(07-02-2020 11:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nobody is equating regulation to socialism, but massive redistribution is pretty much the first step on that road.

I don't necessarily agree with your characterization here, but if "massive redistribution" is the 1st step on the road to socialism, then you agree that it is not the end of the road and therefore not actual socialism and that your prior use of the term is inaccurate?

(07-02-2020 02:53 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Why do you think that it is not issues for those of us on the left?

I think Trump is a total dumpster fire of a human being, however if I liked the direction that he was steering the country I would not have a problem voting for him (assuming that I believed that he would steer the country in a better direction than the opposing candidate).

You guys seem to be of the opinion that it is simply OMB for all of us (sort of like the "blind" Trump voter who can't use evidence to make a decision. You guys take great offense at this portrayal.). We can hate the man AND hate his policies. I have enough hate for both!

Nobody cares that you don't like Trump... We can hate the man just as much AND STILL prefer his (flawed) policies to Biden's.... especially in that we know that Biden is a puppet.

What we care about is the repeated and insistent personal insults to our intelligence and decision making.... that prefering his policies means we prefer his personality or flaws... that choosing between what we see as the lesser of two evils (or what I described 4 years ago as the evil of two lessers) somehow associates us with racism, sexism, whatever baggage of his that you decide to associate us with.

You guys would rather argue meaningless minutia than simply admit that you're being rude.

In my signature (which I suspect many people block) is a quote from NDT - It basically says... labeling someone is a means of devaluing someone, of assigning whatever baggage you choose to them and using that to define them... and that's no way to have a discussion.

That never happened on here until a certain few posters came along. As evidenced by my comments on law enforcement, we're not remotely 'of one mind'.

(07-02-2020 02:53 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 02:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 01:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My issues were two: you disagreeing with AE's original comments (which were spot on) and with people who wouldn't admit they are inherently OK with Trump's baggage by voting for him (remember, OO explicitly said he would vote for Trump).

Whether AE's original comments were spot on is a matter of opinion. You believe they are, he doesn't.

What I understood OO to say is that he is less disturbed by Trumps's baggage than by the democrats' policy proposals.

Quote:Dem voters are likely going to be doing the same thing, voting for a candidate, and their baggage, to try and get Trump out of the WH. If they similarly try and avoid admitting that their vote for Biden is inherently supporting X, Y, and Z about Biden, they should be criticized as well.

At least you acknowledge that Trump is not the only candidate with substantial negative baggage. I don't think that voting for Biden means that someone is particularly supportive of, say, senile presidents, and I don't see the point in implying that they are voting for senility.

Bottom line is we have two really, really flawed candidates. So it comes down to issues, which is where I start, and issues are why those such as Tanq, OO, and myself cannot support Biden under any circumstances. What we plan to do instead may vary, but none of us can live with the. democrats on issues.

Why do you think that it is not issues for those of us on the left?

I think Trump is a total dumpster fire of a human being, however if I liked the direction that he was steering the country I would not have a problem voting for him (assuming that I believed that he would steer the country in a better direction than the opposing candidate).

You guys seem to be of the opinion that it is simply OMB for all of us (sort of like the "blind" Trump voter who can't use evidence to make a decision. You guys take great offense at this portrayal.). We can hate the man AND hate his policies. I have enough hate for both!

And I can admit that a likely future vote for Biden means I'm inherently OK with all of his baggage. If I wasn't, I wouldn't vote for him!

(07-02-2020 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I can admit that a likely future vote for Biden means I'm inherently OK with all of his baggage. If I wasn't, I wouldn't vote for him!

You like hypos so let's play....

So let's assume for a minute that you weren't okay with his baggage....
Are you suggesting that if your state were in play and it mattered, that you'd accept Trump as President for 4 more years rather than vote for Biden?

You're bitching about being compared to a socialist.

(07-02-2020 03:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And I can admit that a likely future vote for Biden means I'm inherently OK with all of his baggage. If I wasn't, I wouldn't vote for him!

You like hypos so let's play....

So let's assume for a minute that you weren't okay with his baggage....
Are you suggesting that if your state were in play and it mattered, that you'd accept Trump as President for 4 more years rather than vote for Biden?

