Oh wait, this is the pit.
Fuck
There, that’s better
Kettle, meet pot.
This aint my first rodeo.
I don’t disagree with pretty much anything you said, save for the part that I’m assigning these things in a vacuum. I’m not. I’m willing to bet I can go find dozens of instances where any opinion not perceived to be in agreement with the prevailing minds is met with almost equal… distaste.
Politics, especially today, are incredibly diversive. The answer to that isn’t to sow more discord.
If this had happened where someone walked into a thread that was about how great a leader Obama was and posted the stuff about Trump, then sure, eviscerate them. But we are in a thread pretty much asking for that type of view. Yes, this is the pit, but why does that automatically make it okay to be a jerk? Or do you not see that as jerkish behavior? If I ask someone to give me their opinion and then proceed to call them “a walking syphilis lesion with pretenses of humanity” I’m pretty sure I’m being a jerk.
What? I understand the phrase, but not sure how it applies to my post?
Nor mine, not sure why that’s relevant, but anyway. I definitely don’t see what it is that you insist is happening everywhere here though.
You keep saying that you can find all of these instances, yet all you have pointed to so far is one post in this thread. Give us a link. Tell us what post number to start at and show us. Don’t just reapeatedly say you can show us. Actually do it.
You are pointing the finger in the wrong direction. Why have politics become so divisive? Which side started the no holds barred insult a thon that we have now. Obama? Nope. When one party openly embraces and takes glee in the phrase “fuck your feelings” and continues to act that way for the next several years… well people get tired of just taking abuse, so can you blame anyone for getting tired of being polite when all you get back is fuck you snowflake? Are you equally scolding them too?
Impossible to negate future hypothetical? Nah, no thanks. How exactly am I supposed to address what you assume will happen in the future? Let’s see some of these actual examples that you keep talking about. That’s the way to nip this whole conversation in the bud. Not hypotheticals.
You accused me assuming something by assuming I was assuming something.
Look for a thread in which climate change is being discussed and what happened to me there. I can find other examples, but that should be an easy start. If I get bored this weekend I’ll find others. The Senate rules thing is not a specific example, but was an analogy of what I’ve seen happen.
I agree politics has become divisive because of the policies of the right. However, I don’t think the solution to that is to become what we despise. I’m not saying take their fees fees into account when making decisions, but I am saying eviscerating people with insults and vitriol when they are engaging in conversation is probably not the right way to go on this. If the arguments against policies and politics don’t stand on their own merit, I don’t see where throwing insults is the answer. Let the facts stand.
I’m going to say that the responses weren’t to enforce an ideological groupthink. You slipped two words in there to make your point that disappear very soon after: “Intelligent and insightful.” Would you agree that if it is not one of those two things then you have no valid complaint?
You made an unfounded accusation against me. Back it up, as I’ve now asked twice, or admit you were wrong. If you choose neither, I will not be responding to you anymore. You represent the EXACT example of the types of things I’ve been explaining to Airbeck. I’ve never supported Trump in any way, yet you seem to have the perception I have.
To be clear, I was not defending you.
As suggested, I went back and read #120. Wow, margin got carried away! I don’t know if she got any support for her rant, but I don’t think she got much opposition either. A rant like that from the right-wing would have drawn much derision. Many of us rational-thinkers are more accepting of nonsense from the left than from the right. In that sense, we’re unfair.
@ margin — what’s with the animosity against Michael Moore? (“Moore’s been a rich scumbag for so long it’s almost funny the way he keeps up the pretense.”) I think of Moore has a very helpful liberal; is the main charge against him that his career has been successful? Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert draw huge salaries: Are they also tainted in your view?
Look, for those of you who lament this is a liberal echo chamber, can’t anybody dislike Trump and NOT be liberal? My dislike for Trump has little to do with racism, misogyny, the income gap, or any of the liberal hot button issues. I’ve always thought he was incompetent to qualify as prez. He’s ignorant of the law and the Constitution, he’s not the financial genius he touts himself to be (went bankrupt six times), he’s dishonest, he did the very thing conservatives railed against in the Reagan, Bush and Bush administrations and drove national debt into the trillions, and lives in a fantasy world of his own making. I hope Impeachment will be a wake-up call for him to at least observe caution before he makes any decisions, but I’m not holding my breath.
Besides, what do you expect from the Pit? Of course everybody acts like jerks here. Look to Great Debates or Politics & Elections if you want something less pejorative. If you want a real example of an echo chamber, watch a Trump rally video. They still chant “Lock her up” even though the election was 4 years ago. If echo chamber accusations are all you have when you can’t answer a question from the anti-Trump side, you’ve shown you can’t justify Trump’s actions.
Lying fucking weasel.
I’m not saying what you think I’m saying. I have not accused you of being a Trump supporter. You’ve made it clear that you are not. I was merely pointing out that defending Trump on virtually every subject is a mistake because, and you seem to agree, his actions are generally indefensible.
And I think there would be an outcry about McConnell’s actions because they come from an ethically dubious position. Though not an illegal one. Just like his refusal to hold a vote on Garland during Obama’s last year in office. People would rightly lambaste McConnell. So what? Would you expect those opposed to his underhanded and hypocritical actions to simply shrug it off? I don’t think you’re being realistic.
Like the example above, people would be rightly angry because running a shell game is a shitty way to operate the government. However, if one finds oneself defending Trump’s action, as described, then one ostensibly approves of the action on some level. Do you disagree?
