|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 30 2017 03:54 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 03:44 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 03:34 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 03:28 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 03:08 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 01:23 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 00:47 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Quite the distance between the amount of times you're annoyed that their grievances are being dismissed and the amount of times you'd advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances (cause you know, that'd be Socialism). Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans. I'm not a liberal and that's quite the deflection you're trying to pull here. Ouch. Welcome to politics. You think, whatever your narrower ideological identification, that I don’t advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances, like those would that are generally called Socialism. That’s usually a liberal position: our policies are the right policies for the white working class, and yours are wrong. The other side insults them for calling them socialist, but are wrong. Well correct me if I'm wrong but I hear conservatism is more about the bootstraps and all. You could do stuff to help them but that takes money, and if you put money in that that's money that's not coming back for your tax cuts, your military spending, and your anti-immigration efficiency. "narrower ideological identification" lolz. Boring talking points. Like I said, at least one side admitted they were real problems, the other laughed them away. We’re not coming together on what policies would best help the white working class with that kind of start. You recognize only minority and women victims and white oppressors, after all. That would be the first solution, if it’s even possible in today’s climate. I don’t need the second and third restatement that “my policies aren’t socialism and work, your policies don’t work or help.” So basically conservatism is better because you say "what about rural grievances" before advocating for policies that do nothing to address rural grievances (and in many cases increase the issues), however I shouldn't talk to you about it because it bores you. Got it. I understand that the conservative politicians have to pretend that they're on the side of the rural people cause that's where they get the votes, but you aren't running for anything, you should be able to embrace how the core conservative ideas function. There’s really no reason to argue with you that the conservative approach is better when you demonstrate your engagement is “Americans can’t embrace my policies because Socialism.” You’ll need to broaden your horizons first. I’m really fine leaving you to believe your preconceived notions because that’s pretty much all we come back to every time. Oh, and your policies ignore half of America and hurt the people they pretend to be aimed to help. The affected persons wised up, and this was in no small reason due to how terrible your policies were in the first place. ...as long as we’re just slinging lines back and forth I have made no attempt to offer a policy for you to embrace. I have only posited that any policy that could be offered to address rural grievances would be made against, not by, republicans, and that they would use words like "Socialism" to argue against it. I think that vision is in keeping with the core beliefs of conservatism, bootstraps, less spending, and so on, and your incapacity to answer that in any other way than "That's a talking point and I hate that, here's some other talking points about minorities and white people that I'd like to shift the conversation to" reinforces my idea that your support for rural grievances is only of facade and that you would totally be okay with republicans opposing someone like, say, Bernie Sanders, doing something to address rural grievances.
and you'd be correct in your idea and your assessment of danglars.
|
On November 30 2017 04:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 03:54 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 03:44 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 03:34 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 03:28 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 03:08 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 01:23 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans. I'm not a liberal and that's quite the deflection you're trying to pull here. Ouch. Welcome to politics. You think, whatever your narrower ideological identification, that I don’t advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances, like those would that are generally called Socialism. That’s usually a liberal position: our policies are the right policies for the white working class, and yours are wrong. The other side insults them for calling them socialist, but are wrong. Well correct me if I'm wrong but I hear conservatism is more about the bootstraps and all. You could do stuff to help them but that takes money, and if you put money in that that's money that's not coming back for your tax cuts, your military spending, and your anti-immigration efficiency. "narrower ideological identification" lolz. Boring talking points. Like I said, at least one side admitted they were real problems, the other laughed them away. We’re not coming together on what policies would best help the white working class with that kind of start. You recognize only minority and women victims and white oppressors, after all. That would be the first solution, if it’s even possible in today’s climate. I don’t need the second and third restatement that “my policies aren’t socialism and work, your policies don’t work or help.” So basically conservatism is better because you say "what about rural grievances" before advocating for policies that do nothing to address rural grievances (and in many cases increase the issues), however I shouldn't talk to you about it because it bores you. Got it. I understand that the conservative politicians have to pretend that they're on the side of the rural people cause that's where they get the votes, but you aren't running for anything, you should be able to embrace how the core conservative ideas function. There’s really no reason to argue with you that the conservative approach is better when you demonstrate your