(07-02-2020 10:52 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 10:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Aannndddd I'm out.

When you jump to such a conclusion as labeling me a "socialist" when I haven't even come close to either stating that, or advocating for actual socialism, it's time to bow out.

You've spent the majority of this thread telling 3 people who didn't vote for Trump last time and at least two who have said they still don't intend to... that we are 'blind Trump supporters'.... but boy, when you get labeled by the party you clearly advocate for and voted for last time and will vote for again... you've had enough.

Laughable

Did he say "blind" Trump supporters? To me that would be a supporter that is clueless about his obvious flaws. It seemed like he was saying that you guys recognize his flaws and, despite them, there is little that he could do that would make you not support him (not voting for him in Texas is a likely meaningless move and at least one of you have stated that they WILL vote for him if it seems close).

Trump absolutely has very deep flaws. Massive.

A blind Trump supporter would vote for Trump not because they are clueless about them, but because they wouldnt care.

But, the alternative available, is the most left version of modern progressivism has ever put into play. Lad got pissy poo because on the whole, living with the ******* factor is better than the whole of the policies presented by the opposition.

Look 93, I know that you and lad will vote Biden. I know that you all know he is borderline dementia. I also know how much *you* (and lad) seemingly distaste conservative viewpoints, and many libertarian viewpoints, in light of the awe of the collectivist that modern progressivism shines with.

I simply look at *your* votes as 'well on the whole, even with a a non-butthead candidate, their attachment to their dislike for those policies overrides any consideration of voting for what can be best described as a cottage cheese in the making candidate.'

In other words, I actually respect your and lads ability to vote for positions, no matter how stupid and idiotic they seem to me.

lad, in no way shape or from, has exhibited any type of that coming back the opposite way. Thus his statements and his digging in like Von Paulus at Stalingrad on that context.

(07-02-2020 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Again, until we get close to a point where everything is owned by the community as a whole, stop calling it socialism. You're literally watering down a concept in a way that is counter to your goals.

In the same vein, but far more starkly, it seems clear that "progressives", by aggressively and intentionally over-using the term "racism", have watered it down in a way that is counter to sensible goals.

lad is fixated by the one prong of "owned", and is seemingly ignorant of the very historical and philosophically congruent concept of "regulated" that is embedded in the fabric of socialism.

Not that that hasnt been noted here.

(07-02-2020 10:52 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Did he say "blind" Trump supporters? To me that would be a supporter that is clueless about his obvious flaws. It seemed like he was saying that you guys recognize his flaws and, despite them, there is little that he could do that would make you not support him (not voting for him in Texas is a likely meaningless move and at least one of you have stated that they WILL vote for him if it seems close).

1) He's not remotely suggesting that we don't know his flaws. His example provided a very specific one... that he'd shot someone. That's a ridiculous assertion given his questions. He's clearly suggesting that we ignore them... that we turn a blind eye to them... that we support him while ignoring (being blind to) his obvious flaws, including in this case, being a murderer. Your distinction here makes zero sense in context.... and is a pedantic correction at best.

2) You all support a party who has OPENLY solicited people to vote 'AGAINST' Trump (by not writing in your preferred candidate but instead voting for Biden). I find it ridiculous that your party is openly doing that, and your complaint about the right is that somehow people who voted 3rd party in the last election MIGHT under some very specific circumstances, do the same? I find that highly hypocritical.

3) In 2016, I was not in Texas... but I suspect some of you are... So your vote is just as meaningful or meaningless as numbers. Not trying to draw Big into this, but he's in LA... so also meaningless. Even though it's meaningless for you as well, it seems you're still going to vote for Biden, even though he's not your first choice.... while numbers and I won't.... and yet somehow, we're the issue by voting our concious, and you're not by voting for someone you don't really support? Seriously, that's your argument?

(07-02-2020 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It still means they are inherently OK with Trump sitting by idly if they're willing to vote for him - which was Trump's point about shooting someone on 5th Ave. It's not clear what Trump would have to do to get his supporters (and other conservatives) to not vote for him.
You can try and wash it away with the fact that the rationale of voting for Trump is primarily motivated by keeping Biden from the WH, but the pig you're putting lipstick on is still there. So don't try and argue it isn't.

First, as I understand it, there is still some question as to whether there is any real thing that Trump is "sitting idly by" about.

