(07-01-2020 10:05 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Please quote the actual times those words were used. If they weren't, and I'm confident they weren't... then you're arguing with the voices in your head that you're assigning to others.

That's on you, pumpkin.

(07-01-2020 07:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If it was shown that Biden knowingly let his son sell his influence and/or access to him, would this be enough for you to not vote for him?

(07-01-2020 07:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If it were shown that the government spying on the Trump campaign and the falsification of evidence was done with the knowledge and approval of VP Biden, would this make you not vote for him?

(07-02-2020 02:49 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 07:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If it was shown that Biden knowingly let his son sell his influence and/or access to him, would this be enough for you to not vote for him?

No. The Trump family profits off the presidency right now in the same way so those things would cancel out leaving me with my preference for Biden over Trump. That said, I'd prefer replacing Biden if possible or pressuring him to step down (or possibly impeachment, depending on a lot of circumstances).

Quote:

(07-01-2020 07:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If it were shown that the government spying on the Trump campaign and the falsification of evidence was done with the knowledge and approval of VP Biden, would this make you not vote for him?

I don't think this scenario is specific enough for me to decide and the language you use is extremely subjective.

(07-02-2020 06:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 02:49 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 07:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If it was shown that Biden knowingly let his son sell his influence and/or access to him, would this be enough for you to not vote for him?

No. The Trump family profits off the presidency right now in the same way so those things would cancel out leaving me with my preference for Biden over Trump. That said, I'd prefer replacing Biden if possible or pressuring him to step down (or possibly impeachment, depending on a lot of circumstances).

But, haven't you acted as if the alleged (but unproved) Trump "irregularities" are an absolute bar? So are you saying that unproved irregularities are an absolute bar but proved irregularities (the OO hypo) aren't?

Quote:

(07-01-2020 07:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If it were shown that the government spying on the Trump campaign and the falsification of evidence was done with the knowledge and approval of VP Biden, would this make you not vote for him?

I don't think this scenario is specific enough for me to decide and the language you use is extremely subjective.

In other words, you know what the answer has to be, but you don't want that answer, so feign criticism of the form of the question in order to evade answering?

Is this specific enough for you? If it were proved that the FBI 1) spied illegally on the Trump campaign, and 2) falsified evidence as part of that effort, and that VP Biden knew and approved of both 1) and 2), would that be sufficient to cause you not to vote for him?

I realize that you have no great enthusiasm for Biden. Am I correct on presuming that is because he is not far enough left for you? Don't worry. He is plenty far left, and he will pick a VP running mate who is far enough left to suit Che Guevara, and he will be 25th Amendmented within 12 months to make her president.

I think Biden is the perfect candidate for those of your ilk. He is the Trojan horse. Nobody with the Alinsky/Antifa/sociaklit/communist views of the democrat far left can get elected on her own views, but you can pair her with Biden and sell him as a "moderate" to get her elected, and the axe Biden and you've accomplished your goal. I wish republicans were that clever. I'm counting on them to protect me from the likes of whoever will be on the democrat ticket, and so far they are doing a piss-poor job.

(07-02-2020 06:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think your ilk has constantly compared relatively moderate liberals to communists/socialists for so long, that your ilk has effectively destroyed the actual meaning of those words, and the real understanding of the inherently flawed nature of actual communism.
When your ilk continue to call people who would be labeled as moderate in Western European states as Antifa, socialist, or communist, you and your ilk are doing no favors to your cause. Your ilk just subvert your own goals because of these rather hyperbolic statements and conspiracy-esque fever dreams.

(07-02-2020 07:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 06:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think your ilk has constantly compared relatively moderate liberals to communists/socialists for so long, that your ilk has effectively destroyed the actual meaning of those words, and the real understanding of the inherently flawed nature of actual communism.
When your ilk continue to call people who would be labeled as moderate in Western European states as Antifa, socialist, or communist, you and your ilk are doing no favors to your cause. Your ilk just subvert your own goals because of these rather hyperbolic statements and conspiracy-esque fever dreams.