engagement is “Americans can’t embrace my policies because Socialism.” You’ll need to broaden your horizons first. I’m really fine leaving you to believe your preconceived notions because that’s pretty much all we come back to every time. Oh, and your policies ignore half of America and hurt the people they pretend to be aimed to help. The affected persons wised up, and this was in no small reason due to how terrible your policies were in the first place. ...as long as we’re just slinging lines back and forth I have made no attempt to offer a policy for you to embrace. I have only posited that any policy that could be offered to address rural grievances would be made against, not by, republicans, and that they would use words like "Socialism" to argue against it. I think that vision is in keeping with the core beliefs of conservatism, bootstraps, less spending, and so on, and your incapacity to answer that in any other way than "That's a talking point and I hate that, here's some other talking points about minorities and white people that I'd like to shift the conversation to" reinforces my idea that your support for rural grievances is only of facade and that you would totally be okay with republicans opposing someone like, say, Bernie Sanders, doing something to address rural grievances. Go on and continue to believe what you originally believed about conservatives and what policies really help the poor and middle America. I’ll save my time arguing in favor of my policies and against yours for someone less inclined to troll Socialism and lefty memes about conservatism. I get some enjoyment from reading the usual “throw money at the problem, hope it sticks” and “the dumb Americans labeled my ideas Socialism, waah” liberal/progressive throwaway lines. It’s a very neat system, and it kind of reminds people there’s really no point to arguing further. You just wait for the next current event to contrast how it fits or contrasts with the political and economic systems and smile and walk along.
In order to change what I originally believed I would have had to be met with some sort of counterargument. Preferably a convincing one. It's not really surprising that my beliefs haven't changed if that is the level of your answer.
|
On November 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 03:38 Velr wrote:
I talked about the asshole in alabama still being embraced by your president and your party Sorry, did you have a response on the primary? Or who thought it was ok? Hell, half the party leadership opposes him (ever heard of McConnell, the senate leader) and Trump can’t even mention him by name ... just says how bad Jones would be. You have a very odd way of using “embraced,” but maybe that’s lost in translation.
it doesn’t say anything of Jones’s candidacy other than that he doesn’t have the R next to his name. you know this as well as the rest of us. and this has been said by all of Moore’s supporters, including Trump himself. why you’d pretend otherwise is a mystery.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Speaking of Jones, is he in any way remarkable or is he a generic individual with a D next to his name? I’m sure someone following Alabama would know better than I.
|
On November 30 2017 04:22 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of Jones, is he in any way remarkable or is he a generic individual with a D next to his name? I’m sure someone following Alabama would know better than I.
He prosecuted two members of the KKK involved in the birmingham church bombing. Only thing I know about him besides that he is very much pro choice
|
On November 30 2017 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 03:08 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 02:53 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 00:39 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:47 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:23 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:03 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 22:43 zlefin wrote:that's a pretty weak provocation, we have much better trolls in the thread  the opposition method of dealing with it is imperfect, but passable. and at any rate, compared to the ridiculousness the republicans are doing, the dems come out looking like angels. the right went super crazy, and that's all on them. it's also objectively true that a lot of trump votes are idiotic. and poor discussion quality is more a result of it being the internet than anything else. why does the world need a leader at all? I don't see any reason why the world needs a leader. part of the US is trying to up its game, but it's the republicans who're blocking it; only so much to be done when one side insists on dragging you down. The Russians are pikers compared to “the opposition’s way of dealing with it.” I can really think of no more appropriate successor to Obama than Trump. really? not even someone say, qualified? Opposition to Obama on policy was called racist. Then you got somebody that doesn’t flee from the term. He didn’t moderate his agenda in the face of legislative backlash, but used executive orders. Trump can’t do jack in terms of legislation, but has signed executive orders making the first dents in the regulatory state for a generation. Obama embraced minority+women identity politics (particularly in the second term), Trump embraces white identity politics. Obama represented the liberal ideal of right side of history/March of progress, and Trump was the greatest repudiation of the leftist vision possible. Obama exploited and grew the cracks in American society for political gain, and Trump capitalized on them. I wanted a less fitting successor (primary process), but one better for my agenda, and thought Trump couldn’t win. and sincerely, this is the best possible outcome you think? imo that’s very embarrassing. best outcome would’ve been maybe a president with enough integrity to have american identity politics. and again, you know, qualified, at a minimum. we could ask for more too, but apparently we are setting our bar low enough to trip over. to call that ‘best’? hah. i hate actually saying this because it’s already been said a dozen times, but the only way your post makes any sense as a real belief is starting with the position of being totally drowning in white grievance. that your definition of ‘best’ is ‘taking back the country from minorities and women’ has just got to be a joke. ur trolllin me. fk you got me. Not best possible outcome. My primary vote was for the person I thought was the best possible outcome. Trump wasn’t even in my top half of acceptable candidates from the 17 (?). Trump was more of the deserved successor with all the parallels and complements. If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint. At some point you should just admit that you support Donald Trump. What's the reason for reluctance? I consider it possible to support and oppose political figures based on their policy priorities and policy compromises. Trump will continue to be more of an oppose for me than support, but there are these dunderhead resisters out there that call it impossible. The whole thing about a perfect response to Obama amounts to a full throated endorsement though. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Not perfect (at least in this exchange), just acceptable and "deserved" based on parallels. I'm just curious which Democrats (if any) are less bad than Trump in someone like Danglars eyes. I'm also curious if there is anyone outside of the Republican party (based on current/past positions) that they could vote for if it was a choice between them and Trump?
“No more appropriate” is close enough to “perfect.” It was a very thorough endorsement.
|
On November 30 2017 04:24 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 04:22 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of Jones, is he in any way remarkable or is he a generic individual with a D next to his name? I’m sure someone following Alabama would know better than I. He prosecuted two members of the KKK involved in the birmingham church bombing. Only thing I know about him besides that he is very much pro choice
The two worst positions to take in Alabama. No wonder he is going to lose.
|
On November 30 2017 04:10 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 04:07 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 03:54 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 03:44 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 03:34 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 03:28 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 03:08 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 01:23 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I'm not a liberal and that's quite the deflection you're trying to pull here. Ouch. Welcome to politics. You think, whatever your narrower ideological identification, that I don’t advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances, like those would that are generally called Socialism. That’s usually a liberal position: our policies are the right policies for the white working class, and yours are wrong. The other side insults them for calling them socialist, but are wrong. Well correct me if I'm wrong but I hear conservatism is more about the bootstraps and all. You could do stuff to help them but that takes money, and if you put money in that that's money that's not coming back for your tax cuts, your military spending, and your anti-immigration efficiency. "narrower ideological identification" lolz. Boring talking points. Like I said, at least one side admitted they were real problems, the other laughed them away. We’re not coming together on what policies would best help the white working class with that kind of start. You recognize only minority and women victims and white oppressors, after all. That would be the first solution, if it’s even possible in today’s climate. I don’t need the second and third restatement that “my policies aren’t socialism and work, your policies don’t work or help.” So basically conservatism is better because you say "what about rural grievances" before advocating for policies that do nothing to address rural grievances (and in many cases increase the issues), however I shouldn't talk to you about it because it bores you. Got it. I understand that the conservative politicians have to pretend that they're on the side of the rural people cause that's where they get the votes, but you aren't running for anything, you should be able to embrace how the core conservative ideas function. There’s really no reason to argue with you that the conservative approach is better when you demonstrate your engagement is “Americans can’t embrace my policies because Socialism.” You’ll need to broaden your horizons first. I’m really fine leaving you to believe your preconceived notions because that’s pretty much all we come back to every time. Oh, and your policies ignore half of America and hurt the people they pretend to be aimed to help. The affected persons wised up, and this was in no small reason due to how terrible your policies were in the first place. ...as long as we’re just slinging lines back and forth I have made no attempt to offer a policy for you to embrace. I have only posited that any policy that could be offered to address rural grievances would be made against, not by, republicans, and that they would use words like "Socialism" to argue against it. I think that vision is in keeping with the core beliefs of conservatism, bootstraps, less spending, and so on, and your incapacity to answer that in any other way than "That's a talking point and I hate that, here's some other talking points about minorities and white people that I'd like to shift the conversation to" reinforces my idea that your support for rural grievances is only of facade and that you would totally be okay with republicans opposing someone like, say, Bernie Sanders, doing something to address rural grievances. Go on and continue to believe what you originally believed about conservatives and what policies really help the poor and middle America. I’ll save my time arguing in favor of my policies and against yours for someone less inclined to troll Socialism and lefty memes about conservatism. I get some enjoyment from reading the usual “throw money at the problem, hope it sticks” and “the dumb Americans labeled my ideas Socialism, waah” liberal/progressive throwaway lines. It’s a very neat system, and it kind of reminds people there’s really no point to arguing further. You just wait for the next current event to contrast how it fits or contrasts with the political and economic systems and smile and walk along. In order to change what I originally believed I would have had to be met with some sort of counterargument. Preferably a convincing one. It's not really surprising that my beliefs haven't changed if that is the level of your answer.
