Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 11 2019 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, that's the line I remember from Democrats defending/dismissing Biden's groping of children.
Because it's true. You're basically caught in a rut of circular logic with your hands in your ears, screaming "nu-uh!" whenever someone attempts to point out a reasonable interpretation. The fact you want him to be guilty and assume the worst-case scenario doesn't make it true.
On July 11 2019 06:11 NewSunshine wrote: We're talking in super vague hypotheticals, so sure, you "got us". But the fact is most people in this thread were taking a dump on Biden as a candidate, and for his performance in the debates, and most people I saw elsewhere were doing the same. People might support him versus Trump, but they support a lot of other candidates first from where I'm sitting. Given the choice, they would drop him like a hot potato.
You're making the Reddit error in logic. The opinions and motivations present in this thread and "elsewhere" are irrelevant for judging the opinions and motivations of Democratic voters as a whole.
On July 11 2019 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, that's the line I remember from Democrats defending/dismissing Biden's groping of children.
Because it's true. You're basically caught in a rut of circular logic with your hands in your ears, screaming "nu-uh!" whenever someone attempts to point out a reasonable interpretation. The fact you want him to be guilty doesn't make it true.
If you've noticed they aren't saying that any more though? Now it's you alone (here) defending Biden's inappropriate touching of children.
On July 11 2019 05:21 Introvert wrote: I haven't seen that anywhere (t_d, or however you abbreviate it, doesnt count), but the obvious problem is that we've already seen the Clinton defense force, in the 1990s. It was so strong that people on the left today still think he was impeached over sex. Clinton is currently disposable, even moreso than Franken whose stories dropped at the worst possible time (and was alway going to be replaced with another Democrat).
The two aren't even comparable, unless you are willing to say dems would have thrown him overboard during his presidency.
Snd I think both sides would, if there was tape of either and a 14 year old girl, to be clear. I think being a pedophile is a different animal.
It didn't stop the Republican party from supporting Roy Moore. (Yes they initially dropped support after public outcries got to heavy but later renewed it when it became apparent they might lose the seat)
I have seen no evidence at all from Republicans that they would throw Trump overboard, no matter what shows up.
Though I think we're talking margins here, and though he's certainly not my candidate of choice, there's a difference between supporting Biden, and supporting Roy Moore. Republicans went to the hilt for a child molester, and only stopped supporting him after he had just lost his first election. They saw an opportunity to push for a win, and they didn't care who it was or what they did. Didn't even take a second to think "hmm, surely we've got a better candidate to run with..."
So if Biden's video of him inappropriately touching children (clearly making them uncomfortable) doesn't count, you're arguing that if the videos were worse that Democrats would abandon their nominee more than Republicans did Trump?
On July 11 2019 05:48 Mohdoo wrote:
On July 11 2019 05:16 Danglars wrote:
On July 11 2019 04:57 Mohdoo wrote: Every time someone brings up "Bill Clinton might be screwed by this Epstein thing", democrats are like "if he is, I want him to rot". I am seeing people on the right significantly more resistant to say they'd toss away the key for Trump if the same is true.
We've been down this road before: Cultural axioms of conservatism make conservatives feel compelled the defend their leaders significantly more than democrats.
Clinton holds almost no political power anymore, so Democrats don’t care if he goes. You’d see more of a reaction, akin to the morbid curiosity in the old Clinton war room around the time of bimbo eruptions, if he was close to his political apex.
If Beto, Biden, Bernie and Harris and buttiegig all are implicated, I will not defend them even slightly.
So you're saying you'll vote for Trump if an implicated Democrat was the nominee?
I will vote for whoever is even 0.00001% better than the other. If both candidates makes me sick, I will vote for the one that makes me less sick.
If it turns out Harris skinned 10 kids but Trump skinned 11, I'd vote for Harris.