If you "moderate" leftists (and I don't use "liberals" because I'm a classical liberal, and your expressed views bear little resemblance to classical liberalism) would stand up to the Antifa/socialist/communist wing, then perhaps you would have some credibility with your assertions.

No matter how much a conservative disavows idiots like the KKK and white supremacists, it's never enough to avoid allegations. But no matter how much the left cozies up to the Antifa/socialist/communist wing, you persist in maintaining that you sold not be stuck with that late.

If you don't want to be painted with the same brush, then distinguish yourself from them. If you want to excuse and defend them, be prepared to deal with the inevitable logical consequences.

(07-02-2020 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 07:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 06:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think your ilk has constantly compared relatively moderate liberals to communists/socialists for so long, that your ilk has effectively destroyed the actual meaning of those words, and the real understanding of the inherently flawed nature of actual communism.
When your ilk continue to call people who would be labeled as moderate in Western European states as Antifa, socialist, or communist, you and your ilk are doing no favors to your cause. Your ilk just subvert your own goals because of these rather hyperbolic statements and conspiracy-esque fever dreams.

If you "moderate" leftists (and I don't use "liberals" because I'm a classical liberal, and your expressed views bear little resemblance to classical liberalism) would stand up to the Antifa/socialist/communist wing, then perhaps you would have some credibility with your assertions.

No matter how much a conservative disavows idiots like the KKK and white supremacists, it's never enough to avoid allegations. But no matter how much the left cozies up to the Antifa/socialist/communist wing, you persist in maintaining that you sold not be stuck with that late.

If you don't want to be painted with the same brush, then distinguish yourself from them. If you want to excuse and defend them, be prepared to deal with the inevitable logical consequences.

I understand why your ilk want to paint liberals with that brush. I am arguing that you and your ilk are self-defeating by unreasonably doing it. You and your ilk water-down actual communism and socialism when you do that.

I also find it supremely ironic that you and your ilk constantly caw about how awful it is to be painted as racists/Nazis because racists/Nazis actively run for political office under the conservative banner, or openly and actively support mainstream conservative politicians. But you and your ilk have no problem painting with an even broader brush about groups like antifa or actual communists.

(07-01-2020 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, you gotta be kidding. OO literally said “No. Trump losing = Democrats winning. That would be a disaster.” to Big when he asked “ If it turns out that either of the following is true, would it affect your opinion of Trump enough to possibly dissuade you from voting for him? ”

(07-02-2020 02:49 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 10:05 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Please quote the actual times those words were used. If they weren't, and I'm confident they weren't... then you're arguing with the voices in your head that you're assigning to others.

That's on you, pumpkin.

I feel like you are plagiarizing from me things I wrote to you recently.

(07-02-2020 09:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  a) redistributing wealth based on principles of 'fairness'; b) continuously attacking the fundamental principles of capitalism; c) the huge attraction to the congruent principles of wealth redistribution and massive use of government power and intrusiveness to do so?

(07-02-2020 09:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, you gotta be kidding. OO literally said “No. Trump losing = Democrats winning. That would be a disaster.” to Big when he asked “ If it turns out that either of the following is true, would it affect your opinion of Trump enough to possibly dissuade you from voting for him? ”

Which very clearly means that like most of you Democrats voting against Trump as opposed to 'for' Biden... they are voting AGAINST Democrats. If you claim you don't understand the difference, then you're not being honest... because it is quite literally the mantra the left has been pushing for your own party for months... and arguably, years.

(07-02-2020 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, you gotta be kidding. OO literally said “No. Trump losing = Democrats winning. That would be a disaster.” to Big when he asked “ If it turns out that either of the following is true, would it affect your opinion of Trump enough to possibly dissuade you from voting for him? ”

Which very clearly means that like most of you Democrats voting against Trump as opposed to 'for' Biden... they are voting AGAINST Democrats. If you claim you don't understand the difference, then you're not being honest... because it is quite literally the mantra the left has been pushing for your own party for months... and arguably, years.

