Gigo:
I am simply suggesting that you stop focusing on what is wrong with the opposition, and apply as honest and critical eye as you can to yourself and those on your side. Really do your very best to beat yourself and your team up.
Each time I say this to in a different way, you respond by telling me how awful I am and how awful Trump and the Republicans are.
Tell me how terrible you are. Tell me about all the terrible things wrong with Dems/libs.
Or, at least tell yourself.
It’s odd to me that someone who relies on the sexual goodwill of women for “quality ejaculations” is inclined to deride and degrade women for having sex.
Like when we did drive Al Franklin out of congress? Done already.
But I will reply with the point made by Conservative Republican Scientist Barry Bickmore when he noted many conservatives attacking Al Gore:
Now substitute, and very appropriately, Trump and almost all Republicans with Monckton. One needs to prioritize his/her efforts against what is causing the most harm.
Because they are, that some nitwit CNN contributor on a tweet overstates their case is like a tempest in a teapot compared to the hurricane of lies, prejudice and hate coming from the current administration and Republican supporters.
Perhaps they have not learned to fight dirty all the time. In any case I go for the better conservative advice (paraphrased): Trump and Republicans go about proclaiming that climate change or other important issues are “non-problems,” and to support their case they completely misrepresent the scientific literature or studies they cite. Whom do you think Dems/libs are going to want to spend their time criticizing?
That’s cowardly and undermines your argument. I’ll tell you what I think. I think they are racist and not because of the particular words they used but by the sentiments they expressed. The implication that a black man is mentally ill or is an illiterate negro because he stepped off the Democratic plantation is very offensive.
Well thanks for the response. But I do think that a lot of people’s perceptions are shaped by deliberate distortions and outright hostility from some of the more unhinged posters dwelling in the pit. This place can be exceedingly monolithic in what is approved thought but if the acceptable tone changed more productive dialogue could take place. Maybe.
Anyways, what’s the point of getting upset over a difference in politics? I have Bernie Bros in my own family and it doesn’t bother me. If my kids vote differently than me I’m not going to be upset. If my wife votes differently than me I’m not upset. I’d probably change my vote to match here. In real life, politics is important but not more important than everything.
It has to be pointed out that most of the ones that pointed at those implications where also black people. What you are doing is kinda like the Trumpian way of undermining the people that would have more of a reason to criticize someone in their group. In any case, I do not think that all the ones criticizing the CNN contributors are just conservatives.
Are those really all the posters considered conservative left on the board? 
Does anyone have any additional to add?
I was commenting on iiandyiiii’s cowardly and ultimately bigoted, with noble intent perhaps, refusal to hold black people to a standard he holds others. As I have said in the so-called misogyny threads different types of bigotry or stereotyping is not the solution to fixing a particular form of bigotry. Treating individuals as such is the solution.
Okay, I’ll rephrase – I think it would be inappropriate for me to judge/critique what language is appropriate for a black person to use when criticizing another black person. I have neither the life nor cultural experience (i.e. I am not fluent in AAVE, among many other things) to make such a judgment.
This has nothing to do with what I wrote. I’m not commenting on something that I don’t feel qualified to comment on; simple as that.
nm; duplicate
Fine. Ignore the language. Comment on the message.
The message, as I took it, from those segments (not just a single quote), is “Kanye is saying many extremely foolish things, as well as giving political cover to a white supremacist enabler, and the President is trying to utilize this for political advantage, which is wrong” – I don’t have any problem with that message.
I would say that the republicans are the ones in favor of voter fraud, as proof we can look at the NC election laws that restricted voting in all of the ways primarily used by minorities, but not the one that is both primarily used by whites AND has evidence of singificant voter fraud. It’s also blatantly obvious that the ‘voter fraud’ smokescreen is just a smokescreen, since none of it’s supporters actually come up with evidence that it exists, and target their allegedly anti-fraud measures in ways that specifically hinder minorities and poor people more than whites and rich people.
The only side in favor of killing babies is the one attempting to reduce access to healthcare, cut education funding, and reduce programs that help feed children. Fetuses aren’t babies, and pretending that you believe they are is just rhetoric. So, yours. I would also say that the side who hates due process is the side who refused to conduct a real investigation into the allegations of rape and refused to allow questioning or debate. So again, yours.
