trump?
That seems… unlikely. Politics is partisan and the people that voted for trump don’t have to lurve everything about him to vote for him over biden.
No, I’m saying that politics is partisan. Democrats will forgive their candidate for things they would crucify the other side’s candidate for and vice versa.
Quit changing the subject (the awful toleration of sexual harassment/assault/etc. is abominable from both parties, and has only recently started to change for the better, but only with the Democrats for now – but that’s a different topic). What you said before was that Democrats would tolerate or support just as much corruption as Trump in order to defeat him. That’s a baseless statement. Do you stand by this baseless statement?
Democrats wouldn’t nominate someone as corrupt as Trump. You’ve presented nothing to suggest otherwise – just baseless assertions that Democrats are just as bad.
Not impressive when using once again the appeal to popularity fallacy. Opinions that miss a lot of nuance or evidence get to be dismissed by experts, not just for logical reasons, but because otherwise the conservatives in the USA get the idea that a guy that just follows his gut should be a great leader.
It’s unlikely because there is no such person. They’d have to have views that are acceptable to the primary voters, which eliminates “far left” for the Democrats but not “fair right” for Republicans, and they would have to be at a minimum cleaner than Al Franken and Anthony Weiner. Democrats ostracized them. Trump was made President despite much worse. Fail on both counts.
Presidential nominees don’t spring forth fully formed from the ether. They have to pass a primary first. Democrats wouldn’t vote for a candidate as corrupt as Trump in the general election, because that candidate would never have made it through the primaries in the first place. And you can tell that a candidate as corrupt as Trump wouldn’t make it through the Democratic primaries by the way we keep not nominating people as corrupt as Trump. When Republicans nominated Trump in 2016, we nominated Hillary Clinton. When the Republicans nominated Trump again in 2020, we - knowing full well at this point that corruption and venality were in no way barriers to election, and indeed seemed to be considered positive traits by a significant portion of the electorate - nominated Joe Biden.
) that me as poster in this message board agrees with.