Second, I don't think those of you on the left truly comprehend just how distasteful the democrat issue positions are to us. There are several democrat issue positions that are absolute drop-dead show-stoppers for me, and for many of my fellow libertarians or conservatives. No matter who is the democrat or republican standard-bearer, as long as those items are on the standard, we aren't going there. Perhaps this will help you visualize it. We hate things like single-payer health care and wealth taxes and strict gun controls more than you hate Donald Trump.

So democrats are absolutely off the table as far as any consideration at all. That leaves a choice between Donald Trump, warts and all, or a libertarian candidate that has no chance of winning. So regardless of whether we are okay with Trump or not, we are definitely not okay with any democrat. I personally am not okay with Trump, and for that reason will almost certainly vote for libertarian Jo Jorgensen, even though her VP running mate is a severe nutcase. But issues matter to me far more than personalities. And democrats are totally disqualified on issues.

I don't think you people on the left fully understand just how strongly we disagree with virtually every issue position taken by democrats.

Nothing I've said indicates I don't understand your perspective in this regard - y'all have made that idea up to try and, as I put it, put lipstick on a pig.

Your opinions create a situation where you're willing to vote for a candidate who can do X, Y, and Z odious things, simply because of how much you dislike the opponent's position. Am I wrong?

(07-02-2020 11:18 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 10:52 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Did he say "blind" Trump supporters? To me that would be a supporter that is clueless about his obvious flaws. It seemed like he was saying that you guys recognize his flaws and, despite them, there is little that he could do that would make you not support him (not voting for him in Texas is a likely meaningless move and at least one of you have stated that they WILL vote for him if it seems close).

1) He's not remotely suggesting that we don't know his flaws. His example provided a very specific one... that he'd shot someone. That's a ridiculous assertion given his questions. He's clearly suggesting that we ignore them... that we turn a blind eye to them... that we support him while ignoring (being blind to) his obvious flaws, including in this case, being a murderer. Your distinction here makes zero sense in context.... and is a pedantic correction at best.

2) You all support a party who has OPENLY solicited people to vote 'AGAINST' Trump (by not writing in your preferred candidate but instead voting for Biden). I find it ridiculous that your party is openly doing that, and your complaint about the right is that somehow people who voted 3rd party in the last election MIGHT under some very specific circumstances, do the same? I find that highly hypocritical.

3) In 2016, I was not in Texas... but I suspect some of you are... So your vote is just as meaningful or meaningless as numbers. Not trying to draw Big into this, but he's in LA... so also meaningless. Even though it's meaningless for you as well, it seems you're still going to vote for Biden, even though he's not your first choice.... while numbers and I won't.... and yet somehow, we're the issue by voting our concious, and you're not by voting for someone you don't really support? Seriously, that's your argument?

No, I'm not saying you turn a blind eye to his faults - you're making that up.

I'm saying that some here (OO really) have said they would vote for him, REGARDLESS of those faults.

Calling me a liar, sheesh.

What's the left doesn't understand is that the democrat issue positions are absolutely unacceptable to us. It's not that Trump doesn't have flaws, or that anybody is overlooking them. So the choice is between a terribly flawed candidate and one who is totally and irreversibly unacceptable, you go with the flawed one.

Or you do what I plan to do and reject both.

(07-02-2020 11:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Again, until we get close to a point where everything is owned by the community as a whole, stop calling it socialism. You're literally watering down a concept in a way that is counter to your goals.

In the same vein, but far more starkly, it seems clear that "progressives", by aggressively and intentionally over-using the term "racism", have watered it down in a way that is counter to sensible goals.

lad is fixated by the one prong of "owned", and is seemingly ignorant of the very historical and philosophically congruent concept of "regulated" that is embedded in the fabric of socialism.

Not that that hasnt been noted here.

I am "fixated" because your view, as you just laid clear, is one where ANY regulation is apparently socialist. And that is an overly simplistic view, which does your argument more harm than good.

If you want people to not go over the deep end on socialism/communism, don't equate all regulation with socialism/communism, which you do (intentionally, or unintentionally) there.

(07-02-2020 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 11:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Again, until we get close to a point where everything is owned by the community as a whole, stop calling it socialism. You're literally watering down a concept in a way that is counter to your goals.