It’s not a game. The assault on voting rights is real and obvious, and ‘principled’ conservatives like you who pretend that it isn’t happening deserve the oppobrium you get.
We aren’t disagreeing over politics. We are disagreeing over morality. And often, we are disagreeing over basic facts.
I’m glad that you are insulated from the consequences of these decisions but for many people I know, the answers to these questions could be a matter of life and death.
@ Scylla — You seem more-or-less OK to me. I’ve no problem with “conservatives.” I do have a problem with Republicans and Trump supporters.
Let me give you a pop quiz. 
The political divide is not between l"leftist" and “rightist” economics. It is between those with sincere humanitarian ideals and those whose agenda revolves around greed, crime and hypocrisy.
@ octopus — you take the quiz too, please. I’m not sure you’re beyond salvation.
Morality? Rarely, if ever, do I see moral axioms and positions logically derived from them posted and debated. What is normally posted are selfish positions or positions intended to demonstrate political solidarity with the intent of obtaining power.
You bet that many would like to see a government with the power to tell powerful corporations, politicians or groups that make climate change worse, that disenfranchise mostly the poor and minorities, that bankrupt America with insane and irrational health care, to take a hike.
Sure, why not.
First a preamble of sorts. What motivates me more than anything are some of the ideas from the age of enlightenment and the era of classical liberalism. The tools used to ensure individual freedom such as the concept that government derives its legitimacy and power from sovereignty ceded by individuals, the concept of natural rights, the implementation of checks and balances in a government, checks and balances between the government and other powerful institutions, etc are something I consider very important.
Too much concentrated power or the concept that the so-called government is the source of all legitimate power I find very dangerous. The most vile acts (in scale) in history have occurred in the 20th century and were done by states. So, based on history and knowledge of the nature of man, I don’t want the state to have too much power.
When I take the stance that a court shouldn’t force a baker to make a specific type of cake with a custom message it’s not out of homophobia. It’s from the principle that I don’t believe the state should have the power to compel the publication of a particular sentiment. Even if I agree with the sentiment.
Now to answer your questions.
The courts are the number 1 prize, at the moment, and that is truly unfortunate.
Trump’s cabinet? Haven’t given it any thought.
Relations with Putin? I think we made a strategic error with Russia when the USSR collapsed. We should have not exploited their weakness to the extent we did. If you look at geopolitics through the eyes of Russia you’d realize that they are strategically vulnerable and face existential threats. If I were the one in power during the fall of the USSR I would have been very clear that the US was not trying to exploit that weakness.
Therefore, I think it’s in the nature of the world today that a new cold war does not develop. I’m not sure what harm there is with better relations with the other former super power. The asymmetric warfare that Russia can engage in is going to potentially cost the west its liberalism. If I were Russia I’d be stoking factionalism and tribalism in order to divide and weaken my strategic competitors. Unfortunately, we don’t have the sense to see that cooperation is better than competition.
Regarding Trump’s feelings? Man, I can’t get a read on Trump. So I have no idea what his motives are.
Starving the beast? I’m not sure the beast is going to be corralled as long as bonds are selling and the dollar is the world currency.
Democrats and their “evil”? Well, I am not going to categorize any of these policies as evil. I do think the state is engaged in evil through its employees I just don’t think that for the most part that the policy differences are motivated by evil. Perhaps, that makes me ignorant or naïve or even just plain stupid.
Examples state evil would be many aspects of the criminal justice system, asset forfeiture laws, etc. So, there is definitely “evil” I just don’t think it’s correlated with party.
I think the biggest problems I have with Democrats are the following:
The political divide to me is not economics and is not humanitarian vs selfishness.
The political divide to me is the function of 100s of variables that each individual weighs based on their own biases and preferences and maps to an unfortunate two party outcome. I think that this complexity and the desire to reduce that complexity to one or two variables is what makes productive conversation difficult. There are too many assumptions and biases that a person can hold that influences their perspective of where another comes from.
And how do you set up a system to ensure that only who you consider virtuous have power?