That's my point, you'll both (parties) vote for absolutely monstrous people knowing full well they are monsters
The way I see it, I am just another piece of trash who was born into a democracy without deserving any of the modern day luxuries. I respect that by trying to participate in political discourse, voting and other forms of engagement. I've decided it is my duty to cast my vote in a way that derives morality from consequentialism. I don't think consequentialism makes sense in a lot of other areas, but I think it makes sense when voting.
I donate money to people like Yang/Bernie and vote for them during primaries, but I will always cast a vote as a matter of consequence. So long as there are only 2 viable candidates (and I will always advocate for eliminating our current election system because 2 parties is trash), I will always choose to vote for whoever is even slightly better.
Not the same, but both will support horrific people responsible for monstrous things to oppose someone they see as a worse option.
So it's not some conservative thing which was the point I was disputing.
I don't disagree with this. But to say it as such robs all nuance from the conversation, which takes place every day in this thread. As you put it, it's not the same.
On July 11 2019 05:21 Introvert wrote: I haven't seen that anywhere (t_d, or however you abbreviate it, doesnt count), but the obvious problem is that we've already seen the Clinton defense force, in the 1990s. It was so strong that people on the left today still think he was impeached over sex. Clinton is currently disposable, even moreso than Franken whose stories dropped at the worst possible time (and was alway going to be replaced with another Democrat).
The two aren't even comparable, unless you are willing to say dems would have thrown him overboard during his presidency.
Snd I think both sides would, if there was tape of either and a 14 year old girl, to be clear. I think being a pedophile is a different animal.
It didn't stop the Republican party from supporting Roy Moore. (Yes they initially dropped support after public outcries got to heavy but later renewed it when it became apparent they might lose the seat)
I have seen no evidence at all from Republicans that they would throw Trump overboard, no matter what shows up.
Though I think we're talking margins here, and though he's certainly not my candidate of choice, there's a difference between supporting Biden, and supporting Roy Moore. Republicans went to the hilt for a child molester, and only stopped supporting him after he had just lost his first election. They saw an opportunity to push for a win, and they didn't care who it was or what they did. Didn't even take a second to think "hmm, surely we've got a better candidate to run with..."
So if Biden's video of him inappropriately touching children (clearly making them uncomfortable) doesn't count, you're arguing that if the videos were worse that Democrats would abandon their nominee more than Republicans did Trump?
On July 11 2019 05:48 Mohdoo wrote:
On July 11 2019 05:16 Danglars wrote:
On July 11 2019 04:57 Mohdoo wrote: Every time someone brings up "Bill Clinton might be screwed by this Epstein thing", democrats are like "if he is, I want him to rot". I am seeing people on the right significantly more resistant to say they'd toss away the key for Trump if the same is true.
We've been down this road before: Cultural axioms of conservatism make conservatives feel compelled the defend their leaders significantly more than democrats.
Clinton holds almost no political power anymore, so Democrats don’t care if he goes. You’d see more of a reaction, akin to the morbid curiosity in the old Clinton war room around the time of bimbo eruptions, if he was close to his political apex.
If Beto, Biden, Bernie and Harris and buttiegig all are implicated, I will not defend them even slightly.
So you're saying you'll vote for Trump if an implicated Democrat was the nominee?
I will vote for whoever is even 0.00001% better than the other. If both candidates makes me sick, I will vote for the one that makes me less sick.
If it turns out Harris skinned 10 kids but Trump skinned 11, I'd vote for Harris.
That's my point, you'll both (parties) vote for absolutely monstrous people knowing full well they are monsters
The way I see it, I am just another piece of trash who was born into a democracy without deserving any of the modern day luxuries. I respect that by trying to participate in political discourse, voting and other forms of engagement. I've decided it is my duty to cast my vote in a way that derives morality from consequentialism. I don't think consequentialism makes sense in a lot of other areas, but I think it makes sense when voting.
I donate money to people like Yang/Bernie and vote for them during primaries, but I will always cast a vote as a matter of consequence. So long as there are only 2 viable candidates (and I will always advocate for eliminating our current election system because 2 parties is trash), I will always choose to vote for whoever is even slightly better.