You're bitching about being compared to a socialist.

As I said, I can admit that my likely vote for Biden inherently means I endorse his baggage.

If I felt like Biden's baggage was too great, and my state was in play, I would either sit it out, or vote third party. So far, I don't feel like Biden's baggage is too great to do that.

And very confused as to what the socialist comment is related to - but yes, I am bitching about being labeled a socialist, when I very much support capitalism. I just don't believe we are currently being best served with how we manage our capitalist system.

(07-02-2020 03:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 02:53 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Why do you think that it is not issues for those of us on the left?

I think Trump is a total dumpster fire of a human being, however if I liked the direction that he was steering the country I would not have a problem voting for him (assuming that I believed that he would steer the country in a better direction than the opposing candidate).

You guys seem to be of the opinion that it is simply OMB for all of us (sort of like the "blind" Trump voter who can't use evidence to make a decision. You guys take great offense at this portrayal.). We can hate the man AND hate his policies. I have enough hate for both!

What we care about is the repeated and insistent personal insults to our intelligence and decision making.... that prefering his policies means we prefer his personality or flaws... that choosing between what we see as the lesser of two evils (or what I described 4 years ago as the evil of two lessers) somehow associates us with racism, sexism, whatever baggage of his that you decide to associate us with.

See, this is where you keep reading into things.

I've never once said anyone on this board prefers his personality of flaws, but rather they are OK with them. We all make value choices - and as many have said, they value keeping Biden out of the WH more than keeping Trump, and his baggage, out of the WH.

I'm sorry that you get bent out of shape (do I need to check my privilege with that statement too?) because of the simple observation that who any of us vote for, indicates that we are inherently OK with that candidate, regardless of whether the prime motivator is to keep a political opponent out of the WH.

(07-02-2020 03:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 02:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 02:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let's dig into the practicalities.
What makes a wealth tax socialist and a graduated income tax not socialist? If you can explain the distinction clearly, that would be very helpful.

What makes a wealth tax socialist is that it is focused directly on wealth redistribution. What makes a graduated income tax not socialist is I don't know, do you? I think it is a matter of degree. The kind of graduated tax that most of Europe has, where the top rate is something like 1.5 times the minimum rate (1.7 in Sweden), or not graduated at all in many countries, is very different from one where the top rate is 3 or 4 times the lowest rate (3.7 in the USA today). Plus remember that all of Europe has some form of "regressive" consumption tax that levels out the effective tax structure even more.

i would say that *any* graduated income tax is rooted in socialism -- it is a route to redistribute wealth (and obligations) to differing people based exclusively in the concept of the war cry of progressivism -- their 'fair' share.

You cannot escape that the roots of *any* progressive income taxation is in itself a version of socialism --- it is the taking of personal property, and allocated expressly in the notion of the redistribution of that obligation based on 'equity' and 'fairness'.

The levels that the progressive tax rises to is not an indication of whether or not it is socialistic in nature, the singular fact in the disparate allocation absed solely on 'fairness' makes any progressive tax 'socialistic'.

The amount of confiscation only goes to how far down the collectivist (socialistic) path it should be considered as.

Quote:See, i don't see a wealth tax as any more or less socialist than a progressive income tax, an estate tax, or any other sort of tax.

I am sure you dont

Quote:Inherently, all taxes are about redistributing wealth, because they allow the government to collect revenue and spend it on things they deem fit. And those things (for lack of a better word) do not benefit every citizen exactly equally.

And while you match the 'equalness' of the social program, you flip the idea of the concept of socialism on its head. The goal of any collectivist pogrom is the unequal allocation of both the end results of a program, and the unequal assessment of the costs. You (again) overlook one entire side of the issue to mischaracterize the issue.

One question to you should resolve this:

Why should someone earning 200k a year pay any more as a percentage of tax than a person earning 40k a year? Seriously, please answer this one question.

Quote:This also touches on the pornography concept - one person's redistribution could be another person's safety net.