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.

(07-02-2020 09:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 07:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 06:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think your ilk has constantly compared relatively moderate liberals to communists/socialists for so long, that your ilk has effectively destroyed the actual meaning of those words, and the real understanding of the inherently flawed nature of actual communism.
When your ilk continue to call people who would be labeled as moderate in Western European states as Antifa, socialist, or communist, you and your ilk are doing no favors to your cause. Your ilk just subvert your own goals because of these rather hyperbolic statements and conspiracy-esque fever dreams.

If you "moderate" leftists (and I don't use "liberals" because I'm a classical liberal, and your expressed views bear little resemblance to classical liberalism) would stand up to the Antifa/socialist/communist wing, then perhaps you would have some credibility with your assertions.

No matter how much a conservative disavows idiots like the KKK and white supremacists, it's never enough to avoid allegations. But no matter how much the left cozies up to the Antifa/socialist/communist wing, you persist in maintaining that you sold not be stuck with that late.

If you don't want to be painted with the same brush, then distinguish yourself from them. If you want to excuse and defend them, be prepared to deal with the inevitable logical consequences.

I understand why your ilk want to paint liberals with that brush. I am arguing that you and your ilk are self-defeating by unreasonably doing it. You and your ilk water-down actual communism and socialism when you do that.

I also find it supremely ironic that you and your ilk constantly caw about how awful it is to be painted as racists/Nazis because racists/Nazis actively run for political office under the conservative banner, or openly and actively support mainstream conservative politicians. But you and your ilk have no problem painting with an even broader brush about groups like antifa or actual communists.

How else does one describe the concurrent acts and goals of: a) redistributing wealth based on principles of 'fairness'; b) continuously attacking the fundamental principles of capitalism; c) the huge attraction to the congruent principles of wealth redistribution and massive use of government power and intrusiveness to do so?

And the funny thing, you use the ideal of a fringe element of 'racists' and 'nazis' in your delineation of the terribleness of denoting a-c (and perhaps more) as 'socialist'. Yet you blithely overlook the concept that all the while that the Nazi/skinhead/racist moniker is, in fact, a fringe -- in fact a fringe that is continuously denounced.

The concepts of a)-c) above are part of the progressive national platform.

Interesting ability to overlook those issues.

In conclusion, when you come up with a word that encompasses a)-c) above *better* than 'socialism', I will be more than happy to use it. Funny thing is that a)-c) (i.e. the progressive goals) are actually closer to the root philosophy of national socialism than any thing in the Republican platform --- albeit your branch does not have 'get rid of the mud people' in it. Your branch *does* have 'FK the police' in it in the same manner that conservatism is 'related' to the racial component of national socialism, as in interesting side note.

I look forward to that proffered word as substitute. But, I also note that I am also looking forward to your deconstruction of the Inhofe book as an example of 'denialism', or, in the alternative, your notation that you did not read the book and are blowing smoke out of your ass in your description of that book as 'denialist' literature. That is, without having bothered to read it.

(07-02-2020 09:26 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, you gotta be kidding. OO literally said “No. Trump losing = Democrats winning. That would be a disaster.” to Big when he asked “ If it turns out that either of the following is true, would it affect your opinion of Trump enough to possibly dissuade you from voting for him? ”

Which very clearly means that like most of you Democrats voting against Trump as opposed to 'for' Biden... they are voting AGAINST Democrats. If you claim you don't understand the difference, then you're not being honest... because it is quite literally the mantra the left has been pushing for your own party for months... and arguably, years.

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.

On the contrary, I think Owl#s and others have made it perfectly clear: he would have to advocate policies that are worse than what the Democrats advocate. The Democrats are unlikely to let that happen.