Not the same, but both will support horrific people responsible for monstrous things to oppose someone they see as a worse option.
So it's not some conservative thing which was the point I was disputing.
I don't disagree with this. But to say it as such robs all nuance from the conversation, which takes place every day in this thread. As you put it, it's not the same.
My point was that it's not a conservative thing, it's a two-party system thing. I'm less interested in hearing the rationalizations for why the differences matter than simply pointing out it's a bipartisan phenomenon.
On July 11 2019 05:21 Introvert wrote: I haven't seen that anywhere (t_d, or however you abbreviate it, doesnt count), but the obvious problem is that we've already seen the Clinton defense force, in the 1990s. It was so strong that people on the left today still think he was impeached over sex. Clinton is currently disposable, even moreso than Franken whose stories dropped at the worst possible time (and was alway going to be replaced with another Democrat).
The two aren't even comparable, unless you are willing to say dems would have thrown him overboard during his presidency.
Snd I think both sides would, if there was tape of either and a 14 year old girl, to be clear. I think being a pedophile is a different animal.
It didn't stop the Republican party from supporting Roy Moore. (Yes they initially dropped support after public outcries got to heavy but later renewed it when it became apparent they might lose the seat)
I have seen no evidence at all from Republicans that they would throw Trump overboard, no matter what shows up.
Though I think we're talking margins here, and though he's certainly not my candidate of choice, there's a difference between supporting Biden, and supporting Roy Moore. Republicans went to the hilt for a child molester, and only stopped supporting him after he had just lost his first election. They saw an opportunity to push for a win, and they didn't care who it was or what they did. Didn't even take a second to think "hmm, surely we've got a better candidate to run with..."
So if Biden's video of him inappropriately touching children (clearly making them uncomfortable) doesn't count, you're arguing that if the videos were worse that Democrats would abandon their nominee more than Republicans did Trump?
On July 11 2019 05:48 Mohdoo wrote:
On July 11 2019 05:16 Danglars wrote:
On July 11 2019 04:57 Mohdoo wrote: Every time someone brings up "Bill Clinton might be screwed by this Epstein thing", democrats are like "if he is, I want him to rot". I am seeing people on the right significantly more resistant to say they'd toss away the key for Trump if the same is true.
We've been down this road before: Cultural axioms of conservatism make conservatives feel compelled the defend their leaders significantly more than democrats.
Clinton holds almost no political power anymore, so Democrats don’t care if he goes. You’d see more of a reaction, akin to the morbid curiosity in the old Clinton war room around the time of bimbo eruptions, if he was close to his political apex.
If Beto, Biden, Bernie and Harris and buttiegig all are implicated, I will not defend them even slightly.
So you're saying you'll vote for Trump if an implicated Democrat was the nominee?
I will vote for whoever is even 0.00001% better than the other. If both candidates makes me sick, I will vote for the one that makes me less sick.
If it turns out Harris skinned 10 kids but Trump skinned 11, I'd vote for Harris.
That's my point, you'll both (parties) vote for absolutely monstrous people knowing full well they are monsters
The way I see it, I am just another piece of trash who was born into a democracy without deserving any of the modern day luxuries. I respect that by trying to participate in political discourse, voting and other forms of engagement. I've decided it is my duty to cast my vote in a way that derives morality from consequentialism. I don't think consequentialism makes sense in a lot of other areas, but I think it makes sense when voting.
I donate money to people like Yang/Bernie and vote for them during primaries, but I will always cast a vote as a matter of consequence. So long as there are only 2 viable candidates (and I will always advocate for eliminating our current election system because 2 parties is trash), I will always choose to vote for whoever is even slightly better.
Not the same, but both will support horrific people responsible for monstrous things to oppose someone they see as a worse option.
So it's not some conservative thing which was the point I was disputing.
I don't disagree with this. But to say it as such robs all nuance from the conversation, which takes place every day in this thread. As you put it, it's not the same.