Look. People really really hate Trump & Co. You start out by agreeing that 99%+ of what he does is wrong. What’s left is usually not worth defending. If there is a legal argument to be made, it will be made. If you require wholesale agreement with the legal position, well, you will be disappointed for the reasons you describe. It may not seem fair to you but given the circumstance, I don’t know if you can reasonably expect most people to see their way to excusing a legally valid, while otherwise unethical action.
Here’s a challenge for you: Name an ethical or otherwise “good” action executed by the Trump administration that met with wholesale disapproval by never-Trumpers. Lets debate that rather than some vague notion that nothing Trump does is ever seen as good or legal by his detractors. Therefore we can never have an honest conversation on the board. Because by the same token, it would be easy to argue that Trump supporters have never seen an action, no matter how bad, that they didn’t approve or defend.
I know exactly what you are saying. You seem to be missing my point.
If someone is asking for a factual answer to a question that deserves a factual answer, not a moralistic assessment, it is impossible to get that around here anymore. Look at your answers and arguments at this topic. At every turn you made your answer into a judgement on the derpitude of McConnell and the administration and how morally bankrupt they are. Don’t you see how you never miss an opportunity to throw in digs? This is why factual questions cannot be asked. You continually want to insert some other judgements on the people involved.
On this topic, whether factual questions can be asked without having to down these rabbit holes, you brought up how Trump supporters are never able to admit he didn’t anything wrong. A complete and utter non sequitur.
This board has lost the ability to have discussions that involve contentious issues because of responses like this. There are so many tangents thrown in the original points are lost.
Lets start over.
Open a new thread, in GQ, to discuss a topic, e.g. “Is McConnell within legal right to start a hearing on impeachment prior to receiving articles from Pelosi?” Or something to that effect.
I’m frankly not qualified to answer a legal or procedural question like that, but I suspect there will be some who are. I believe that in that thread, you’ll get some unbiased, and well informed responses.
No guarantee that in different thread on a different forum that people won’t have entirely partisan opinions on the matter. In fact, you are almost assured to find them if you look. But then so what? People have strong opinions. You may need to adjust your expectations.
Thank you for your crisp and bracing criticism. We regret the trouble and sorrow you have endured, and none of us could blame you if you decided to withdraw, and deny us the opportunity to bask in your virtue and intellect. Here’s your hat.
Thank you for being such a gracious and wonderful host. I’m sorry if you cannot handle criticism and feel you need to try to dismiss people that disagree with you. That isn’t my hat.
You know something? It’s been about ten years since I posted seriously on this board. Since then, I’ve been lurking, just going through looking for some old time posters from when I used to participate, marking their absence, and debating seriously with myself about whether to post something, but this makes me think that I have to say something.
cmosdes is absolutely right, and by responding to him in this tone, 'luci, you’ve pretty much made his point for him.
I have to ask you a couple of things. ALL of you. First off, where do you think everyone’s gone to? What do you think is going on out here in the World? Do you think we’re all just sitting at home feeling great about an idiot like Trump being in the Oval Office? Do you think you have some sort of special knowledge that the rest of us don’t? We know this guy sucks. We don’t need to wade through eight pages of dumb and screamy posts to figure that one out.
Second, I am seriously interested: Exactly what do you think you’re getting out of posting here? I’m not seeing any debate. I’m not seeing any progress or moving forward or constructive ideas about how to deal with the situation. I’m seeing a bunch of angry posters filled with impotent rage, and one legitimately mentally ill poster who is probably going to be dead before this year is out if she doesn’t stop working herself up like this on a message board and get serious psychological help. As one vet to another, kid, you are not doing yourself any favors posting here. I don’t know how they treat PTSD, but I’m pretty sure that if you asked a trained professional whether they would recommend going off on a message board, getting excited, and pouring out your rage against perceived enemies and threats who have never met you, their advice is going to run along the lines of “No.”
Third, along those lines . . . What are you all so angry about to begin with? YOU’VE WON THE DEBATE!! Rejoice. Trump. Pence. The electoral college. Your annoying republican cousin. Anyone who would disagree with you on any of the above has been cowed into silence, banned, or just plain forced to find something more interesting to do with his or her life. You’ve won. Why beat this into the ground? Can you not find something else to talk about? Even in the Pit? ESPECIALLY in the Pit!!
I want to stress that these are not rhetorical questions, and I’m not trying to snark. Ten or fifteen years ago, this is pretty much where I came in my free time to debate, ask questions about movies (Oh yes, and I almost forgot: Cafe Society is total shit these days), and just joke around.
(Sorry, hit submit too soon)
Now? Now, I’d get more content out of Free Republic. At least they own their anger and hate. They don’t try to be anyone they’re not. With FR, what you see is what you get.
I own my anger and hate.
Well, it’s really closer to contempt than actual hatred…
That’s a nice cross you’ve brought there for yourself. But do you have enough to share with the rest of the class, dear ?
There is some ridiculous back and forth in this thread. It was specifically created to complain about crappy Trump supporters, not to be a debate about impeachment or why Trump supporters can’t get get away with their lying and disingenuous arguments.
If you want to be treated well, don’t hang out in the Pit. This thread proves nothing about how an honest debater who happens to be conservative would be treated in Great Debates, Politics & Elections, or GQ. Max S. has had several threads where he honestly debates from a conservative and even somewhat pro-Trump position (not that he’s a Trump supporter, from what I can tell) and other posters engaged with him honestly, without rancor.
Lying, stupid, and disingenuous posters will receive harsher treatment, especially when they don’t respond honestly to questions and opponents points.
Damuri and cmosdes, if you think things said in this Pit rant proves any points about how honest conservatives or moderates or whatever are treated elsewhere on this board, well, you’re just wrong.