I just said why convincing you to change your beliefs was a foolish endeavor. Slinging memes/campaign lines shows one level of engagement, and that’s not the one that involves deep and honest discussion. If this changes in the future, I’ll be reading and listening. I’m more open than others to feed the trolls here and there.
|
On November 30 2017 04:24 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 04:22 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of Jones, is he in any way remarkable or is he a generic individual with a D next to his name? I’m sure someone following Alabama would know better than I. He prosecuted two members of the KKK involved in the birmingham church bombing. Only thing I know about him besides that he is very much pro choice
Killing babies up to the point that their head is crowning doesn’t play very well with a generic Alabama voter. Ideally, there would be a resignation with a third candidate that doesn’t represent such a polar opposite on abortion in particular and social issues in general.
|
United States42004 Posts
On November 30 2017 04:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 04:24 IyMoon wrote:On November 30 2017 04:22 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of Jones, is he in any way remarkable or is he a generic individual with a D next to his name? I’m sure someone following Alabama would know better than I. He prosecuted two members of the KKK involved in the birmingham church bombing. Only thing I know about him besides that he is very much pro choice Killing babies up to the point that their head is crowning doesn’t play very well with a generic Alabama voter. Ideally, there would be a resignation with a third candidate that doesn’t represent such a polar opposite on abortion in particular and social issues in general.
Prosecuting members of the KKK also doesn't play very well.
|
On November 30 2017 04:26 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 30 2017 03:08 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 02:53 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 02:10 Doodsmack wrote:On November 30 2017 00:39 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:47 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:23 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:03 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The Russians are pikers compared to “the opposition’s way of dealing with it.” I can really think of no more appropriate successor to Obama than Trump. really? not even someone say, qualified? Opposition to Obama on policy was called racist. Then you got somebody that doesn’t flee from the term. He didn’t moderate his agenda in the face of legislative backlash, but used executive orders. Trump can’t do jack in terms of legislation, but has signed executive orders making the first dents in the regulatory state for a generation. Obama embraced minority+women identity politics (particularly in the second term), Trump embraces white identity politics. Obama represented the liberal ideal of right side of history/March of progress, and Trump was the greatest repudiation of the leftist vision possible. Obama exploited and grew the cracks in American society for political gain, and Trump capitalized on them. I wanted a less fitting successor (primary process), but one better for my agenda, and thought Trump couldn’t win. and sincerely, this is the best possible outcome you think? imo that’s very embarrassing. best outcome would’ve been maybe a president with enough integrity to have american identity politics. and again, you know, qualified, at a minimum. we could ask for more too, but apparently we are setting our bar low enough to trip over. to call that ‘best’? hah. i hate actually saying this because it’s already been said a dozen times, but the only way your post makes any sense as a real belief is starting with the position of being totally drowning in white grievance. that your definition of ‘best’ is ‘taking back the country from minorities and women’ has just got to be a joke. ur trolllin me. fk you got me. Not best possible outcome. My primary vote was for the person I thought was the best possible outcome. Trump wasn’t even in my top half of acceptable candidates from the 17 (?). Trump was more of the deserved successor with all the parallels and complements. If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint. At some point you should just admit that you support Donald Trump. What's the reason for reluctance? I consider it possible to support and oppose political figures based on their policy priorities and policy compromises. Trump will continue to be more of an oppose for me than support, but there are these dunderhead resisters out there that call it impossible. The whole thing about a perfect response to Obama amounts to a full throated endorsement though. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Not perfect (at least in this exchange), just acceptable and "deserved" based on parallels. I'm just curious which Democrats (if any) are less bad than Trump in someone like Danglars eyes. I'm also curious if there is anyone outside of the Republican party (based on current/past positions) that they could vote for if it was a choice between them and Trump? “No more appropriate” is close enough to “perfect.” It was a very thorough endorsement.