My point was that it's not a conservative thing, it's a two-party system thing. I'm less interested in hearing the rationalizations for why the differences matter than simply pointing out it's a bipartisan phenomenon.
I understand that fully. If your point is that a two-party system sucks, and results in a race to the bottom, most people here would agree with you handily. But it's not like we can change it overnight. Until then, and arguably to even get to that point in the first place, discussing the differences is what we're stuck with.
On July 11 2019 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, that's the line I remember from Democrats defending/dismissing Biden's groping of children.
Because it's true. You're basically caught in a rut of circular logic with your hands in your ears, screaming "nu-uh!" whenever someone attempts to point out a reasonable interpretation. The fact you want him to be guilty doesn't make it true.
If you've noticed they aren't saying that any more though? Now it's you alone (here) defending Biden's inappropriate touching of children.
What's the point of you trying to insinuate deficiencies in my character on a topic I have little personal investment in? Don't tell me you need to resort to ad hominen attacks because your skills in dialectic aren't up to snuff.
On July 11 2019 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote: My point was that it's not a conservative thing, it's a two-party system thing. I'm less interested in hearing the rationalizations for why the differences matter than simply pointing out it's a bipartisan phenomenon.
It's a consequence of short-term decision making that ignores how incentives change the behavior of the benefiting party. It has little to do with the two-party system.
On July 11 2019 05:43 Gorsameth wrote: [quote]It didn't stop the Republican party from supporting Roy Moore. (Yes they initially dropped support after public outcries got to heavy but later renewed it when it became apparent they might lose the seat)
I have seen no evidence at all from Republicans that they would throw Trump overboard, no matter what shows up.
Though I think we're talking margins here, and though he's certainly not my candidate of choice, there's a difference between supporting Biden, and supporting Roy Moore. Republicans went to the hilt for a child molester, and only stopped supporting him after he had just lost his first election. They saw an opportunity to push for a win, and they didn't care who it was or what they did. Didn't even take a second to think "hmm, surely we've got a better candidate to run with..."
So if Biden's video of him inappropriately touching children (clearly making them uncomfortable) doesn't count, you're arguing that if the videos were worse that Democrats would abandon their nominee more than Republicans did Trump?
On July 11 2019 05:48 Mohdoo wrote:
On July 11 2019 05:16 Danglars wrote: [quote] Clinton holds almost no political power anymore, so Democrats don’t care if he goes. You’d see more of a reaction, akin to the morbid curiosity in the old Clinton war room around the time of bimbo eruptions, if he was close to his political apex.
If Beto, Biden, Bernie and Harris and buttiegig all are implicated, I will not defend them even slightly.
So you're saying you'll vote for Trump if an implicated Democrat was the nominee?
I will vote for whoever is even 0.00001% better than the other. If both candidates makes me sick, I will vote for the one that makes me less sick.
If it turns out Harris skinned 10 kids but Trump skinned 11, I'd vote for Harris.
That's my point, you'll both (parties) vote for absolutely monstrous people knowing full well they are monsters
The way I see it, I am just another piece of trash who was born into a democracy without deserving any of the modern day luxuries. I respect that by trying to participate in political discourse, voting and other forms of engagement. I've decided it is my duty to cast my vote in a way that derives morality from consequentialism. I don't think consequentialism makes sense in a lot of other areas, but I think it makes sense when voting.
I donate money to people like Yang/Bernie and vote for them during primaries, but I will always cast a vote as a matter of consequence. So long as there are only 2 viable candidates (and I will always advocate for eliminating our current election system because 2 parties is trash), I will always choose to vote for whoever is even slightly better.
Not the same, but both will support horrific people responsible for monstrous things to oppose someone they see as a worse option.
So it's not some conservative thing which was the point I was disputing.
I don't disagree with this. But to say it as such robs all nuance from the conversation, which takes place every day in this thread. As you put it, it's not the same.
