Trumpsters...
- Thread starter seam
- Start date
Hey... at least he's being absolutely direct and honest about it. That is what they've been used for since 1991, maybe even before then.
Okay, but your "ditto" response to a post by hexum is in conflict with this stance.
yeah see I don't pick and choose points that are on paper which i think history should have changed by now..and reinvent the Constitution like liberals do. I pick and choose the points in the Constitution which were originally written way back when -and like to stick with that
I don't know about "what about ing" or any and all this crap. I know that I see your writing a lot and you act like the Democrats can do no wrong and the Republicans can do no right I can find hundreds of examples. And I'm not saying you're wrong or right I'm just saying you have your opinion and I have mine. Maybe you don't realize it ...it comes off that way but lone called you out for it and it does come off that way a lot. I would hope mine comes off that way that I love Republicans and conservatives... that's what I'm trying to do. But somehow you don't want it to come off that way that you like Democrats I don't know why... be proud of it what the heck
I agree. And it's what I was hoping for with Trump—that he would, intentionally or clumsily—pull back the curtain and expose to us all just how corrupted we all are.
I'm being characterized in this thread as being a D apologist. Wrong. I almost invariably point to the common corruptions throughout the system. Am I a Liberal? Yes. Definitely. But I also support classic/traditional Conservatism, and have made this clear many times, as I believe Liberalism needs Conservatism as a balance, a guard rail. And Conservatism needs Liberalism as a force of evolving/responding to the changing needs of society. The gas and clutch, or whatever the metaphor.
I support, most generally, politics that works to hold power to account, and to distribute power as broadly as possible. I reject politics that aims to consolidate and sustain power.
My Liberal bias as it relates to politicians reveals itself when I try to point out misinformation being disseminated and repeated against, for example, AOC. I don't give a damn if people attack Ds, just be factual. So, yeah, I come to the defense of one side over the other, and I don't deny that nor ever have denied it. But I don't ever rationalize bad Democrat behavior by pointing to likewise Republican behavior. If I have, and I have many times asked for people to search for such behavior (never resulting in findings), I will beg forgiveness and attempt to atone.
I disagree with this.
Those people may be his "base" and they are the people that Art refers to as enjoying Trump's antics and barbs towards those holier-than-thou liberals.
But that's not why he was elected. Plenty of suburban people who are educated and work white collar jobs voted for him (as well as AGAINST Hillary). The problem is most of these people don't like his demeanor in office and I suspect enough of them will sit out 2020 or even potentially swing back to a moderate D if that option exists.
At any rate, this is yet another chance for me to remind everybody that Trump will be a one term President and somebody else will be in charge come 2021.
you got the first part of your post pretty good... but I can tell you he is gaining support and his base loves him more than ever and he will pick up more States than he had before and he will win.
Lol, link to any post that remotely supports this notion that I believe Democrats can do no wrong and Republicans can do no right. Find one.
OiT you have created a persona of me that makes it easy for you to perceive me as your ideological enemy, such that anything I say will be interpreted as such to the extent that you actually invent my positions. Hell, you're saying LC called me out on something after I called myself out on that very thing. Do you not see that you're literally unable to internalize my words?
I'm a liberal. I support liberalism in many of its forms. I recognize liberalism can go off the rails and support conservatism providing that feedback, that guardrail, and I have said this repeatedly over the years. I'm not a serial defender of Democrats irrespectively, and definitely do not use whataboutism.
I guess what I'm getting at in regards to LC is that I would never support Democrats doing malfeasance because, you know, Republicans are doing it. Like, say Democrats are found to be attempting to restrict or depress the vote in predictably Republican-voting districts. I would never defend that or support it. I would never post something like hexum did, suggesting his support of Trump and the GOP is because the "tables needed to be turned" because the Ds have been getting away with shit for too long. Good lord, this type of attitude supports the very types of corruption of which we've all supposedly grown weary!
I beg you, OiT, read more carefully my posts—especially the ones where I go to lengths to explain myself.
I think where we went off the rails here is : what you call malfeasance is what I call just great stuff
This is the post you "dittoed":
Hexum effectively is suggesting the Dems malfeasance needed reciprocal malfeasance, correct? I mean, shit, one of those SC seats was stolen from Dems. Maybe I missed it, but did Dems ever do such a thing to Rs? Regardless, this notion of reciprocal malfeasance, or even skullduggery, is an excuse for more of the same—and, arguably, a falsely manufactured (propagandized) excuse.
And here is the conflict. Now, you have the out to now, conveniently, create a specific definition of malfeasance. Go for it.
Stop with the god stuff. Trump does not give voice to a mothership of extraterrestrials guiding our civilization. You need to remove the god from your vocabulary because you don’t know how to use the word in English.
Which, given you live in a country supposedly governed by laws, and this lofty notion of the will of the people, is antithetical to our Constitution. You're basically saying you want to be governed by blind faith in only those who align with you.
I want to live in a country where my faith is in something less autocratic—faith in that through checks and balances, both in governmental scale but also in personal scale (meaning one's conservatism serves as a check on my liberalism)—and, maybe I'm crazy here, I think the Constitution supports this.