Language, my dear. It was poetic justice that Trump followed him. But to advance the appropriate follow up given Obama’s flaws, maybe you actually read why I thought it was appropriate that such a man succeeded such a predecessor?
Leave the generalization-and-scoot to ChristianS. I actually said what it was in parallels and complements that I thought highly appropriate. You don’t have to misuse the word to pretend something was left unsaid.
|
|
|
On November 30 2017 04:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 04:10 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 04:07 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 03:54 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 03:44 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 03:34 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 03:28 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 03:08 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Ouch. Welcome to politics. You think, whatever your narrower ideological identification, that I don’t advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances, like those would that are generally called Socialism. That’s usually a liberal position: our policies are the right policies for the white working class, and yours are wrong. The other side insults them for calling them socialist, but are wrong. Well correct me if I'm wrong but I hear conservatism is more about the bootstraps and all. You could do stuff to help them but that takes money, and if you put money in that that's money that's not coming back for your tax cuts, your military spending, and your anti-immigration efficiency. "narrower ideological identification" lolz. Boring talking points. Like I said, at least one side admitted they were real problems, the other laughed them away. We’re not coming together on what policies would best help the white working class with that kind of start. You recognize only minority and women victims and white oppressors, after all. That would be the first solution, if it’s even possible in today’s climate. I don’t need the second and third restatement that “my policies aren’t socialism and work, your policies don’t work or help.” So basically conservatism is better because you say "what about rural grievances" before advocating for policies that do nothing to address rural grievances (and in many cases increase the issues), however I shouldn't talk to you about it because it bores you. Got it. I understand that the conservative politicians have to pretend that they're on the side of the rural people cause that's where they get the votes, but you aren't running for anything, you should be able to embrace how the core conservative ideas function. There’s really no reason to argue with you that the conservative approach is better when you demonstrate your engagement is “Americans can’t embrace my policies because Socialism.” You’ll need to broaden your horizons first. I’m really fine leaving you to believe your preconceived notions because that’s pretty much all we come back to every time. Oh, and your policies ignore half of America and hurt the people they pretend to be aimed to help. The affected persons wised up, and this was in no small reason due to how terrible your policies were in the first place. ...as long as we’re just slinging lines back and forth I have made no attempt to offer a policy for you to embrace. I have only posited that any policy that could be offered to address rural grievances would be made against, not by, republicans, and that they would use words like "Socialism" to argue against it. I think that vision is in keeping with the core beliefs of conservatism, bootstraps, less spending, and so on, and your incapacity to answer that in any other way than "That's a talking point and I hate that, here's some other talking points about minorities and white people that I'd like to shift the conversation to" reinforces my idea that your support for rural grievances is only of facade and that you would totally be okay with republicans opposing someone like, say, Bernie Sanders, doing something to address rural grievances. Go on and continue to believe what you originally believed about conservatives and what policies really help the poor and middle America. I’ll save my time arguing in favor of my policies and against yours for someone less inclined to troll Socialism and lefty memes about conservatism. I get some enjoyment from reading the usual “throw money at the problem, hope it sticks” and “the dumb Americans labeled my ideas Socialism, waah” liberal/progressive throwaway lines. It’s a very neat system, and it kind of reminds people there’s really no point to arguing further. You just wait for the next current event to contrast how it fits or contrasts with the political and economic systems and smile and walk along. In order to change what I originally believed I would have had to be met with some sort of counterargument. Preferably a convincing one. It's not really surprising that my beliefs haven't changed if that is the level of your answer. I just said why convincing you to change your beliefs was a foolish endeavor. Slinging memes/campaign lines shows one level of engagement, and that’s not the one that involves deep and honest discussion. If this changes in the future, I’ll be reading and listening. I’m more open than others to feed the trolls here and there.