My point was that it's not a conservative thing, it's a two-party system thing. I'm less interested in hearing the rationalizations for why the differences matter than simply pointing out it's a bipartisan phenomenon.
I understand that fully. If your point is that a two-party system sucks, and results in a race to the bottom, most people here would agree with you handily. But it's not like we can change it overnight. Until then, and arguably to even get to that point in the first place, discussing the differences is what we're stuck with.
They didn't in 2016 so if they do now that's cool.
As for changing it that's more important to discuss than discussing the differences in our monstrous candidates of choice. Frankly I find the latter an intentional distraction from the former.
On July 11 2019 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, that's the line I remember from Democrats defending/dismissing Biden's groping of children.
Because it's true. You're basically caught in a rut of circular logic with your hands in your ears, screaming "nu-uh!" whenever someone attempts to point out a reasonable interpretation. The fact you want him to be guilty doesn't make it true.
If you've noticed they aren't saying that any more though? Now it's you alone (here) defending Biden's inappropriate touching of children.
What's the point of you trying to insinuate deficiencies in my character on a topic I have little personal investment in? Don't tell me you need to resort to ad hominen attacks because your skills in dialectic aren't up to snuff.
On July 11 2019 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote: My point was that it's not a conservative thing, it's a two-party system thing. I'm less interested in hearing the rationalizations for why the differences matter than simply pointing out it's a bipartisan phenomenon.
It's a consequence of short-term decision making that ignores how incentives change the behavior of the benefiting party. It has little to do with the two-party system.
My point is that I interpret their not continuing to defend his groping as recognition of it's inappropriateness, I could be wrong, they may still think his groping is acceptable (besides when compared to Trump).
I'm saying they no longer think waving it off as an old man being socially awkward works and that he's essentially "guilty" as seen on tape. Again, I could be misinterpreting their lack of defense at the moment though.
Something being inappropriate doesn’t necessarily make it sinister. I don’t think Biden’s touching is appropriate in that he’s an awkward old man with outdated norms. But I don’t think he has knowingly violated current norms in a way that gives him perverse pleasure or anything of that sort. Or at least, it’s possible that he is a real creeper but I am suspending judgment on the matter due to lack of evidence.
On July 11 2019 08:26 IgnE wrote: Something being inappropriate doesn’t necessarily make it sinister. I don’t think Biden’s touching is appropriate in that he’s an awkward old man with outdated norms. But I don’t think he has knowingly violated current norms in a way that gives him perverse pleasure or anything of that sort. Or at least, it’s possible that he is a real creeper but I am suspending judgment on the matter due to lack of evidence.
The dude clearly smells girls hair. That shit is super fucked.
On July 11 2019 08:26 IgnE wrote: Something being inappropriate doesn’t necessarily make it sinister. I don’t think Biden’s touching is appropriate in that he’s an awkward old man with outdated norms. But I don’t think he has knowingly violated current norms in a way that gives him perverse pleasure or anything of that sort. Or at least, it’s possible that he is a real creeper but I am suspending judgment on the matter due to lack of evidence.
I suppose we can't know what's in his mind only that it's clear he enjoys it (can't stop despite political advice to), and it's made people noticeably uncomfortable from that red haired girl to Jeff Sessions.
Perhaps the prevalence of molestation and abuse among women I've known throughout my life colors my perspective but everything about both Biden and his defenders is reminiscent of how abuse is allowed to continue until something especially horrific is exposed.
The appropriate course of action would be to exclude him from (personal, not legally of course) consideration from something like public office such as the presidency so long as he thinks it's a good idea to brag about getting consent from minors to touch them imo. Granted I'm not convicting him of anything, I'm of the opinion his inappropriate touching of strange women and girls (whether for sexual gratification or not) is repulsive whether it's a relic of a bygone era or him getting his rocks off (though those aren't mutually exclusive).
or at least not have Democrats pointing at Republicans supporting monstrous people like it's a them problem.
On July 11 2019 09:21 IgnE wrote: What's the single creepiest Joe Biden incident? Maybe I missed it. I admit I haven't looked into it because I don't really care that much.
