Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

I'd have to grab the stuff regarding funding, but it's not like the RNC wasn't bankrolling him once he won the primaries. I'm pretty sure he had at least some donor support during the primaries (which all things considered was split heavily amongst so many other candidates that it didn't matter).

But the Donald's campaign was poorly organized, it's funding squandered, it's advertisements poorly done, and at all times Trump had a huge funding gap with Clinton, so he had less money and did less with that money than Clinton would have.

Money doesn't buy everything, clearly.

[RedKing]

I've never gotten the idea that RedKing embraced hatred, Dunamisdeos, he's just really pessimistic about it because hes experienced how shitty it gets on the Republican side. I don't think he's actually declared himself to be Republican, but that doesn't matter.

I'm pessimistic because I've seen the "why can't we all just get along" trope used my whole life, at times far less divisive than these, and the only effect I've observed is a steady lean to the Right in this country.

When the Left is in power, Republicans talk about the importance of bipartisanship and consensus, because they're on the outside looking in. Meanwhile their allies in the punditocracy screech hate and lies and pull the electorate to the Right.

As soon as they gain power, bipartisanship goes out the fucking window, because "elections have consequences". They do whatever the fuck they want, and if anybody tries to stop them, they get hanmered with rhetoric.

When Democrats get back into power, they generally lack that "fuck you, got mine" aspect to policymaking. Which means they don't counterbalance the Right. At best, they halt the bleeding.

So to my mind, arguing "we should try to understand each other and compromise" is just a tired old wolf-in-sheeps clothing argument to try and defuse the Left from actually doing unto others as has been done unto them.

Fuck that noise. The Republicans have been building this for 30-40 years, it's time to reap the whirlwind, bitches.

Just because we can't all get along doesn't mean we shouldn't work toward it. Dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as an evil scumbag is working against it. Using dirty tricks and enacting petty revenge (even when the other side did it to you before) is also working against it. By doing so, we're simply escalating a completely meaningless conflict which does nothing but alienate everyone and reinforce tribalism. Maybe we shouldn't compromise in everything we do, but we also shouldn't consider everyone who isn't on our side as inferior. We're all human beings; we all have more or less the same mental capacity and same moral sense. We're all capable of change. Look at any Republican, and realize that they are exactly the same as you.

Besides, Democrats aren't as holy as you think they are anyway, not by a long shot. They often do use the exact same tricks and tactics as the Republicans. They are just as corrupt as Republicans, and they abuse their power and authority just as often as the Republicans too. The whole Dems Can Do No Wrong trope could not be more wrong. Politicians in general are pretty bad.

Oh look, a "both sides are just as bad" equivalence argument! Never seen that before...

1. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Democrat. In part because they regularly do stupid, corrupt, short-sighted, greedy shit. And in part because they lack precisely the killer instinct I was referring to previously. Republicans don't offer mercy when their opponent is down, they gut them like a fish. Democrats help them up in the interest of 'building bridges', only to get gutted as soon as their turn their back.

2. Remind me again when the Democrats openly supported a pedophile for public office? Or passed a tax bill that goes against the very core of what they're supposed to stand for, as the Republicans -- the party of 'responsible fiscal conservatism' -- have done by adding a trillion to the deficit? Yeah, both parties suck. But one sucks WAY harder these days. If I have to tell you which one, you're part of the problem.

We're all human beings; we all have more or less the same mental capacity and same moral sense. We're all capable of change. Look at any Republican, and realize that they are exactly the same as you.

No, they are not. It's one thing to be ignorant -- that can be corrected with education and experience. It's entirely another thing to be willfully, defiantly ignorant, which is what we're up against now.

Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.
Teach a man to fish, only for him to burn the fishing pole and scream at you that you're evil and God will provide fish from the sky? Let that fucker starve to death, and stop wasting time and resources on him.

[Maximum Spin]

2. Remind me again when the Democrats openly supported a pedophile for public office?

The childishness of the rest of the post notwithstanding, weren't we all supposed to be in agreement, after Spitzer, Clinton, inter alia, that a candidate's sex habits and ability to govern are not correlated? I don't think this matters.

[wierd]

Redking--

You are experiencing the sensation when you have to try to address a true believer.  I put it to you that the modern liberal is just as much a true believer, just not in the same ideologies. The ideologies that they hold, they hold just as sacrosanct, and are just as unwilling to cede any credibility to data showing it to be false. If you need me to point out examples of this, you too are part of the problem.

The fundamental problem is that people cling to ideology over what reason and experiment tell us is true.

[RedKing]

2. Remind me again when the Democrats openly supported a pedophile for public office?

The childishness of the rest of the post notwithstanding, weren't we all supposed to be in agreement, after Spitzer, Clinton, inter alia, that a candidate's sex habits and ability to govern are not correlated? I don't think this matters.