A+ for rhetoric. D- for content. And an F for overlooking the issues that underlie them. And at the same time you merely restate exactly *why* any tax that involves social transfers is socialistic in nature.

The underlying assumption is that 'how dare you label it a redistribution?' I mean, good fing grief, that is *exactly* its purpose, is it not? You want to stay away from that and label that particular redistribution in the most emotive means possible --- how dare they label a SAFETY NET as a redistribution. You hea

Kind of a carny level semantic game you do there, and I am torn between being aghast at it and being impressed by it.

Again:
Why should someone earning 200k a year pay any more as a percentage of tax than a person earning 40k a year? Seriously, please answer this one question.

And trust me, no one blanches at some forms of 'socialistic' behavior. Kind of the underlying theme behind and army and armed forces, etc.

But when you get to the level of the only distinctions on who pays relatively more based on 'fairness' -- which your redistribution/SAFETY NET plea does above, then you are firmly in the colelctivist camp.

Here I will answer the question for you, since you will evade it. You will say that it is only 'fair' that the person making 200k have both more nominally taken, and relatively taken, than the person making 40k.

There is a certain level of justification for the nominal disparity -- hey, we are all in the mix to 22% sounds like a great construct for a society. The issue then becomes, why is inherently 'more fair' (as you socialists will argue) that the person making 200k should pay not just the 22% baseline, but *any* extra on top of that?

That *any* extra is absolutely a more direct and more palpable redistribution than the baseline. And the progressive line is that is rooted in 'fairness' -- which again is the catch all reasoning behind any socialistic venture.

(07-02-2020 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 02:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Look 93, I know that you and lad will vote Biden. I know that you all know he is borderline dementia.

For the record, I completely disagree that Biden has borderline dementia or is senile or anything like that. So thank you for excluding me from your characterization.

If Word Salad *isnt* borderline dementia I would hate to be the old person in *your* house when you make a decision to send them alone to the grocery store.

It's a big concern for me, and why I was dismayed that the DNC selected him.

But I'm almost certain I would prefer him, and his future running mate, over the current iteration (especially since Trump isn't super sharp either). Will I be happy I'm voting for a slightly senile old man? Heck no, but there's no question I will be doing so.

Now if Biden actually deteriorated to the point of senility (and not just old) and he was still on the ballot, I would consider going third party.

(07-02-2020 03:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 02:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Look 93, I know that you and lad will vote Biden. I know that you all know he is borderline dementia.

For the record, I completely disagree that Biden has borderline dementia or is senile or anything like that. So thank you for excluding me from your characterization.

If Word Salad *isnt* borderline dementia I would hate to be the old person in *your* house when you make a decision to send them alone to the grocery store.

Biden has been tripping over words most of his adult life that I have been paying attention to him. There is a reason he has always been known as a gaffe machine. He does it more now than he used to, but that doesn't mean he is senile or has dementia.

(07-02-2020 03:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 03:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 02:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 02:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let's dig into the practicalities.
What makes a wealth tax socialist and a graduated income tax not socialist? If you can explain the distinction clearly, that would be very helpful.

What makes a wealth tax socialist is that it is focused directly on wealth redistribution. What makes a graduated income tax not socialist is I don't know, do you? I think it is a matter of degree. The kind of graduated tax that most of Europe has, where the top rate is something like 1.5 times the minimum rate (1.7 in Sweden), or not graduated at all in many countries, is very different from one where the top rate is 3 or 4 times the lowest rate (3.7 in the USA today). Plus remember that all of Europe has some form of "regressive" consumption tax that levels out the effective tax structure even more.

i would say that *any* graduated income tax is rooted in socialism -- it is a route to redistribute wealth (and obligations) to differing people based exclusively in the concept of the war cry of progressivism -- their 'fair' share.

You cannot escape that the roots of *any* progressive income taxation is in itself a version of socialism --- it is the taking of personal property, and allocated expressly in the notion of the redistribution of that obligation based on 'equity' and 'fairness'.

The levels that the progressive tax rises to is not an indication of whether or not it is socialistic in nature, the singular fact in the disparate allocation absed solely on 'fairness' makes any progressive tax 'socialistic'.