(07-02-2020 09:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:26 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, you gotta be kidding. OO literally said “No. Trump losing = Democrats winning. That would be a disaster.” to Big when he asked “ If it turns out that either of the following is true, would it affect your opinion of Trump enough to possibly dissuade you from voting for him? ”

Which very clearly means that like most of you Democrats voting against Trump as opposed to 'for' Biden... they are voting AGAINST Democrats. If you claim you don't understand the difference, then you're not being honest... because it is quite literally the mantra the left has been pushing for your own party for months... and arguably, years.

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.

On the contrary, I think Owl#s and others have made it perfectly clear: he would have to advocate policies that are worse than what the Democrats advocate. The Democrats are unlikely to let that happen.

Ah, so Trump COULD shoot someone on 5th Avenue and still be supported.

Thanks for the confirmation.

(07-02-2020 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, you gotta be kidding. OO literally said “No. Trump losing = Democrats winning. That would be a disaster.” to Big when he asked “ If it turns out that either of the following is true, would it affect your opinion of Trump enough to possibly dissuade you from voting for him? ”

Which very clearly means that like most of you Democrats voting against Trump as opposed to 'for' Biden... they are voting AGAINST Democrats. If you claim you don't understand the difference, then you're not being honest... because it is quite literally the mantra the left has been pushing for your own party for months... and arguably, years.

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.

(07-02-2020 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, you gotta be kidding. OO literally said “No. Trump losing = Democrats winning. That would be a disaster.” to Big when he asked “ If it turns out that either of the following is true, would it affect your opinion of Trump enough to possibly dissuade you from voting for him? ”

Which very clearly means that like most of you Democrats voting against Trump as opposed to 'for' Biden... they are voting AGAINST Democrats. If you claim you don't understand the difference, then you're not being honest... because it is quite literally the mantra the left has been pushing for your own party for months... and arguably, years.

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.

Quote: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.

(07-02-2020 09:32 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:26 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Which very clearly means that like most of you Democrats voting against Trump as opposed to 'for' Biden... they are voting AGAINST Democrats. If you claim you don't understand the difference, then you're not being honest... because it is quite literally the mantra the left has been pushing for your own party for months... and arguably, years.

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.

On the contrary, I think Owl#s and others have made it perfectly clear: he would have to advocate policies that are worse than what the Democrats advocate. The Democrats are unlikely to let that happen.

Ah, so Trump COULD shoot someone on 5th Avenue and still be supported.

Thanks for the confirmation.

As I mentioned, Stalin could kill tens of millions, and still be our ally against Hitler. That's not admiration for or loyalty toward Stalin; it is a recognition of just how bad Hitler was, and how essential it was -- for liberty, for civilization, for the world -- that he not win.

(07-02-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 08:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 07:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 06:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think your ilk has constantly compared relatively moderate liberals to communists/socialists for so long, that your ilk has effectively destroyed the actual meaning of those words, and the real understanding of the inherently flawed nature of actual communism.
When your ilk continue to call people who would be labeled as moderate in Western European states as Antifa, socialist, or communist, you and your ilk are doing no favors to your cause. Your ilk just subvert your own goals because of these rather hyperbolic statements and conspiracy-esque fever dreams.

If you "moderate" leftists (and I don't use "liberals" because I'm a classical liberal, and your expressed views bear little resemblance to classical liberalism) would stand up to the Antifa/socialist/communist wing, then perhaps you would have some credibility with your assertions.

No matter how much a conservative disavows idiots like the KKK and white supremacists, it's never enough to avoid allegations. But no matter how much the left cozies up to the Antifa/socialist/communist wing, you persist in maintaining that you sold not be stuck with that late.

If you don't want to be painted with the same brush, then distinguish yourself from them. If you want to excuse and defend them, be prepared to deal with the inevitable logical consequences.

I understand why your ilk want to paint liberals with that brush. I am arguing that you and your ilk are self-defeating by unreasonably doing it. You and your ilk water-down actual communism and socialism when you do that.