For me what is even more indicting than the many videos of him caressing women's faces, sniffing hair, head kisses and so forth is the urgency Sessions slapped his hands away from his granddaughter. I could be reading more into that than is there but that certainly looks like more than petty partisanship.
It doesn't matter to my point though, since I'm pretty sure everyone grants they would vote for Hillary/Biden/whoever if they were less bad than Trump. To borrow/build on a previous metaphor; If Trump shoots somebody on 5th ave Dems are voting for the person who ran someone over on main but only paralyzed them.
On July 11 2019 05:27 KwarK wrote: Introvert did you miss Nettles in this topic? He’s always going on about Clinton.
Clinton released an official statement about Epstein a couple of days back.Plus this video of Trump being asked about Bill at CPAC 2015 has been doing the rounds again lately
But I have not claimed Clinton guilty, just that I hope it’s a proper investigation.Innocent until proven guilty, that is how it should be.
On July 11 2019 05:27 KwarK wrote: Introvert did you miss Nettles in this topic? He’s always going on about Clinton.
Clinton released an official statement about Epstein a couple of days back.Plus this video of Trump being asked about Bill at CPAC 2015 has been doing the rounds again lately https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vh0AklSXkU
But I have not claimed Clinton guilty, just that I hope it’s a proper investigation.Innocent until proven guilty, that is how it should be.
When you look at Trump's statements like the one in this video and which predate his presidency, it becomes quite clear that tackling child trafficking is something that he's been planning for a long time. The same is true of his economic policies. Trump doesn't get nearly enough credit for the foresight with which he operates.
On July 11 2019 05:27 KwarK wrote: Introvert did you miss Nettles in this topic? He’s always going on about Clinton.
Clinton released an official statement about Epstein a couple of days back.Plus this video of Trump being asked about Bill at CPAC 2015 has been doing the rounds again lately https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vh0AklSXkU
But I have not claimed Clinton guilty, just that I hope it’s a proper investigation.Innocent until proven guilty, that is how it should be.
When you look at Trump's statements like the one in this video and which predate his presidency, it becomes quite clear that tackling child trafficking is something that he's been planning for a long time. The same is true of his economic policies. Trump doesn't get nearly enough credit for the foresight with which he operates.
Trump routinely fails to predict the end of sentences he’s currently saying. I honestly have no idea what the reality you’re living in looks like because it’s certainly nothing like this one. This is a man who is surrounded by experts telling him that if you introduce energy into a system then the forecast is that it gets more energetic and what he takes from that is that American air is far more beautiful than Chinese air.
I wouldn’t trust Trump to forecast yesterday’s weather and I honestly doubt he could.
On July 11 2019 05:27 KwarK wrote: Introvert did you miss Nettles in this topic? He’s always going on about Clinton.
Clinton released an official statement about Epstein a couple of days back.Plus this video of Trump being asked about Bill at CPAC 2015 has been doing the rounds again lately https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vh0AklSXkU
But I have not claimed Clinton guilty, just that I hope it’s a proper investigation.Innocent until proven guilty, that is how it should be.
When you look at Trump's statements like the one in this video and which predate his presidency, it becomes quite clear that tackling child trafficking is something that he's been planning for a long time. The same is true of his economic policies. Trump doesn't get nearly enough credit for the foresight with which he operates.
Trump routinely fails to predict the end of sentences he’s currently saying. I honestly have no idea what the reality you’re living in looks like because it’s certainly nothing like this one. This is a man who is surrounded by experts telling him that if you introduce energy into a system then the forecast is that it gets more energetic and what he takes from that is that American air is far more beautiful than Chinese air.
I wouldn’t trust Trump to forecast yesterday’s weather and I honestly doubt he could.
I was looking for the words to capture that emotion and you did it perfectly there. I'm not unfairly hesitant to give Trump credit for being right about something, but this is a stretch even for xDaunt.
EPT