The amount of confiscation only goes to how far down the collectivist (socialistic) path it should be considered as.

Quote:See, i don't see a wealth tax as any more or less socialist than a progressive income tax, an estate tax, or any other sort of tax.

I am sure you dont

Quote:Inherently, all taxes are about redistributing wealth, because they allow the government to collect revenue and spend it on things they deem fit. And those things (for lack of a better word) do not benefit every citizen exactly equally.

And while you match the 'equalness' of the social program, you flip the idea of the concept of socialism on its head. The goal of any collectivist pogrom is the unequal allocation of both the end results of a program, and the unequal assessment of the costs. You (again) overlook one entire side of the issue to mischaracterize the issue.

One question to you should resolve this:

Why should someone earning 200k a year pay any more as a percentage of tax than a person earning 40k a year? Seriously, please answer this one question.

Quote:This also touches on the pornography concept - one person's redistribution could be another person's safety net.

A+ for rhetoric. D- for content. And an F for overlooking the issues that underlie them. And at the same time you merely restate exactly *why* any tax that involves social transfers is socialistic in nature.

The underlying assumption is that 'how dare you label it a redistribution?' I mean, good fing grief, that is *exactly* its purpose, is it not? You want to stay away from that and label that particular redistribution in the most emotive means possible --- how dare they label a SAFETY NET as a redistribution. You hea

Kind of a carny level semantic game you do there, and I am torn between being aghast at it and being impressed by it.

Again:
Why should someone earning 200k a year pay any more as a percentage of tax than a person earning 40k a year? Seriously, please answer this one question.

And trust me, no one blanches at some forms of 'socialistic' behavior. Kind of the underlying theme behind and army and armed forces, etc.

But when you get to the level of the only distinctions on who pays relatively more based on 'fairness' -- which your redistribution/SAFETY NET plea does above, then you are firmly in the colelctivist camp.

Here I will answer the question for you, since you will evade it. You will say that it is only 'fair' that the person making 200k have both more nominally taken, and relatively taken, than the person making 40k.

There is a certain level of justification for the nominal disparity -- hey, we are all in the mix to 22% sounds like a great construct for a society. The issue then becomes, why is inherently 'more fair' (as you socialists will argue) that the person making 200k should pay not just the 22% baseline, but *any* extra on top of that?

That *any* extra is absolutely a more direct and more palpable redistribution than the baseline. And the progressive line is that is rooted in 'fairness' -- which again is the catch all reasoning behind any socialistic venture.

Wow, you're such a dick sometimes.

Why did you think I would evade the question about the value of progressive taxation?

In my mind, progressive taxation make sense because % of income isn't actually equal across the board. I'm sure there's a technical economic word, rooted in utility, but suffice to say, taking 22% of one's income affects someone making $40k per year to a greater extent than someone making $200k per year. And that's because a lot of living expenses do not scale directly - base costs for housing, health care, necessary goods, etc. 78% of $40k is ~$35k and 78% of $200k is $156. If we increase taxes across the board, which one of those citizens is going to start struggling to put any sort of roof over their head first?

Why should they pay more? Because we have, as a society, decided that we should provide services to all citizens, and the funding for that must come from somewhere, and those who have a higher income have the ability to shoulder a greater burden of the request.

This is one method that attempts to balance multiple needs. Could others work? Sure - see Owl#s.

Will I fight for progressive taxation to the death? No. But I bet you're gonna make me try!

lad,

are you familiar with the following quote:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

I mean, all you have to do is stack up your comments and thrashings about taxes, progressive taxes, and 'safety nets' against this pithy phrase.

I would assume that you know the origins of the phrase, and how it was made famous. Perhaps not.

Your comments about flat taxes dont really impact on the statement -- they are in fact violative of first clause, and may or may not support the second. So no, your comments about *any* taxes falling in a purely redistributive really dont catch this quick litmus.

Now compare your comments on progressive taxing systems, and couple them with your comment on safety nets.

Notice the litmus on that with respect to the phrase above.

(07-02-2020 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Will I be happy I'm voting for a slightly senile old man? Heck no, but there's no question I will be doing so.

