Chump defenders can go fuck themselves. They are exactly the same as the Nazi apologists in the Hitler era.
People are fine with you until you dip into conspiracy theory crap. You don’t tend to use conspiracy arguments to support your politics. And, when you do, you get taken to task for that, as well.
Conspiracy theorist logic is bad argument. When it encounters evidence that makes the theory less likely, it comes up with some workaround, and then the belief is actually strengthened. It is a failure of critical thinking.
Do I think that people may not notice when bad arguments are used for things they support? Sure. It’s human nature. But that doesn’t mean that, when they notice the bad arguments for things they are against that they must be wrong.
Again, simply getting a negative reaction is not inherently evidence of bias against you. It can be that you just make bad arguments.
That’s right. They are, literally, Nazi apologists in the post-Obama era.
Okay, but note that my response was in reply to this: “I’m not looking for policy defenses, I’m looking for smart impeachment defenses.” Seemed to me the OP was flatly stating that policy defenses wouldn’t be impeachment defenses — in which case, there’s no point in having a “decent debate” or an “actual argument” about policy specifics if the general reply will be ‘Did I stutter? I clearly said that I’m not looking for policy defenses, but for smart impeachment defenses. Why, you even quoted me as saying that! Man, talk about arguing in bad faith!’
You say that’s a mere aspect around the periphery — but, to me, the OP’s point sure looked to be worded as preemptively ruling out that approach at the periphery. So I was of course hoping to hear back from the OP on that before I shrugged and plowed forward; figured I’d give it a bit longer, see if there’s any argument or agreement to be had at that periphery — and, if the OP doesn’t reply by turning away that line of reasoning, then move on to the, uh, core.
Yes, that’s clear. You’re so loyal to the Republican party and to Trump that you’ve posted actual Russian propaganda here, you fucking traitor.
I’m still having a hard time believing that such a huge percentage of the population could support the indefensible, so cling to a hope that there is some defense.
Sorry, I didn’t pick that up from your earlier response. I was as confused as BigT. First, I think trying to have a debate or discuss policy in the Pit is counterproductive – you have a nicely laid out argument followed by some blast at a different poster, etc. So, I think those discussions should be in GD or Elections. Second, this thread was meant to be a rant, not a rational discussion of the issues.
In response to the poster above who laid out the case that someone may think that Republican policies are just better than Democratic ones, the judges are getting hired, taxes are coming down (sort of, for some people), in a debate forum I would reply that impeachment and removal doesn’t put a Democrat in the president’s seat, it puts Mike Pence in, and he’s as straight up Republican as they get. And from there, we could possibly have an interesting discussion.
That was me, and I think you missed some nuance in my argument. You’re approaching my hypothetical Republican as if he thinks the Ukraine scandal is impeachable, but is reluctant to remove Trump for whatever reason. My (his) argument is that the Ukraine scandal isn’t wrong because Trump didn’t do it for personal benefit - - hurting Joe Biden’s election chances was something he did for the country’s benefit, because Democrats are so very bad for the country. So it doesn’t matter that Pence would take over in the event of Trump’s removal, because why would you remove a patriot who did nothing wrong?
Interesting! I see the difference now. It wouldn’t cover the Obstruction of Congress charge, but it could be an interesting discussion in a debate forum (a corrupt purpose is still corrupt if it helps the country? It’s still illegal to hire someone to murder someone, even if the person being murdered was a serial killer? Something along those lines). If you want to start up a devil’s advocate thread (or, a sincere thread, if this is your position) in GD or Elections, I’m sure some of our better debaters (better than I am, at least) would be happy to engage.
Would it be too much to ask for one who isn’t a hypocrite? One who could honestly assess Shit Gibbon’s behavior vis-a-vis previous assessments of Pres. Obama’s behavior?
Yeah, I know…unicorns and all that. How can one defend an illegal shake-down of a country versus a tan suit. The tan suit is obviously worse.
I don’t believe I’ve ever said one word against the tan suit.
It is axiomatic. No evidence is needed. It’s a boundary condition that resists logical discourse.
Much like “because it’s God’s will”. There is no counter to this in their belief system.
Bricker had a lot of interesting insights into the law. He also was very often dishonest, a sealion, and a troll, occasioning a catchphrase that eventually wore itself into ridicule: “You’re better than this, Bricker”. He wasn’t. Like many similar characters here, he reveled in the conceit that being unpopular is the same thing as being as being a brave principled freethinker. That conceit shouldn’t be encouraged. Asshat diversity isn’t a useful kind of diversity.
He needs reassurance. The reality is that Trump is not going to be removed from office and is quite possibly going to be re-elected, and he finds reality to be upsetting. So he needs everyone to tell him that reality isn’t really real.
Regards,
Shodan
I think you have hit the nail on the head here Karl.
Their arguments are based on belief. No other evidence can be considered. To do so wouldn’t just make them reconsider everything they have ever thought and everything their parents and friends also believe, it would also shatter their world view, and the world they live in. It’s not really possible to debate or argue against belief.
Belief is very simple, and comforting. It does not intrude into your life like facts and evidence.
