I'm only through the first page so far, but I just have to say...
OiT is on his Fvcking game, today. Bravo, sir.
OiT is on his Fvcking game, today. Bravo, sir.
Trumpsters...
- Thread starter seam
- Start date
Ok I get it, you're just trolling us now. There's never been a bigger liar on the planet than Old Baby Hands. He even lies about easy things to look up that don't benefit so he's literally a compulsive liar not some slick snake oil man.
BS. I am someone who I would describe as Libertarian-leaning or a “sane Libertarian” meaning I’m not some crazed Libertarian party member who wants anarchy with no gov funding of military, police, schools etc... I do think that other than correcting issues where straightline anarchistic capitalism does not work to protect public goods like the environment, education for the entire workforce, safety for all members of society not just those who can live in walled off towers, etc... we should have as little public involvement as possible. Some public “goods” like clean water, clean air, global warming, roads and other infrastructure and an educated workforce are too important to be left behind with pure, ungoverned capitalism but for the most part I want as close to that as is possible while safeguarding those public “goods”.
So I would consider myself a sane Libertarian, a NeoCon (as in addition to wanting gov out of business for the most part, I also want it out of our private lives as I’m NOT an a$$hole like Evangelical “Christians” are, but an actual New Testament following Christian) or just a plain, rationale middle of the road American. And while I would split my vote, until the past 10-15 years or so, it would have been 2/3s Republican and 1/3 Democrat where I always picked the least extreme of the options.
However this modern “Republican” party is NOT anything remotely resembling my personal beliefs, morals and ethos. I stopped supporting it when they essentially ran out neocons or moderates like myself and instead went full bore on being the party of white racists, fascists and Evangelical “Christians” ie the hate filled and thus easily motivated to vote dregs of our society. The Magat cult who marches boostep with their Hair Fuher Donnie Drumpf is just the crystallisation of the downward turn years before newly solidified behind their “Golden Calf”, Old Baby Hands.
There is ZERO chance I will vote for any Republican who does not outwardly attack Drump and his racist, misogynist and just plain mean policies. Not just attack Drumpf as the Russian traitor he is, but actually attacks the underlying terrible policies as well. So that means maybe a tiny handful of brave Republicans are even candidates for me anymore. That doesn’t mean I’ve become a Democrat and wave the Democrat party flag, it means I will only be voting for Democrats, independents, third party candidates and a tiny remnant of Republicans.
How the heck do you "stabilize" an area if you don't make an effort to separate the "fighting sisters"? If the ME devolves into war, the world economy - at the least - goes down with them.
See above. The collapse of the China economy takes the world down with them. Probably not a great goal.And they can play a much, much longer game than we can.
Oh f'n bullshit. Not even worth discussing with someone this deluded.
LOL. No. I think Hexum "effectively is suggesting" what he actually wrote. And he didn't write anything that could be seen as defending malfeasance. At least in my world. Maybe your interpretation of his post is correct and mine is not. Maybe he will deign to let us know. But I think you saw something because you expected to see it, not because it was there. I thought he was referring to Trump not buckling when he's accused of racism, sexism, etc.
You seem to believe that criticizing Democrats or getting in the way of their agenda constitutes malfeasance. I do not. Nor do I think criticizing Republicans or getting in the way of their agenda constitutes malfeasance. And you continue to assert -- unknowingly, I have come to believe -- that anyone who disagrees with you can't simply have a different opinion, but must be driven by ignorance or duplicity or maybe even evil motives.
But the real question here is not the definition of malfeasance. It's your warped definition of defense.
I'm doubtful I can make you understand this, as simply as it might be, because I've consistently made the point for a couple of years and haven't dented the consciousness of some of you people, but I'll try again, and this time I won't use the example of the 2016 presidential election.
Let me try another example, since that one hasn't worked before. Suppose you had a daughter who brought home two men, one a Cyclone fan and the other an ax murderer, and told you she was going to marry one of them, and the choice was up to you. Assuming your allegiance to the Hawkeyes isn't as strong as a couple of people on the football board, you would tell her to marry the Cyclone. Is that a defense of his choice of teams, or does it mean you, too, are a Cyclone fan now?
Why is this concept so difficult to grasp?
(Note to Joe, if he's lurking: Save all of us some time. I did NOT call Hillary Clinton an ax murderer.)
Okay, so you took the out I expected, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it is not "convenient", but, rather, genuine. Yes, I took hexum's "turning the tables" to suggest general malfeasance and skullduggery. I'm surprised that wasn't clear from the jump.
No, I think malfeasance is in the order of things like system-gaming. I don't give a damn about criticism. Of course I object to criticism based on falsehoods or misinformation, and, understandably I would thing, the false equivalency crap. If you haven't noticed, criticism in general doesn't bother me.
Yes, I do believe there is a shit ton of ignorance, and a lot of unyielding opinions based on ignorance (and/or misinformation, falsehoods, etc). Frustratingly, bringing people to more information, or more accurate information, or revealing the falsehoods—this is not met with appreciation or interest or curiosity, but is blocked and dismissed, or, sometimes just denied because, you know, diatribe or talking-down-to or some other snowflakey crap. It is painful to observe otherwise bright, able people choose ignorance because the ignorance protects their feelings.
As to your closing, I don't give you shit about voting Trump, assuming that is what you're alluding to with the analogy. I have said many times I understand voting for Trump in 2016, and that I was actually kind of hoping he would win. His winning 2016 and his presidency reveals to us exactly what I think needs to be revealed. Unfortunately, I don't think people care to evolve beyond the spoiled brattiness afforded the boomers and Xers by their relative prosperity (afforded them by the very types of things Ds are proposing these days).
Anyways, I appreciate the care you take to participate in the discussion.
Taking last things first, I appreciate the discussion, as well. It's that rarity, an almost adult rational conversation. There ain't many of them things here.
And I would point out that what one person sees as accurate information isn't always accurate information.
Well, he did say this:
"We won with the poorly educated. I love the poorly educated."
That's becoming more and more obvious as the crimes and unethical actions continue to pile up.
less regulation, lower taxes, higher growth, lower unemployment rate, rising wages, becoming energy independent. I could go on but that should answer your question.
LC, here is the problem with the above. You are trying to make Trump out as the Cyclone fan. Most of the voters in the US knows he is not and 95% of the rest of the world knows he is not. IOWs you did indeed have a choice.
But at least he didn't call Clinton an ax murderer...he just defended his vote by comparing Clinton to...an ax murderer. So not the same thing at all. Really. He said so. Then he compared the ax murderer [Clinton] to a normal fan [Trump] of a team one doesn't happen to care for. And I truly think that's how he justified his vote and continues to defend it today. That was his binary choice. And he has the unbelievable gall to accuse others of dealing in "pure, unadulterated, 100-octane hate".
Truly remarkable.
Here's a better example. Your daughter brings home a rapist and a murderer. You are compelled to choose one. You choose the murderer and you defend it be saying, "Hey, she wasn't raped!".
Similar threads