In the same vein, but far more starkly, it seems clear that "progressives", by aggressively and intentionally over-using the term "racism", have watered it down in a way that is counter to sensible goals.

lad is fixated by the one prong of "owned", and is seemingly ignorant of the very historical and philosophically congruent concept of "regulated" that is embedded in the fabric of socialism.
Not that that hasnt been noted here.

I am "fixated" because your view, as you just laid clear, is one where ANY regulation is apparently socialist. And that is an overly simplistic view, which does your argument more harm than good.
If you want people to not go over the deep end on socialism/communism, don't equate all regulation with socialism/communism, which you do (intentionally, or unintentionally) there.

Wrong "re-" word. Not regulation, but redistribution on a massive scale. That's where you cross the line from "social democrat" to socialism.

Nobody is equating regulation to socialism, but massive redistribution is pretty much the first step on that road.

And don't even pretend that policies such as the GND and wealth taxes, just to name a couple, are not attempts at massive redistribution of income and wealth.

(07-02-2020 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It still means they are inherently OK with Trump sitting by idly if they're willing to vote for him - which was Trump's point about shooting someone on 5th Ave. It's not clear what Trump would have to do to get his supporters (and other conservatives) to not vote for him.
You can try and wash it away with the fact that the rationale of voting for Trump is primarily motivated by keeping Biden from the WH, but the pig you're putting lipstick on is still there. So don't try and argue it isn't.

First, as I understand it, there is still some question as to whether there is any real thing that Trump is "sitting idly by" about.

Second, I don't think those of you on the left truly comprehend just how distasteful the democrat issue positions are to us. There are several democrat issue positions that are absolute drop-dead show-stoppers for me, and for many of my fellow libertarians or conservatives. No matter who is the democrat or republican standard-bearer, as long as those items are on the standard, we aren't going there. Perhaps this will help you visualize it. We hate things like single-payer health care and wealth taxes and strict gun controls more than you hate Donald Trump.

So democrats are absolutely off the table as far as any consideration at all. That leaves a choice between Donald Trump, warts and all, or a libertarian candidate that has no chance of winning. So regardless of whether we are okay with Trump or not, we are definitely not okay with any democrat. I personally am not okay with Trump, and for that reason will almost certainly vote for libertarian Jo Jorgensen, even though her VP running mate is a severe nutcase. But issues matter to me far more than personalities. And democrats are totally disqualified on issues.

I don't think you people on the left fully understand just how strongly we disagree with virtually every issue position taken by democrats.

Nothing I've said indicates I don't understand your perspective in this regard - y'all have made that idea up to try and, as I put it, put lipstick on a pig.

Your opinions create a situation where you're willing to vote for a candidate who can do X, Y, and Z odious things, simply because of how much you dislike the opponent's position. Am I wrong?

lad, you may want to rephrase the bolded. You may not know what an assholish statement that can be read as.

I will write it off initally as you 'not writing very clearly.' If you actually think that '[we] have made that idea up to try and .... put lipstick on a pig', then that statement is even worse than the Hillary deplorable statement.

(07-02-2020 10:52 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 10:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 10:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Aannndddd I'm out.

When you jump to such a conclusion as labeling me a "socialist" when I haven't even come close to either stating that, or advocating for actual socialism, it's time to bow out.

You've spent the majority of this thread telling 3 people who didn't vote for Trump last time and at least two who have said they still don't intend to... that we are 'blind Trump supporters'.... but boy, when you get labeled by the party you clearly advocate for and voted for last time and will vote for again... you've had enough.

Laughable

Did he say "blind" Trump supporters? To me that would be a supporter that is clueless about his obvious flaws. It seemed like he was saying that you guys recognize his flaws and, despite them, there is little that he could do that would make you not support him (not voting for him in Texas is a likely meaningless move and at least one of you have stated that they WILL vote for him if it seems close).

yeah, "blind" to me applies to those who would vote for a party regardless of their platform or their candidate. I usually use "Automatic Straight Ticket Democrats' for this.

I think most of us trump voters (2020) are keenly aware of his flaws, or if you rather, the things we don't like about him. Those, along with hopelessness in the face of an expected Hillary election, are what led me to sit out 2016. I am also keenly aware of the things I DO like about him, and those are why I intend to vote FOR him instead of once again sitting this one out and letting the boat drift where it may.

What do I like about him? Well, his track record for one. he has done many of the things economically that I wanted done, and want continued. They have been effective. What do the Democrats want? To reverse all that, and return to 2015. Kill the goose, and feed it to the poor.