I also find it supremely ironic that you and your ilk constantly caw about how awful it is to be painted as racists/Nazis because racists/Nazis actively run for political office under the conservative banner, or openly and actively support mainstream conservative politicians. But you and your ilk have no problem painting with an even broader brush about groups like antifa or actual communists.

How else does one describe the concurrent acts and goals of: a) redistributing wealth based on principles of 'fairness'; b) continuously attacking the fundamental principles of capitalism; c) the huge attraction to the congruent principles of wealth redistribution and massive use of government power and intrusiveness to do so?

And the funny thing, you use the ideal of a fringe element of 'racists' and 'nazis' in your delineation of the terribleness of denoting a-c (and perhaps more) as 'socialist'. Yet you blithely overlook the concept that all the while that the Nazi/skinhead/racist moniker is, in fact, a fringe -- in fact a fringe that is continuously denounced.

The concepts of a)-c) above are part of the progressive national platform.

Interesting ability to overlook those issues.

In conclusion, when you come up with a word that encompasses a)-c) above *better* than 'socialism', I will be more than happy to use it. Funny thing is that a)-c) (i.e. the progressive goals) are actually closer to the root philosophy of national socialism than any thing in the Republican platform --- albeit your branch does not have 'get rid of the mud people' in it. Your branch *does* have 'FK the police' in it in the same manner that conservatism is 'related' to the racial component of national socialism, as in interesting side note.

I look forward to that proffered word as substitute. But, I also note that I am also looking forward to your deconstruction of the Inhofe book as an example of 'denialism', or, in the alternative, your notation that you did not read the book and are blowing smoke out of your ass in your description of that book as 'denialist' literature. That is, without having bothered to read it.

You make my point well - you're developing a new definition for socialism and communism which doesn't include the central tenant that the means of production are commonly owned.

You're correct that progressive goals which have those three aspects are closer to true socialism/communism than unfettered capitalism, but they are still not socialism/communism. And when you and your ilk constantly deride pretty much any regulation/taxation as communism/socialism, you bastardize the concept and undermine your own goal (of trying to push people away from true socialism/communism).

(07-02-2020 09:26 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, you gotta be kidding. OO literally said “No. Trump losing = Democrats winning. That would be a disaster.” to Big when he asked “ If it turns out that either of the following is true, would it affect your opinion of Trump enough to possibly dissuade you from voting for him? ”

Which very clearly means that like most of you Democrats voting against Trump as opposed to 'for' Biden... they are voting AGAINST Democrats. If you claim you don't understand the difference, then you're not being honest... because it is quite literally the mantra the left has been pushing for your own party for months... and arguably, years.

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.

On the contrary, I think Owl#s and others have made it perfectly clear: he would have to advocate policies that are worse than what the Democrats advocate. The Democrats are unlikely to let that happen.

(07-02-2020 09:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 09:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-01-2020 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, you gotta be kidding. OO literally said “No. Trump losing = Democrats winning. That would be a disaster.” to Big when he asked “ If it turns out that either of the following is true, would it affect your opinion of Trump enough to possibly dissuade you from voting for him? ”

Which very clearly means that like most of you Democrats voting against Trump as opposed to 'for' Biden... they are voting AGAINST Democrats. If you claim you don't understand the difference, then you're not being honest... because it is quite literally the mantra the left has been pushing for your own party for months... and arguably, years.

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.

The same level of what the hell would the Democrat would have do to get his supporters (and other fellow travelers) not to vote for him.

I love the one way myopia highway there.

Quote: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.

Actually your angst is coloring your worldview there, lad. Once again.

If the Democrats could actually put a moderate in place to run I would vote for that person in a New York second. Problem is your party is bent so far to the fing socialist left, they cant do that.

But you characterize that my position on the underlying comparison of the issues is merely 'putting lipstick on a pig'. Glad to see you have caught the Hillary deplorable tone -- kind of goes smashingly well with your stupid as **** and amazingly broad comment that 'being a climate change skeptic' is simply a renaming of 'denialist'.