There is a considerable difference between two consenting adults and an adult and a teenager not at the age of majority. I shouldn't have to explain that.
And honestly? Spitzer's career was ended and Clinton's probably should have been.


@wierd:
Not gonna lie---I have no idea what you're trying to say. 

[Maximum Spin]

There is a considerable difference between two consenting adults and an adult and a teenager not at the age of majority. I shouldn't have to explain that.

Of course you should. Why is the latter worse than, say, electing a President who openly admits to having used illegal drugs?

[wierd]

2. Remind me again when the Democrats openly supported a pedophile for public office?

The childishness of the rest of the post notwithstanding, weren't we all supposed to be in agreement, after Spitzer, Clinton, inter alia, that a candidate's sex habits and ability to govern are not correlated? I don't think this matters.

There is a considerable difference between two consenting adults and an adult and a teenager not at the age of majority. I shouldn't have to explain that.
And honestly? Spitzer's career was ended and Clinton's probably should have been.


@wierd:
Not gonna lie---I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Addressing this:

    We're all human beings; we all have more or less the same mental capacity and same moral sense. We're all capable of change. Look at any Republican, and realize that they are exactly the same as you.

No, they are not. It's one thing to be ignorant -- that can be corrected with education and experience. It's entirely another thing to be willfully, defiantly ignorant, which is what we're up against now.

You are experiencing the sensation a more or less reasonable person has when confronting a true believer.  "True Beliefs" cannot be questioned, because they are "axomatically true." This is why people are "Defiantly Ignorant"-- they dismiss the evidence that contradicts the "True Belief."

As stated, modern liberals have their own "True Beliefs", and are just as staunchly and purposefully ignorant when it comes to their being addressed. Again, if you need me to give examples, you too are part of the problem.

[RedKing]

There is a considerable difference between two consenting adults and an adult and a teenager not at the age of majority. I shouldn't have to explain that.

Of course you should. Why is the latter worse than, say, electing a President who openly admits to having used illegal drugs?

When you find me a blunt that didn't want to be smoked, give me a call.

@wierd: So...you're arguing there is no such thing as objective fact? When you have someone on tape saying X, and when confronted with the tape they and their supporters will continue to claim that they didn't, that it's all fake news, didn't happen, MAGA, AMERICA FUCK YEAH LIBTARDS....

That's defiant ignorance.



EDIT: I would add that rather than Spitzer and Clinton, let's look at Anthony Weiner. Sent pictures of his junk to a minor, he's doing 21 months in prison now. Are you saying that Weiner should be back in office?

[Maximum Spin]

When you find me a blunt that didn't want to be smoked, give me a call.

Ah, so it's the time-honoured "because your moral intuitions are obviously correct and anyone who claims to have different ones is lying and evil" excuse, I see.

[RedKing]

When you find me a blunt that didn't want to be smoked, give me a call.

Ah, so it's the time-honoured "because your moral intuitions are obviously correct and anyone who claims to have different ones is lying and evil" excuse, I see.

Whatevs, bro. I hope you never have children and stay the fuck away from mine.

[Maximum Spin]

Whatevs, bro. I hope you never have children and stay the fuck away from mine.

Hahaha, and no ability to separate argument from intent, either. Yeah, you're definitely "part of the problem" as wierd said. I could have guessed as much from the Neil Tyson quote alone, though.

To expand: I ask you why sex with a minor makes one a worse political candidate than drug use, and, instead of offering a coherent argument for your position, you call me a pedophile. That's just "batshit insane" territory.

[wierd]

There is a considerable difference between two consenting adults and an adult and a teenager not at the age of majority. I shouldn't have to explain that.

Of course you should. Why is the latter worse than, say, electing a President who openly admits to having used illegal drugs?

When you find me a blunt that didn't want to be smoked, give me a call.

@wierd: So...you're arguing there is no such thing as objective fact? When you have someone on tape saying X, and when confronted with the tape they and their supporters will continue to claim that they didn't, that it's all fake news, didn't happen, MAGA, AMERICA FUCK YEAH LIBTARDS....

That's defiant ignorance.

I did not say it wasn't, you are conflating my argument with one I never made. The original argument put forth, is that you yourself are willfully defiant about (something)--  and recognizing this is crucial to being objective. (That is the counterstroke to the top of the quote pyramid I cited--)

For a poignant example of this, you are being purposefully ignorant to having this pointed out to you. For you, it is axiomatically false that you would have such a tendency, and as such, you are justified in your holy criticisms.  When people rightly point out that this is incorrect, you deny, rather than introspect.

QED.