Behind tax/fiscal policy, my second priority is a strong foreign policy. After years of watching Obama say excuse me to the Russians and paying tribute to the Iranians, I am glad to have a president who will stand up to foreign powers. You guys want Biden, who starts every sentence with "Barrack and I" and so must own Obama's failures as his own. Every dictator in the world is just "biding" time until the election, and the hope that they will no longer have to deal with trump, but instead get Biden. Surely that should be an indicator to you.

There seems to be an unspoken assumption from the left that if we don't disapprove of everything he does and says, we must approve of everything he does and says. We keep saying that is not so. It keeps falling on deaf ears.

Lastly, it is a two horse race. If the horses were Sanders and Biden, I would go Biden. But Biden is just a false front for the Socialists, and will be a puppet for a year or two, then gone. All he wantsi s his name in the history books. Done, Jan. 20, 2021.

So, for me, it comes down to Trump and the capitalists against the anti-capitalistic basket of half the Democrats who favor AOC or Sanders/Warren. I will vote capitalist.

(07-02-2020 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Nothing I've said indicates I don't understand your perspective in this regard - y'all have made that idea up to try and, as I put it, put lipstick on a pig.

Your opinions create a situation where you're willing to vote for a candidate who can do X, Y, and Z odious things, simply because of how much you dislike the opponent's position. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong

Numbers is (and really all of us are) questioning your description of these 'odious' things.

You've presumed a fact not in evidence, that Trump 'sat by'. Also ignoring how such a charge compares to his opponent.... who also sat by (or worse) while odius things happened... Put the Bengazi shoe on the other foot... You'd still (and I suspect, did) vote for Hillary despite that odor... I suspect because you didn't accept the partisan conclusion being put forth by the right.

You've presumed that he's shot someone on 5th avenue, but is somehow still on the ticket. I suspect that if Trump were removed from the ticket by virtue of having shot someone, that numbers would vote for his Republican replacement... because Texas would now likely be in play... and voting for Trump in that case would be stupid, unless it's so late that he's still on the ticket formally but can't be sworn in... in which case you're really voting for Pence.

So you've put forth a ridiculous premise....

All the while trying to ignore that your own party has OPENLY SOLICITED people to NOT vote for their preferred candidate, but instead to ignore any concerns they may have about Biden, his policies, his 'odiousness' or anything else.

(07-02-2020 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 11:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Again, until we get close to a point where everything is owned by the community as a whole, stop calling it socialism. You're literally watering down a concept in a way that is counter to your goals.

In the same vein, but far more starkly, it seems clear that "progressives", by aggressively and intentionally over-using the term "racism", have watered it down in a way that is counter to sensible goals.

lad is fixated by the one prong of "owned", and is seemingly ignorant of the very historical and philosophically congruent concept of "regulated" that is embedded in the fabric of socialism.

Not that that hasnt been noted here.

I am "fixated" because your view, as you just laid clear, is one where ANY regulation is apparently socialist. And that is an overly simplistic view, which does your argument more harm than good.

If you want people to not go over the deep end on socialism/communism, don't equate all regulation with socialism/communism, which you do (intentionally, or unintentionally) there.

Again, you miss the point. You are on a roll. No one is saying 'all regulation is bad'.

But "regulation for the sole purpose of 'fairness' or 'equality' " tends to fit into the role of socialist thought. In fact, it *is* the crux of that school of thought.

It is the ideological counterweight to the libertarian movement's emphasis on individualism, and individual rights -- as opposed to the mass of government dictating that pattern. This is why the 'strong capitalists' are invariably tied to a libertarian philosophy -- individual choices and capital should have the strongest ability to migrate to the best place possible.

When you combine the rationale for the government regime of regulation --- 'equality', 'fairness', then it by definition falls straight into the collectivist and socialist camp.

When you look at each and every prong of the US progressive movement, every single item is based on some sort of 'equality', 'fairness', or some other post modernist pile of **** rationale; or some 'critical theory' equivalent pile of ****.

There is a reason for the ubiquity there -- again, lad, look at history. In particular look up the genesis of critical theory, the ties to the Frankfurt school, and the ties of each to modern progressivism.