Cool posturing. We're all here and we all know you will sling memes/campaign lines whenever you feel the need to (you have just done it in this very conversation with me trying to shift the conversation to the minority victim vs white oppressor talking point). You've also never struck me as the type not to answer talking points just because they are talking points and that's below you or something, after all this is a debate thread and you're trying to show as much moral certitude as possible, so answering a dumb talking point would be a pretty cool way to do that. My guess is the resistance comes from elsewhere.
|
On November 30 2017 04:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 04:24 IyMoon wrote:On November 30 2017 04:22 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of Jones, is he in any way remarkable or is he a generic individual with a D next to his name? I’m sure someone following Alabama would know better than I. He prosecuted two members of the KKK involved in the birmingham church bombing. Only thing I know about him besides that he is very much pro choice Killing babies up to the point that their head is crowning doesn’t play very well with a generic Alabama voter. Ideally, there would be a resignation with a third candidate that doesn’t represent such a polar opposite on abortion in particular and social issues in general.
Umm, Jones publicly went on record during this campaign saying he doesn't want to change the current restrictions to late-term abortion that limit it to when the life of the mother is endangered. His statement at one point that led many to this absurd gibberish talking point was specifically against the wholesale ban (edit: with standard rape/incest life of the mother exceptions) on post-20th week abortion bill considered by the House. Great job swallowing talking points though!
I mean if you believe he's a liar who will secretly promote a completely untenable policy position at least say that and not that you believe he has a policy position he publicly said he doesn't have...
|
|
|
On November 30 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 02:25 IyMoon wrote:On November 30 2017 02:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 02:17 kollin wrote:On November 30 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 00:47 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 00:39 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:47 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:23 brian wrote:
[quote]
really? not even someone say, qualified? Opposition to Obama on policy was called racist. Then you got somebody that doesn’t flee from the term. He didn’t moderate his agenda in the face of legislative backlash, but used executive orders. Trump can’t do jack in terms of legislation, but has signed executive orders making the first dents in the regulatory state for a generation. Obama embraced minority+women identity politics (particularly in the second term), Trump embraces white identity politics. Obama represented the liberal ideal of right side of history/March of progress, and Trump was the greatest repudiation of the leftist vision possible. Obama exploited and grew the cracks in American society for political gain, and Trump capitalized on them. I wanted a less fitting successor (primary process), but one better for my agenda, and thought Trump couldn’t win. and sincerely, this is the best possible outcome you think? imo that’s very embarrassing. best outcome would’ve been maybe a president with enough integrity to have american identity politics. and again, you know, qualified, at a minimum. we could ask for more too, but apparently we are setting our bar low enough to trip over. to call that ‘best’? hah. i hate actually saying this because it’s already been said a dozen times, but the only way your post makes any sense as a real belief is starting with the position of being totally drowning in white grievance. that your definition of ‘best’ is ‘taking back the country from minorities and women’ has just got to be a joke. ur trolllin me. fk you got me. If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint. Quite the distance between the amount of times you're annoyed that their grievances are being dismissed and the amount of times you'd advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances (cause you know, that'd be Socialism). Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans. Nationalism is anathema to helping anyone in the long term. You have it backwards. Nationalism is the solution to helping everyone long term. If you truly believe that your liberal ideals are superior, then you should actively promote and support those ideals, with the goal of supplanting all "lesser" competitors. pretty sure mass Nationalism has led to some really really shitty things in history The problem with y'all on the Left is that you have lost sight of nationalism's better points because you have been brainwashed into falsely equating nationalism with Nazism.
Cultural nationalism, in moderation, is natural and can be healthy for a society - we all want to protect our own family above other peoples, and while there isn't necessarily a solid philosophical argument for that it is a trait of human nature that realistically will not disappear. Economic nationalism is what has led to tens, if not hundreds of millions of death throughout the world. I don't equate it with Nazism (necessarily), but I do equate it with WW1. Economic nationalism quickly devolves into a zero-sum game in which nations are trying just as hard to harm each other as advance their own interests. It can literally destroy the planet.
|
lol nationalism's better points. There's not a single country right now where nationalism is currently helping them. Russia is a god awful place to live from both a social and economic standpoint, Japan is stagnant in just about every way, the most nationalistic parts of America are full of moral and economic failings, Arab nationalism has created an untenable situation in the Middle East where there's no lasting peace between Arab nations and Israel.
