I look at the stupidity of the pro-Trump distractions as further proof of his overwhelming guilt. Surely if there was any valid defense at all, our local trolls would get it from their Russian handlers and share it with us.
Dogmatic, sure, but I never said anything about “hate” or “evil”.
My point is, the defense of Trump is that he furthered the Republican cause, and if you believe whole-heartedly in the Republican cause, then there is no “personal benefit” or “abuse of office.” Sure it was to help him get elected in 2020, but it’s not like Republicans are going to run a primary. It’s either Trump or a Democrat, and he wanted to hurt the Democrats; therefore Trump’s personal benefit, if any, is irrelevant.
This is the problem with the state of political discourse – changing anyone’s mind on a single issue at this point requires you to get them to rethink their entire worldview.
So you mean he is exactly the person the OP is wishing for a poster who will use actual logic and rules to argue Trump shouldn’t be impeached.
As for him being chased away. I remember several posts in the year or so before he left expressing frustration at the board in general for piling on him or saying negative things about him. Sure he didn’t drop a last I’m leaving post like Bone but the dislike this board has for contrary opinions is pretty easy to see. Either way he’s not here to confirm so there is no way to prove if he just randomly decided to play some where else or if he got tired of the shit being flung his way constantly and decided to not come back.
In the end we’ve been left with people who like the hatred they receive here which is basically just trolls.
I’ve interacted with Trump supporters elsewhere. I’ve been blocked by 4 of them on Facebook - one’s a lawyer. I’m related to some, too.
They are all, to a man, stupid. They refuse to read and dismiss any idea that does not comport to their world view as “fake news” (literally, they use that term sincerely!). Their ideas are invariably based on incorrect facts and they are led by their nose by blatantly biased sources which feed them asinine talking points. Some couldn’t write a grammatically correct sentence if you paid them. Others are bigots. None have developed their critical thinking skills. All have petty grievances and are blind to their frequent hypocrisy.
Here? You’re getting the best of the best.
It’s not much to behold.
Now we hear from the guy whose posts are almost all two-liners. Writing an entire intelligible paragraph would be futile! :rolleyes:
Comedy gold.
This is the simplest and most correct answer.
The conservatives who got banned or stopped posting were among the best Trump supporters. They were/are mainstream Republicans now. Clothahump’s evidence-free grievance, Ditka’s disingenuous goalpost-shifting, Shodan’s scattershot shitposting… this is what Republicans are. This is all they have. Today’s conservative thought leaders are Dinesh D’Souza and Ben Shapiro. They’re malignant idiots with slightly above average writing skills. HurricaneDitka is the goddamned cream of the crop.
And just an aside about the “Never Trump” Republicans. With the possible exception of Max Boot, I don’t think any of them have actually come to terms with the fact that they’ve been fighting on the wrong side of every issue for decades, nor that the modern Republican Party is inherently racist. Almost none of them actually oppose Trump’s actions. They’re pissed that he’s coarse and he’s open about his grift. Never Trumpers like Rick Wilson aren’t arguing against the concentration camps or the white supremacist rhetoric or the judicial amateur hour or the party-over-country politics. They’re arguing that Trump is damaging the Republican brand. If it wasn’t for the tweets and the rambling speeches, and if Trump kept his grift quiet, there would be no Anti-Trump Republicans.
You folks are operating with the limiting belief that if someone questions information that happens to favor Trump it means they support Trump. How you can’t see that that is limiting is a mystery to me. There used to be a time where if the intelligence community abused their surveillance powers people would be outraged. Not any more if the target of the surveillance is someone connected to Trump. Stay tuned folks, a lot more information is going to come out, the media is already beginning to eat it’s own, just look at the WaPo article with regards to Rachel Maddow. In the meantime keep your head in the sand.
Bugger off. You’re the standard measure for Trumpian dishonesty and stupidity.
No, I’m referring to people who expressly support Trump.
Conspiracy theorists like yourself are a whole ‘nother brand of woo.
Let me guess: Bitcoin is the next big thing.
This.
I would still love my dog if he did that. Because he’s my dog and I’m loyal and caring to a fault.
In fact, I’m caring for a dog that is dying of cancer now. I don’t mind cleaning up after his accidents. For me, it’s an act of love and appreciation for the countless days I returned home and he greeted me with his wagging tail to make my day a little brighter.
I think it’s just another variation of the Victim Card. He was forced to run away in tears because all Demon-crats and libruls are big mean meanies. Bullshit.
Bricker’s gone? So fucking what.
He sometimes wrote informative and thought provoking posts, but I eventually got tired of wading through all the arrogance and bad faith debate tactics to get to them.
In Cafe Society and MPSIMS he could be quite engaging.
Sometimes Ditka seemed almost sincere. But when confronted with a fact disturbing to his preconceptions his brain would have to fart and he would revert to parrot, troll, sealion whatever.
YES, definitely. The hive mind seldom complains at my politics, often aligned with theirs. But boy when I get into certain topics they come down hard on ME. This is seen most clearly when I’m masochistic enough to get briefly involved in a thread about the Shakespeare authorship. Last time, most posts were even more ignorant than the previous and the hive declared victory when Dr. John Hall’s (Susanna Shakespeare’s husband) writings were found to be a journal rather than letters. :smack: Even now, in another thread they’re displaying a curious deficit of anthropological insight.
They don’t care, the Right is composed of people whose main desire in life is to see the people they hate suffer, and are perfectly willing to suffer as well as long as “They” suffer more. Hate is everything they are.
As the old line goes, they are willing to end up under a bridge eating a rat on a stick, as long as the other guy doesn’t have a rat.
Question for the OP: Why do you want someone to defend the indefensible?
Not the OP but I think it’s good to have different points of view being intelligently discussed and debated.
The problem is that with Trump there is no intelligent debate to be had on the other side. It’s like wanting to have an intelligent presentation of the anti-vax viewpoint; anybody who has that viewpoint is either ignorant of the facts, too dumb to understand the issue, or is aware of the truth but has chosen to tell lies.
Point why no one would.
Where have you done this? I don’t see any argument at all in this thread. This is what you posted:
The obvious answer (to me) would be to explain the reasons why you believe this. You would make an argument for why removing Trump would result in worse policies. You would make an argument for why leaving him in office would lead to better policies. If those reasons are good, then we can have a decent debate.
Similarly, that’s what the Senators would need to do. They would need to explain their reasoning, and have it held up to scrutiny. And, given this is required as part of their job, any reluctance to do so would lead me to believe that their reasoning is either bad (i.e. easily refuted) or nefarious in intent (so they wouldn’t want to let people know).
While you have discussed some aspects around the periphery, I haven’t once seen you make an actual argument.
That frames the situation as if saying negative things about someone is wrong. It’s not–if those negative statements have merit.
People said negative things about Bricker because he would continually argue in a dishonest and disingenuous manner. He would play “gotcha” games or use Socratic questioning to imply that he was right and we were wrong. He would crow on and on about his principles and how he engaged fairly when he didn’t.
It’s not like people were calling him a horrible person. In fact, many of you were constantly talking about how great and awesome he was (which I never got). He got grief for his arguments and style of arguing, which is exactly what anyone who posts here should expect. I get grief for both of those, too, and I’m not remotely conservative.
If **Bricker **was “chased away” by the negativity he got, then that was due to his own stubborn refusal to change how he engaged.
I personally tend to think better of him. I choose to believe he started to realize he couldn’t keep on defending modern Republicanism. And so his stated reason for coming here–to work on how to better argue with liberals–no longer applied.