The collectivist rationale exhibited in modern progressivism has a clear lineage to the critical theory that came out of the Frankfurt school. Then, I suggest, you look at the backgrounds of the people in the Frankfurt school

But, nah, how fing dare *anyone* equate modern progressivism with anything *like* socialist doctrine and theory. Amazing that *anyone* would *ever* harbor that thought.

(07-02-2020 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No, I'm not saying you turn a blind eye to his faults - you're making that up.

I'm saying that some here (OO really) have said they would vote for him, REGARDLESS of those faults.

Calling me a liar, sheesh.

Yes. When you lie, I'll call you a liar.

Let's look at definitions, shall we?

Regardless... without regard to... irrespective of... despite the knowledge
'Turning a blind eye' is an idiom that essentially means ' ignoring of undesirable information'

I'll let you try and point out a meaningful distinction. Either way, you're aware of the information, and you move forward anyway.... and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean what 93 suggested it did, and that was that we were 'clueless' about those faults. Pretty telling that you incorrectly choose to correct me... and you turn a blind eye to his misrepresentation of your position.

I'm the one that used the phrase 'blind Trump supporters'... I decide what I meant by it. I believe that people turning a blind eye to someone's faults... that people supporting someone despite those faults... are blind supporters of that person.... you know, like Biden and the DNC is asking you to be.

(07-02-2020 11:47 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No, I'm not saying you turn a blind eye to his faults - you're making that up.

I'm saying that some here (OO really) have said they would vote for him, REGARDLESS of those faults.

Calling me a liar, sheesh.

Yes. When you lie, I'll call you a liar.

Let's look at definitions, shall we?

Regardless... without regard to... irrespective of... despite the knowledge
'Turning a blind eye' is an idiom that essentially means ' ignoring of undesirable information'

I'll let you try and point out a meaningful distinction. Either way, you're aware of the information, and you move forward anyway.... and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean what 93 suggested it did, and that was that we were ignorant of those faults. Pretty telling that you incorrectly choose to correct me... and you turn a blind eye to his misrepresentation of your position.

I'm the one that used the phrase 'blind Trump supporters'... I decide what I meant by it. I believe that people turning a blind eye to someone's faults... that people supporting someone despite those faults... are blind supporters of that person.... you know, like Biden and the DNC is asking you to be.

One is someone willfully ignoring an issue, the other is them acknowledging it and accounting for it. There is a HUGE difference there - intention.

Rice93 hit the nail on the head in describing my opinion. That's why I didn't correct him...

edit: so you're calling OO a blind Trump supporter, based on that definition. I think someone who can recognize someone's fault and articulate why they are still supporting them, despite those faults, isn't necessarily a blind supporter. I would define a blind supporter as someone who doesn't see those faults or excuses them away.

The DNC is asking voters to do exactly what most conservatives on this board are advocating for - voting for someone in order to move the country away from the direction that their opponent would try and take us.

(07-02-2020 11:33 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Nothing I've said indicates I don't understand your perspective in this regard - y'all have made that idea up to try and, as I put it, put lipstick on a pig.

Your opinions create a situation where you're willing to vote for a candidate who can do X, Y, and Z odious things, simply because of how much you dislike the opponent's position. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong

Numbers is (and really all of us are) questioning your description of these 'odious' things.

You've presumed a fact not in evidence, that Trump 'sat by'. Also ignoring how such a charge compares to his opponent.... who also sat by (or worse) while odius things happened... Put the Bengazi shoe on the other foot... You'd still (and I suspect, did) vote for Hillary despite that odor... I suspect because you didn't accept the partisan conclusion being put forth by the right.

You've presumed that he's shot someone on 5th avenue, but is somehow still on the ticket. I suspect that if Trump were removed from the ticket by virtue of having shot someone, that numbers would vote for his Republican replacement... because Texas would now likely be in play... and voting for Trump in that case would be stupid, unless it's so late that he's still on the ticket formally but can't be sworn in... in which case you're really voting for Pence.

So you've put forth a ridiculous premise....

All the while trying to ignore that your own party has OPENLY SOLICITED people to NOT vote for their preferred candidate, but instead to ignore any concerns they may have about Biden, his policies, his 'odiousness' or anything else.

As an FYI, I did not put forth the 5th Avenue premise - Donald Trump put forth a premise of him shooting someone on 5th Avenue, and still having supporters.

Lol - high comedy right there.

(07-02-2020 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One is someone willfully ignoring an issue, the other is them acknowledging it and accounting for it. There is a HUGE difference there - intention.