This is why I questioned your "patriotism". I don't find you patriotic. Not to the United States Constitution, anyway. Your loyalty is much, much, much more in line with something way, way, way less democratic. You want to be subservient to power—but only the power you decide merits subservience—and you don't care to question that authority once you have submitted yourself to it. And you want the rest of us to fall in line. 100% control, as it were.
You just want gods to worship, and enemies to fight.
I like a lot of the things he's doing, but I hate the fact that he apparently would rather lie when the truth would serve him better.
You realize that wars and offenses have been fought and re-fought for years and years and years right...and where has it gotten us. A stable region...no. Winning over the Muslim base of the middle east and beyond...nope guess not. We are beyond resented in the region so why continue to fight one sides battles when in twenty years we might be on a different side. I agree about stabilization of areas where we have interest against foreign regimes or resources (oil) but no need to be there as a big brother separating fighting sisters. Go back and read up on Libya and how Obama handled that then get back to me about mistakes.
China- There is no other country that is going to "fill their void" if they go bust. And guess who can make them fail as an economy? We are holding the long term cards but you want to fold before the "flop".
Clinton- Please do some research on this before you come on here touting these things. Newt Gingrich balanced the budget, Clinton just happened to be in office while it happened. I do give him credit though for not earmarking every social program under the sun though.
no I'm saying I don't want you or dems to determine malfeasance on the web or in the press...i want Senate and house to do so or courts. Graham just said Senate won't remove trump. so malfeasance talk on the web fails to deliver. You can talk about lies and Corruption all you like but until we have actual Court rulings...
So everything goes as long as the power to which you have aligned your subservience says it goes. See, this doesn't seem "patriotic" to the Constitution. You are 100% aligned to party over country. I think this is unpatriotic, and dangerous.
I just said I want a bipartisan house and senate to determine malfeasance. I didn't say anything goes.
the problem here is you think something was done that was wrong.. and I don't and the only way to prove it is in the courts.
The bipartisanship of that body doesn't matter, OiT, and you know it. Because once that body becomes tainted, in your judgment, then your whole "patriotism" breaks down. Our Constitution is about checks and balances, including the first fücking amendment introducing the vital role of the press—a role you want to remove from the system. Except, of course, the press to which you are aligned. This is unpatriotic, OiT.
what? the first amendment is as much about freedom of religion. The Press has totally lost all credibility holy crap. It wouldn't matter if I wanted to remove them or not ...they say things that are totally off-the-wall. Thank goodness we still have things like impeachment trials and courts of Law and don't have to rely upon them to determine who is doing right or wrong.
Last edited:
So basically I'm saying we should have a constitutional impeachment trial to determine wrong doings. You say I'm dangerous for the country. I say courts and the Senate and House should determine wrongdoings. You shift to First Amendment and press. You say I want my gods in my party to determine stuff. I say no I want bipartisan ...then you say that's tainted. So you say the Press is the god. Or something I don't even know half the time what you're trying to say. But you asked for examples of you saying dems can do no wrong and here it is because the press is dem controlled.
No, OiT, they haven't lost all credibility. You know the thread about Obama talking about absolute purity and the ridiculousness of that notion? Well, here you are (and you're hardly unique in this regard) suggesting the press be absolutely pure. The thing is, there is really good journalism, good press, out there. It's just not on TV nor on AM radio.
You do realize that a lot of the information that leads to things being tried in the court of law is unearthed through the work of the press, do you not? The press is the instrument that allows people on the inside to shed light on malfeasance on the inside that otherwise would remain on the inside.
I don't think you have a full grasp on how everything works. You just want to feel comfortable, unchallenged, faithful. You've already admitted as much. And that's fine. It takes all kinds.
I understand you better now. Always fun to get to know you better. Hopefully you will stop thinking of me as simply a Democrat apologist, a blind follower.
You don't know what I'm trying to say because you're not trying to read my words, you're trying to bend my words to suit your counterargument. Have a good night, OiT.
This is an interesting point to make to one poster. This entire board is dictated by party over country, wonder if your liberal leanings dictate whom you make that statement to.
You need things to be absolute. Nuance or context serve to challenge your faith. I understand.
It's downright sad. It appears anything goes with this President as he can kill someone walking down the street and not be charged with murder.
I'm making the point through LC because LC is a good example of someone who easily recognizes others' biases but tends to avoid recognition of his own.
I don't think this board is dictated by party over country. There are common ground sentiments quite frequently—and usually when common ground is reached a thread quickly dies. Not much fun, agreement.
My liberal leanings dictate as I've said at least once in this thread. Why my own admissions and expressions of self-awareness are overlooked is interesting. And then, of course, also ignored (so, maybe, you can fit me into the tidy enemy box) is how multiple times I've expressed my ideology in terms of how it includes support of my counterbalance—classical/traditional Conservatism.
If you need me to be your enemy, so be it.
Um, no. This is patent histrionics over clear hyperbole.
Even were it true, why does it make you think you're particularly special such that you should be allowed to mistreat other people? That behavior only makes you a hypocrite.
And for the record, I totally agree he should have never made the comment.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Source Confirms to Rivals, Iowa has been in Contact with General Booty- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
Based on Recent Intel: Who would you rather land out of the portal?
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
-