So forgive me if I don't believe nationalism's better points are the solution to helping everyone long term.
|
XDaunt with his " y'all on the left" ... and then he talks about brainwashing. lol.
|
On November 30 2017 02:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 02:25 IyMoon wrote:On November 30 2017 02:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2017 02:17 kollin wrote:On November 30 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2017 00:47 Nebuchad wrote:On November 30 2017 00:39 Danglars wrote:On November 29 2017 23:47 brian wrote:On November 29 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Opposition to Obama on policy was called racist. Then you got somebody that doesn’t flee from the term. He didn’t moderate his agenda in the face of legislative backlash, but used executive orders. Trump can’t do jack in terms of legislation, but has signed executive orders making the first dents in the regulatory state for a generation. Obama embraced minority+women identity politics (particularly in the second term), Trump embraces white identity politics. Obama represented the liberal ideal of right side of history/March of progress, and Trump was the greatest repudiation of the leftist vision possible. Obama exploited and grew the cracks in American society for political gain, and Trump capitalized on them.
I wanted a less fitting successor (primary process), but one better for my agenda, and thought Trump couldn’t win. and sincerely, this is the best possible outcome you think? imo that’s very embarrassing. best outcome would’ve been maybe a president with enough integrity to have american identity politics. and again, you know, qualified, at a minimum. we could ask for more too, but apparently we are setting our bar low enough to trip over. to call that ‘best’? hah. i hate actually saying this because it’s already been said a dozen times, but the only way your post makes any sense as a real belief is starting with the position of being totally drowning in white grievance. that your definition of ‘best’ is ‘taking back the country from minorities and women’ has just got to be a joke. ur trolllin me. fk you got me. If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint. Quite the distance between the amount of times you're annoyed that their grievances are being dismissed and the amount of times you'd advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances (cause you know, that'd be Socialism). Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans. Nationalism is anathema to helping anyone in the long term. You have it backwards. Nationalism is the solution to helping everyone long term. If you truly believe that your liberal ideals are superior, then you should actively promote and support those ideals, with the goal of supplanting all "lesser" competitors. pretty sure mass Nationalism has led to some really really shitty things in history The problem with y'all on the Left is that you have lost sight of nationalism's better points because you have been brainwashed into falsely equating nationalism with Nazism. Not really. National traits that are worthy spread by their own merits and inherent virtue. National defects spread through blind devotion to the nation as an ideal. Nationalism is the latter. That should be obvious to anyone from starting axioms. I don't need nationalism to appreciate my country's contribution to democracy and justice, democracy and justice speak for themselves. I do need nationalism to ignore my country's contribution to the post-colonial tragedies around the world.
And this is why broad statements without defined terms like kollin made lead to horrible discussions. Words like nationalism and capitalism mean different things to different people.
Would you agree with the statement "The value of my countryman's life is worth more than a foreigner's."? Is someone immoral for doing so? Isn't the statement a form of nationalism?
Why is it socially taboo in certain circles to agree with the statement above, yet socially acceptable to agree with the statement "The value of my family member's life is worth more than a stranger"?
Dealing with nationalism isn't a simple question. I don't see how a statement like kollin's leads to any productive discussion on its own, but the instinctive and automatic need to speak out against any mention of an "-ism" without a second thought is characteristic of modern leftism and what makes me most uncomfortable with modern leftism in general.
Modern popular leftism ironically often sounds and manifests itself more like a religion than an actual school of thought. It's full of contradictions, asks people to use weird definitions that don't match colloquial use to advance its ideals (e.g. everyone is racist), its rationale for many positions is based not in axiomatic principles that are weighed against each other but rather emotion, and those who that don't radically follow the ideology (i.e. heretics) are given a negative label (sexist, nationalist, racist).
|
I don't know why you're being so obtuse, I sincerely doubt Kwark is referring to that sort of belief to be the definition of "nationalism". Everyone already believes that in some capacity so I suppose we can all go home and admit we're all nationalistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