But again the double standard. You can vote for Biden and get credit for doing it despite his senility. But OO can't say he will vote for Trump without that being taken as his endorsement of every one of Trump's faults. How about the concept that OO is voting for Trump despite his faults, because OO sees the democrat ideas as a fate worse than death?

I've seen the democrat vision for the USA. It is a country where I don't want to live.

That's what leftists don't grasp. They cannot understand that someone simply rejects everything they stand for. But many of us do. And we are not stupid or uneducated, but in fact are successful professionals.

I think you just see it as a personality contest--Biden versus Trump--and you think Biden is less faulty than Trump. I don't know about that, but what I do know is that when it comes to issues, I agree with Trump on some and disagree on some, but I disagree with Biden and his party on virtually every single one.

(07-02-2020 01:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 01:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(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 odious things. Am I wrong?

When candidate A's stack of odious things, both done and proposed, do not measure up to the stack of odious things done and proposed by candidate B and his party, vote A.

I guess the assumption here is that candidate B(Biden) is lily pure, and candidate A(make a wild guess) is coal dirty. But there is a long list of odious things done and proposed by Biden.

he has sold his influence, and/or allowed it to be marketed by his son. (As much evidence for this as for trump sitting "idly by")

He has made racist statements.

He wants to confiscate wealth (wealth tax) and redistribute it (socialism).

he wants to discourage investment in america (raise/eliminate capital gain taxes)(anti capitalist)

He want to cozy up to Iran. (weak, submissive foreign policy - very odious)

He participated in the Benghazi cover up. (Lies)

He sat on the side while Russia took over Crimea.

He sat on the side when there was an uprising in Iran.

He is antiSemitic, like some other Democrats.

He is erratic, and we don't know who his handlers will be. (Am I supposed to vote for a Shadow Administration I know nothing of?)

But, I reiterate, when all the odious things are stacked up, I will vote for the shortest stack, and many here will vote for the tallest.

Based on your previous answer, your reason to vote for Trump was to keep a Democrat out of the WH - not because you found Biden to be more or less "odious" than Trump.

And note that a number of the issues above are political - I used the term odious because we had been talking about personal decisions, and whether those could sway someone to not vote for Trump, as opposed to political platforms. The general response was that the personal decisions were not enough to keep some from voting for Trump to keep Democrats out of the WH.

Really doing a lot of gyrations there, lad. Whatever you need to do to reach the predetermined conclusion you want to reach.

I specifically included the party with the nominee. I don't think a wealth tax is Biden's idea, but since he will go along with it to get elected, I find it odious.

And the wealth tax is a lot less hypothetical than some of the strikes you have against Trump.

(07-02-2020 02:40 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I don't think I have ever said anything about "absolute bar". There are hundreds of reasons why I think Trump is basically the worst possible President. Him personally profiting and his family profiting from his presidency in unorthodox ways is merely one of hundreds.

Ever hear of Hunter Biden?

(07-02-2020 04:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Really doing a lot of gyrations there, lad. Whatever you need to do to reach the predetermined conclusion you want to reach.
I specifically included the party with the nominee. I don't think a wealth tax is Biden's idea, but since he will go along with it to get elected, I find it odious.
And the wealth tax is a lot less hypothetical than some of the strikes you have against Trump.

Not to mention the entire Green New Deal.

(07-02-2020 02:40 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Times number 69, 70, and 75 that one of the conservatives on here have incorrectly described me.

\
Don't worry. You can still catch up.

(07-02-2020 02:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 01:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My issues were two: you disagreeing with AE's original comments (which were spot on) and with people who wouldn't admit they are inherently OK with Trump's baggage by voting for him (remember, OO explicitly said he would vote for Trump).

Whether AE's original comments were spot on is a matter of opinion. You believe they are, he doesn't.

What I understood OO to say is that he is less disturbed by Trumps's baggage than by the democrats' policy proposals.

Quote:Dem voters are likely going to be doing the same thing, voting for a candidate, and their baggage, to try and get Trump out of the WH. If they similarly try and avoid admitting that their vote for Biden is inherently supporting X, Y, and Z about Biden, they should be criticized as well.

