Fair enough, I guess; Trump’s presidency often prompts remarks about the lesser of two evils, and I’m glad to follow suit here: ask which would be worse for the country (or what’s in the country’s best interests, or however you want to phrase it), and vote to keep him in office or remove him compared to the alternative. That’s what I plan on doing in 2020; why shouldn’t Senators do likewise?
I’m no fan of Bricker, but he’s about the last person here who could be “chased off.” Maybe he got bored with the place. Nobody’s obligated to continue posting here indefinitely.
I’ve never understood why Bricker is considered some kind of model conservative around here. Whenever I noticed him, he was engaging in absurd hyperbole, whataboutism, disingenuous arguments, and silly gotcha games.
If he was around now, he’d probably argue that what Trump did was technically legal. We’d also hear “What provision of the Constitution do you imagine that Trump has violated?” or some variation thereof. He’d studiously avoid expressing any opinion of Trump’s behavior, and reduce the whole issue to a legalistic question with only one correct answer—which just happens to favor Trump.
It’s also sort of pointless to engage in a debate that has the goal of convincing the intellectually dishonest folks that refuse to believe simple sentences mean what they mean. Working through ideas that take paragraphs is an exercise in futility.
Thanks!!! It’s great to be appreciated and recognized!
Happy New Year!
Two things.
Universe (in re your request): “I’m giving 'er all she’s got cap’n.”
“Never believe that [Trumpco customers] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The [Trumpco customers] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ~Sartre
Hi, gemmed cat of lists.
Not just this board, but also the other boards I lurk on.
The articulate GOP supporters have gone silent in re defense of Trumpco.
It seems the cat bag is full of everyone else’s tongues except the one like what you see now.
::shrugs:: I’m offering up what strikes me as a sound argument in good faith, sure as I have no interest in falling silent. Do you require something more from me?
Why don’t you add some fucking value for a change here? How about you open a thread that is an honest and clear-eyed defense of the behavior that Trump has been impeached for? Or, defend his pardoning a war criminal and trying to force him back onto the Seals, if you’d prefer to do that. Or, any other highly criticized behavior. All I ask is that you do it in good faith, and respond in good faith to other debaters counterpoints.
Otherwise, just fuck off. I’m tired of your meta-posts about tone, your white-knighting, and your other useless bullshit. Contribute something of value – you might enjoy it!
Silence! Imbecile.
I’ll bite.
In what way would HRC have been worse, IYO? Specific examples appreciated, if you’re up for it.
Making the people on CNN very angry is what Trump was hired to do. It is the one thing, as President, which Trump has succeeded at.
Of course, the cost of that is everything else.
To most people (on both sides), politics exists as a game that players participate in, in DC. The practical ramifications of choices is lost and, if you try to point out what real effect their voting choices have had on the world they will go straight into denialism.
No one wants to accept that their favorite sports star is a wife beater. There’s more affront if they’re caught doping than hitting their spouse.
Likewise, no one wants to consider the ramifications of pulling our nuclear materials detectives out of Iran, because Obama.
Rand Paul tried the best defense he could on CNN Dec 15. Essentially, he tried the “Trump is just concerned about corruption in general, that is why he asked for a Ukraine investigation into Biden”.
The reasoning is specious and absolute crap, of course. I can’t imagine that he actually believes what he spouts. But it’s the absolute best anyone could do.
I can’t blame any intelligent Republicans for not coming to these boards with such a laughable and embarrassing defense of Trump.
Tell me what you think about Bzzzzzzzz.
I sort of doubt it. I think Trump and his associated “movement” are far enough out of the pale that your right-wing think tanks are probably laying low at the moment. They probably don’t want to be painted as liberals or rendered irrelevant for the future, but nor do they want to be associated with Trump and his nonsense either.
Or they’ve outright abandoned him- look at George Will, Max Boot, David Frum and Michael Steele for examples of commentators/thinkers who have turned on him.
I think that around here with the liberal slant and frequent ganging-up on anybody who doesn’t toe the political party line, you’re just going to get people who are spoiling for a fight, not well-reasoned thinkers. Most people who have a point to make aren’t willing to wade through half a dozen people who are just flat out stating that they’re wrong or evil, before they can actually debate their topic.
Which is exactly what happens if you say something counter to the prevailing thought around here- you get piled on and told you’re wrong and evil by multiple people, and then have to wade through and around that to get to the people willing to actually debate the subject.
Case in point- this quote from upthread. How do you debate/argue with that? It’s just frustrating if you’re on the other side trying to articulate a position when you get stuff like this. Then you have to prove why they’re not evil or fascist, or whatever, not discuss the actual topic of discussion.
I KNEW IT! It’s the fault of the Damn Lib’ruls. Bastards.
Go fuck yourself you cock biting ass nugget. You are the most useless piece of shit on this fucking board. I used to have a dog just fucking like you. Completely useless. He’d shit and piss in his own food and turn around eat it. Useless fucking animal. Just like you.
…what? I thought this thread was about impeachment and removal. Like, the OP helpfully explained that “I’m not looking for policy defenses, I’m looking for smart impeachment defenses” — and, in the wake of that, I’ve been talking about whether the Senate should remove the guy when it gets put up for a vote.
Not about whether HRC should’ve gotten elected in 2016; that’s a different question, a completely unrelated question; literally everything I’ve said in the previous posts in this thread — all the good-faith impeachment-and-removal stuff I’m perfectly happy to answer IYO questions about — is 100% compatible with figuring that HRC would’ve been a better choice back when. It’s so irrelevant a point that we could simply grant it for the sake of argument, and I’d then be right back to waiting to see whether you toss in another non sequitur or ask about impeachment and removal.
But — great guy that I am — I’ll answer your oddball question anyway: I voted for HRC, because I thought Trump would be worse; to the best of my knowledge, I was right then and I’d still be right now. Why you’re asking this, I have no idea.
I’m only aware of him from hearing him interviewed on NPR but Jonah Goldberg seems to have avoided drinking the Flavor-Ade.
What would you do with an intelligent defense, though? What if someone said…
I can go on, but the point is, where do you go from there? This hypothetical Trump supporter has sidestepped all issues of legality and simply accepted that what Trump did was OK because Democrats are very, very bad and need to be stopped at all costs. So now what? Do you think you’ll get very fair in a reasoned debate with this person?
I suspect their purported comparison to the status quo will come out different from yours or mine.
I would ask for some evidence of “Any election of a democrat is a furtherance of those threats,”
This sounds like hyperbole to me, and would be interested if the hypothetical person was actually serious in contending this.
Probably would not get far in a reasoned debate with this hypothetical person, since the main thrust of their argument is based on pure emotional hatred, and not on anything that is open to reasoned debate on facts.
So this hypothetical Trump supporter would not actually be bringing any kind of reasoned discussion. “I hate them other guys and they are evil” does not form the basis of the beginning of a reasoned discussion, no matter which side does it.