Rice93 hit the nail on the head in describing my opinion. That's why I didn't correct him...

Really? Which of those descriptions is 'clueless'? That's what he said, and I don't see 'clueless' in there. Neither do you, but you're willing to pretend you do to argue with me.

As to your statement above about intention.... what a crock...

You've been arguing for days that there is no difference between supporting Trump and voting against Biden, even if that vote ends up for someone other than Trump...and now you're arguing that knowing something and dismissing it is HUGELY different from knowing something and assigning so little significance to it that it essentially dismisses it

(07-02-2020 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As an FYI, I did not put forth the 5th Avenue premise - Donald Trump put forth a premise of him shooting someone on 5th Avenue, and still having supporters.

Lol - high comedy right there.

I'd rather be funny than to continue to appear stupid.

Donald put forth the premise 3 years ago... You have put it forth here as a litmus test by which you hold others in judgement. Donald Trump does not post on here (I don't think).

(07-02-2020 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As an FYI, I did not put forth the 5th Avenue premise - Donald Trump put forth a premise of him shooting someone on 5th Avenue, and still having supporters.

Lol - high comedy right there.

I'd rather be funny than to continue to appear stupid.

Donald put forth the premise 3 years ago... You have put it forth here as a litmus test by which you hold others in judgement. Donald Trump does not post on here (I don't think).

OldOwl?

(07-02-2020 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As an FYI, I did not put forth the 5th Avenue premise - Donald Trump put forth a premise of him shooting someone on 5th Avenue, and still having supporters.

Lol - high comedy right there.

I'd rather be funny than to continue to appear stupid.

Donald put forth the premise 3 years ago... You have put it forth here as a litmus test by which you hold others in judgement. Donald Trump does not post on here (I don't think).

What a ride this has been.

A relevant hypothetical was put forth by Big, based on news that has broken recently - the very real potential that Trump ignored the Russian bounties.

A comparison to voters being OK with Trump sitting idly by (if that turns out to be true) with voters being OK with Trump shooting someone on 5th Ave, after a poster here responded to Big's timely and VERY potentially real premise, that he would still vote for Trump if it turns out he did sit idly by.

You got really uppity about that comparison, even though others have backed up the idea that they would be more than willing to vote for Trump if that was true, if it meant that vote was against a Democrat winning the presidency.

(07-02-2020 12:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 11:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  One is someone willfully ignoring an issue, the other is them acknowledging it and accounting for it. There is a HUGE difference there - intention.

Rice93 hit the nail on the head in describing my opinion. That's why I didn't correct him...

Really? Which of those descriptions is 'clueless'? That's what he said, and I don't see 'clueless' in there. Neither do you, but you're willing to pretend you do to argue with me.

As to your statement above about intention.... what a crock...

You've been arguing for days that there is no difference between supporting Trump and voting against Biden, even if that vote ends up for someone other than Trump...and now you're arguing that knowing something and dismissing it is HUGELY different from knowing something and assigning so little significance to it that it essentially dismisses it

It's hard to follow with the quotes being chopped off, sorry.

Rice93 did say clueless, which is how I would interpret someone who "blindly" (as you put it) supports a candidate. I would not call the posters on this board blind, or clueless, as most have been able to articulate that they aren't blind/clueless about Trump's flaws. They make the value judgement that they are going to support Trump in 2020, regardless of his flaws, to try and avoid a Democratic president.

Again, you're putting lipstick on the pig here (the pig being voting for Trump, which many have said they don't really want to do), by trying to make a big distinction between voting for Trump and against a Democrat, when it doesn't matter - a vote for Trump would still be happening.

This has nothing to do with 2016 (which you keep bringing up) and has everything to do with the upcoming election. OO has already said he would vote for Trump, regardless of if Big's scenarios were true. Owl#s has talked about voting libertarian unless the race in Texas was close. And I think Tanq is in a similar vote.

Also, please point out where i ever made the explicit statement, or even an insinuation, that I've "been arguing for days that there is no difference between supporting Trump and voting against Biden, even if that vote ends up for someone other than Trump..."

If you can't find that, please delete the statement, because that appears to be a bald-faced lie. And a really bad one at that.

(preemptively - sorry to Tanq for using the lipstick on the pig analogy again. I think he must raise pigs, since it seems to offend him so much).