In the case of liberals, a recently high profile one was the firing of an engineer with asperger's who laid bare the foundation of one such major true belief that modern liberals hold sacrosanct-- the notion that men and women are fundamentally interchangeable in the workplace. This is a philosophical notion that is not supported by behavior or neural science. I observe this, and see it for what it is-- Willful ignorance in the face of evidence, and vindictive/reactionary behavior to being called on it, by the modern liberal left. (You will note, that if you followed the story instead of the talking heads version, that the engineer in question sent the memo discretely to a closed concern group, and A DIFFERENT EMPLOYEE is the one who mass-mailed it, and caused the scene.)

[RedKing]

@wierd: So...you're arguing there is no such thing as objective fact? When you have someone on tape saying X, and when confronted with the tape they and their supporters will continue to claim that they didn't, that it's all fake news, didn't happen, MAGA, AMERICA FUCK YEAH LIBTARDS....

That's defiant ignorance.

I did not say it wasn't, you are conflating my argument with one I never made. The original argument put forth, is that you yourself are willfully defiant about (something)--  and recognizing this is crucial to being objective. (That is the counterstroke to the top of the quote pyramid I cited--)

For a poignant example of this, you are being purposefully ignorant to having this pointed out to you. For you, it is axiomatically false that you would have such a tendency, and as such, you are justified in your holy criticisms.  When people rightly point out that this is incorrect, you deny, rather than introspect.

QED.

I think you're inferring a hell of a lot more going on than is actually there. I'm not denying anything, I'm genuinely finding the entire argument obtuse and struggling to understand your point. If it's some kind of "remove the plank from thine own eye" scold, then sure whatever -- I'm not claiming to be the Arbiter of All Truth.

There is plenty of room for subjective disagreement, even with both sides coming to different interpretations of factual evidence. The example you gave, economic theory, gun control policy, geopolitical strategy, etc.

None of those is what I'm talking about. I'm talking about sheer denial of documented fact. It seems as though you're saying anything I disagree with is equally valid and my inability to recognize it as valid makes me a hypocrite. Which is relativism taken to the point of solipsism. Which is why that's probably NOT what you're saying, which leads me back to -- what ARE you saying?

[wierd]

@wierd: So...you're arguing there is no such thing as objective fact? When you have someone on tape saying X, and when confronted with the tape they and their supporters will continue to claim that they didn't, that it's all fake news, didn't happen, MAGA, AMERICA FUCK YEAH LIBTARDS....

That's defiant ignorance.

I did not say it wasn't, you are conflating my argument with one I never made. The original argument put forth, is that you yourself are willfully defiant about (something)--  and recognizing this is crucial to being objective. (That is the counterstroke to the top of the quote pyramid I cited--)

For a poignant example of this, you are being purposefully ignorant to having this pointed out to you. For you, it is axiomatically false that you would have such a tendency, and as such, you are justified in your holy criticisms.  When people rightly point out that this is incorrect, you deny, rather than introspect.

QED.

I think you're inferring a hell of a lot more going on than is actually there. I'm not denying anything, I'm genuinely finding the entire argument obtuse and struggling to understand your point. If it's some kind of "remove the plank from thine own eye" scold, then sure whatever -- I'm not claiming to be the Arbiter of All Truth.

There is plenty of room for subjective disagreement, even with both sides coming to different interpretations of factual evidence. The example you gave, economic theory, gun control policy, geopolitical strategy, etc.

None of those is what I'm talking about. I'm talking about sheer denial of documented fact. It seems as though you're saying anything I disagree with is equally valid and my inability to recognize it as valid makes me a hypocrite. Which is relativism taken to the point of solipsism. Which is why that's probably NOT what you're saying, which leads me back to -- what ARE you saying?

I was responding to the exact words you used. Here, I will quote the initial chain again.

         We're all human beings; we all have more or less the same mental capacity and same moral sense. We're all capable of change. Look at any Republican, and realize that they are exactly the same as you.

    No, they are not. It's one thing to be ignorant -- that can be corrected with education and experience. It's entirely another thing to be willfully, defiantly ignorant, which is what we're up against now.

The initial quotation defacto asserts that the issue you cite (true believer syndrome), is something that you yourself suffer from, you just dont realize it-- and, ALSO that like you, they too can come out of it with proper coaching.

You just doubled down with the "NUH UH! NOT ME! THEY HAS ALL THE PROBLEMS!!" rhetoric.

Hence my replies.

[RedKing]

So perhaps a better choice of words would have been "Look at any Republican, and realize that they are exactly the same as you used to be." If the argument is that their thinking can be changed. I'd still disagree, because I don't think I was ever *defiantly* ignorant back then, just garden-variety parochial ignorance. But I'd allow that yes, I'm probably throwing a few babies out with a whole lot of bathwater.

But if the argument is just more false equivalence bullshit of "Both sides are equally wrong and you're just a Mirror Universe Republican", then I'm not interested. That serves no purpose other than to seem smug and detached, and negate any attempt to claim a position.