Trump said Hillary Clinton got “schlonged” and started birtherism. The cornerstone of Trump’s campaign and administration is leading Confederate-flag-waving Qanon believers in chants of “LOCK HER UP!” and paling around with people who want her before a firing squad. He defends Vladimir Putin before he defends the US. He calls the press “the enemy of the people” and has suggested that people who don’t clap for him are traitors. He attacks ordinary citizens from his twitter account and backed by the power of the office because they pissed him off. He attacked a sixteen-year-old girl who won an award he wanted, then posted a picture of the girl with his head photoshopped on her body. He openly extorted a vulnerable nation led by a young president----which is currently being invaded by his hero, Putin-----to invent shit about his rival before he’d give them military aid. Eleven people died during that period of denial. Then, on camera, he asked another country to also drum up a fake investigation into the same political rival. He has told 13,000 plus lies since he was inaugerated. His “charity” was dissolved because he and his revolting spawn were using it as a piggy bank and now he and they are barred for life from coming anywhere near a charity. Yes, that is sarcasm. He tried to bar all Muslims from the US. He says all Mexicans are rapists. He let thousands of people die in Puerto Rico because they have brown skin, and he argued with the mayor of San Juan because she criticized him. He bragged during his campaign that he sexually assaulted women and creeped on underaged girls, but when women came forward to say he’d done exactly that, he claimed he’d never done so, even though it was on video. In fact, he usually denies stuff he’s said or done on video, before going off on a hate rally. He whined that he’ll never get a Nobel Prize, when all he sees is “Prize”, that Obama got one, and there’s a big ceremony. He dodged the draft five times, but attacks service members and their families most viciously if they dare argue with. And he abandoned our allies, the Kurds, to be slaughtered, which had the side effect of giving Putin and Erdogan extra reach in the Middle East, and destroying the US’ reputation in the Middle East.
The US Embassy was attacked in Baghdad yesterday, and the walls were breached. Trump went golfing.
He surrounds himself with people like Michael Flynn, who has violated his security clearance at least twice while in uniform, and was in talks with Turkey to kidnap an American citizen for money to deliver toTurkey’s dictator for almost certain imprisonment and torture, if not death. Then there’s Steve Bannon, formerly of Breitbart, where James O’Keefe learned how to deceitfully edit videos, where Bannon himself quoted Nazis, where Milo Yiannapolous was given free reign to be vile, and where other rightwing luminaries find refuge. Then there’s John Kelly, who just made up a story about Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, even though the event had been taped and that tape proved he was a liar. He never apologized. Oh, and let’s not forget Sebastian Horka, who belonged to a Nazi group called Vitezi Rand, is a rabid Islamophobe, and a protegé of Bannon.
I could go on. And on. And on.
You make it sound like you’re being attacked over differences of opinion about lawn regulation. What we’re talking about is a difference of morality, where one side lies about every goddamned thing, attacks minorities and women, admires murderous dictators, bans whole religions, threatens violence if they don’t get their way----but whines when criticized. One side wants to kill people just for existing, and they invent fantastical shit to justify that rage. Qanon! Benghazi! Pizzagate! Witch hunt! Persecution! (Otherwise known as quoting Trump verbatim.)
There is not room enough here to list all the vicious, spiteful, petty things Trump has said and done just in the past three years. If you voted for him, if you supported him, please point anything I said that was inaccurate. And, no, Fox News, or any Reichwing bullshit site is not a source. THIS is what you picked, but you don’t think picking this disgusting scumbag should reflect on you. Trumpers in general conjure up elaborate fantasies where this arrogant lifelong-conman sexual predator is transformed into a saintly Christian crusader superman with a devoted wife and loving family, who is secretly crusading to bring Hillary Clinton for----? These people believe Trump is a crusader for the working man, even though he’s spent his life screwing over workers and small businesses. Why? Because he said so.
Trump has been a public figure for decades. To believe anything that he says about himself is true, you have to disbelieve US intelligence personnel, experts in the field, scientists, reputable diplomats, decent people, while believing that Vladimir Putin and various dictators are the only ones telling the truth. Trump is a transparent liar who attacked a disabled man for pointing out a lie Trump had told on video, then mocked him in front of a jeering crowd of Trumpies—again, on video----then denied he’d done it.
And, no, you are not allowed to scream “HILLARY! OBAMA! BENGHAZI!” in defense. Defend Trump and only Trump. It can’t be done.
This sounds like gloating, which means you approve of Trump. That says it all.
He may be a POS, but he’s OUR POS.
This is a quite amazing synopsis of the past 10 years or so in Trump world.
Bravo.
I have the suspicion that much of what this population may consider a defense, or even an arguable excuse, the other half of the population would dismiss offhand.
More than mere belief: like he said comparing it to religion, it’s Faith i.e. belief not subject to evidentiary proof. Because if things are otherwise, then their expected arc of the Universe on which they base their willingness to bear with their temporary earthly discomfort is not what they thought it was, or may not even exist, and then what?
To be sure. And if that was your central thesis, out there fighting the hypocrisy of the average Lefty, you might have a point.
However:
a) Liberal outrage was “outrage” and your outrage is “outrage”. Outrage is not a good basis for analyzing a situation and coming to an honest assessment of it. Outrage is dumb.
b) If your ex puts a restraining order on you, that order comes about through a process where rational and independent persons have reviewed the matter and found that your ex is in the right when she says that you’re a threat. The restraining order does not come about because your ex is a bitch nor because the authorities are all assholes. Violation of the restraining order is a fairly clear signal that you deserved the restraining order and are not operating rationally or for the good of society.
(I should note, in saying that, that I am not your ex in this situation. I’m your pal, telling you that you should listen to the cops.)
Yes! I printed it out and put it in a file with just the few things I’m hoping my (not-yet-born) grandchildren will read someday. I’m serious. Printed, because it’s less likely than a Word doc or pdf to be unreadable, or just lost in the digital shuffle, decades from now.