At least you acknowledge that Trump is not the only candidate with substantial negative baggage. I don't think that voting for Biden means that someone is particularly supportive of, say, senile presidents, and I don't see the point in implying that they are voting for senility.

Bottom line is we have two really, really flawed candidates. So it comes down to issues, which is where I start, and issues are why those such as Tanq, OO, and myself cannot support Biden under any circumstances. What we plan to do instead may vary, but none of us can live with the. democrats on issues.

Well said, especially the bolded.

(07-02-2020 02:40 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I don't think I have ever said anything about "absolute bar". There are hundreds of reasons why I think Trump is basically the worst possible President. Him personally profiting and his family profiting from his presidency in unorthodox ways is merely one of hundreds.

And those ways are?
And your proof is?

(07-02-2020 02:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 01:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

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

And I argue that there is nothing unreasonable about doing it. When you support a party that openly espouses issue positions that clearly involve massive redistribution of income and wealth by government, then it is a bit disingenuous for you and others of your ilk to deny the obvious connection.

If you want to maintain that you are anti-socialist and anti-communist, then you need to deny those positions, such as the GND and wealth taxes. If you are unwilling to deny those, then you need to wear the label.

Quote: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.

There is one big difference. We have routinely decried racists/Nazis/white supremacists. The fact that a Nazi may support some positions that we support does not mean that we support Nazi positions.

But you have no problem accepting and excusing the likes of Antifa and actual socialists/communists. If you don't want to be painted with that brush, then disavow their positions. And not some weasely/mealy-mouthed half-ass disavowal, like, "I don't like their methods, but they have valid points," but actual full-throated disavowals of their substantive positions.

This. It would be different if ANY of them were on here saying that they intended to vote 3rd party for a party that doesn't support these things, but would vote for the Dem if they thought it would make a difference, but NONE of them are doing that.

(07-02-2020 01:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think I see the issue here - you're jumping to conclusions over a number of things, but the end of the post gets one thing kind of right; see bold for clarification:

Quote:You are EXPLICITLY saying that arguing that someone is voting 'against' the democrat by voting for Trump is merely putting lipstick on the pig of 'supporting Trump'.

My issues were two: you disagreeing with AE's original comments (which were spot on) and with people who wouldn't admit they are inherently OK with Trump's baggage by voting for him (remember, OO explicitly said he would vote for Trump).

Swing, pivot and deflect again.

That's a ridiculously simplistic and selective view of what he said. Mostly it seems he rejected the hypotheticals and prioritized his position against the left on economic and international issues. Sorry, but we're all a little 'conspiracied out' by you guys.

Big asked me if anything could make me not vote for Trump. Well, in 2016, I did not vote for Trump, so I guess the answer is hopelessness. I thought Hillary was a lock. So, as my own little miniprotest to his personality, I withheld my vote. But nothing can happen that would make me vote FOR Biden.

In response to the shooting hypothetical, he made a joke.

In response to Big's hypothetical, he said he would vote against Democrats.

No. Trump losing = Democrats winning. That would be a disaster.
He also said:
I would probably go ahead and vote against the encroachment of anticapitalsim.

Again, against Democrats.

THIS is what he did say, but he wasn't talking about your hypotheticals, but 'what we know now'.

As I have said, I will vote for Trump in 2020 after sitting out 2016. But that is based on Trump's results, not some cult like following of the man, as it seems people mean when they refer to his "base'.

So it's clear what he thinks and what he means... to everyone except people like you trying to find some way to not only label him, but then to assign that to everyone around them.

Even if I ignore what he said and accept your self-serving interpretation of it... I'm not OO and neither is Tanq nor numbers... yet you all feel just fine continuing to paint us all with a single brush.

That's nice.

Trying to confuse him with facts and quotes? Won't work, when he is hot on the trail of a predetermined conclusion.

(07-02-2020 02:40 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 06:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think Biden is the perfect candidate for those of your ilk. He is the Trojan horse.

Times number 69, 70, and 75 that one of the conservatives on here have incorrectly described me.

And what is incorrect about that?