By the way, whose sock are you?
L.A. Noire was a great video game.
I have to admit that I’m 20+ replies behind on reading this thread.
But I think it’s worth mentioning:
- there are MAGAs
- there are Trump supporters who – presumably as a matter of degree – wouldn’t call themselves MAGAs
- there are people who support Trump because they see him as the lesser of two evils (many who see him that way by several orders of magnitude, largely because they steep solely in the RW propaganda machine)
- there are people who support Trump because – while they’re virtually 100% disengaged – they heard something or feel something about him that rings as positive
- there are people who support Trump because of some flavor of historical loyalty to the Republican party or to the concept of Conservative principles – principles that they generally prefer, whether or not those principles are represented by Trump.
And probably a handful of other categories.
But one thing they all have in common? They all support the only man in my lifetime who actively sought to overthrow the legitimately-elected United States government.
[And that’s me consciously ignoring any of a dozen other horrible things that he has inarguably done, or the eventual effects of everything that he’s currently doing]
What the actual fuck?
If you don’t think that merits a little shit flung in your general direction on a somewhat regular basis by a handful of people with whom there’s solid mutual antipathy and animus, then I won’t ever be able to convince you.
Now, if you do NOT support Donald J. Trump, but are still looking to engage – from a shared set of facts – on discussions of policy, priorities, foreign, and domestic issues, then – as I’ve said before – I don’t think you’ll face that much overt hostility here.
At least, not from most of us.
Keir Starmer. I’m regretting it a bit, because his government has been even worse than the Conservative Party staying in power would have been. However, I recognised the need for a change and I think I made the best decision based on the available choices.
I’m not sure if I should bother trying to steer the above reply back on topic. My quick reply is that people make decisions based on their personal situations and perceptions. Debating whether their perceptions are correct is fine. Condemning them as ignorant, racist, etc. isn’t, unless you want to be flagrantly oppositional. That doesn’t seem to be a problem for the predominately liberal voices on this board. I believe I’m not allowed to discuss moderation in this thread, but I will say that I’ve encountered issues being the voice of dissent.
[Moderating]
This is correct, and I encourage you not to pursue this line any further.
[//Moderating]
So the robust debate isn’t about what’s taking place in this message board, but what’s taking place in Congress? I promise you I’m not a Congressperson.
By the way, you’ve just answered crowmanyclowds question for a cite.
Not at all, you came first rudely claiming that the posters were launching the MAGAT slur, It turns out that the only mention over here was to point out that many conservatives that remain are not from the MAGA crazy group.
Incidentally, what I do in discussions, is to first find out what a debater brings on; guys like Sam Stone, in the last posts that he was doing before he flounced, just showed how “scientific” his sources were. They were made up.
Then, it is to the rude replies I reach for, and just in the pit.
OK, my beef is specifically with American Trump supporters who like to act as though their hands are clean, or they were helpless with their vote because, after all, golly, he was the only Republican on the ballot.
Not even vaguely close to what was asked for in Post 642.
[quote=“GIGObuster, post:708, topic:1017016”]
only mention over here was to point out that many conservatives that remain are not from the MAGA crazy group.
Incidentally, what I do in discussions, is to first find out what a debater brings on; guys like Sam Stone, in the last posts that he was doing before he flounced, just showed how “scientific” his sources where. They were made up.
Then, it is to the rude replies I reach for, and just in the pit.
[/quote]I guess MAGAT is going out of fashion. The quick find I did showed the most recent usage was 21 June.
Not really all that old.
And since you used the term bull shit on me, I’m calling bullshit on your second paragraph,
Incidentally, what I do in discussions, is to first find out what a debater brings on; guys like Sam Stone , in the last posts that he was doing before he flounced, just showed how “scientific” his sources were. They were made up.
You’ve in the past assumed that I source my news from right-wing websites. I don’t mind that you’ve forgotten that I disputed that wasn’t true. But the idea that you’ve reviewed my posting history and concluded that what I as a “debater brings on” is based on conservative websites is utter bullshit.
And again, there’s the irony. I’m arguing against you for false accusations. Which is off-topic and really quite boring.
You make a lot of very vague claims, thinking that repeating them somehow makes them valid.
We had a nice long chat about it, and about the many differing points of view and interpretation of the MAGAt term last year.
So, yeah, it’s actually a matter for discussion rather than just being taken for granted.
For the record, I use it (and admitted to doing so in that thread) when I’m trying to be deliberately insulting to that group, which I do distinguish from the term “conservatives” and even “Republicans” though right now in the US the difference is tiny and decreasing every day.
Of course it’s rude. Anything other than utter submission to the Right is rude. That’s what people mean when they demand politeness, and one of the reasons the Democrats keep getting walked on. They’re polite. They submit and grovel and defer, like they are supposed to.
They make good punching bags, as is the point of being “polite”.
BTW, that cite missed the context too, it was implied that common sense people (including moderate conservatives) would accept the evidence about the 2020 election was fair, MAGAS clearly would not.
Missing the point to obfuscate, of course it was bullshit when you claimed that
I promise you that I was not posting like that outside the pit and I promise you I’m not a member of Parliament 
. And demanding robust debate in the pit does look like sea-lioning, that is trolling from your part.
What about Keir Starmer voters?
So you accept the principle that when conservatives disagree with liberals, that it’s an honest agreement and not trolling? I’m not completely sure that that principle has been apparent at all times.
And your example is?
Thank you @DavidNRockies . Not only did he try to overthrow the government, he got people killed. Over at least 1000 peoples lives are RUINED. Being pardoned does not remove the felony conviction.
And as you said, all his other corrupt dealings and he, himself is a convicted felon. Twice impeached.
Let’s see, extortion, Sedition, Insurrection. I could go on, and on.
But Trump supporters still vote for him. They want to be able to commit atrocities just like him and walk away from it. He allowed them to show their true racist bigoted colors. That’s all I can see.
So I’m asking you to back up your argument, and instead of doing so, you’re throwing out an Internet meme term. I think that some conservatives are leaving the SDMB because they can’t debate fairly. Maybe that’s only me. But when you accuse me of getting my information from right-wing web sites which is untrue, I don’t trust you. Start a debate in Great Debates if you’re genuinely interested in arguing about it. Otherwise, you’re just complaining.