Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Trump Administration
Author Message
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #12561
RE: Trump Administration
Putting the shoe on the other foot, could ask:

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?

OR:

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?

Question for Big, 93, FBO, Lad, AtEase, and any other who would care to comment.

Note the phraseology: Not voting for Biden does not equal voting for Trump.
07-01-2020 07:31 PM
Find all posts by this user
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,662
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 127
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #12562
RE: Trump Administration
(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. 05-nono

(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).

(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 02:49 AM
Find all posts by this user
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #12563
RE: Trump Administration
(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 06:03 AM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,644
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #12564
RE: Trump Administration
(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.

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 06:53 AM
Find all posts by this user
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #12565
RE: Trump Administration
(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.
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2020 07:16 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
07-02-2020 07:13 AM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,644
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #12566
RE: Trump Administration
(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.
07-02-2020 08:44 AM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #12567
RE: Trump Administration
(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.
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2020 09:22 AM by tanqtonic.)
07-02-2020 09:06 AM
Find all posts by this user
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #12568
RE: Trump Administration
(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 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. 05-nono

Then you're not paying attention to the specifics, just as before. You hold 'me' to this standard, but not yourself.

I said 'stupid' and you claimed you never used the word... and I said that I had chosen a single word to sum up your position on those people, and I stand by the usage. You yourself admitted that had you written it 6 months earlier, I would have been 'close enough' for conversation. You NEVER denied that 'not thinking highly' of them was incorrect... or that you meant whatever words you used to imply admiration or respect.

YOU used the word 'indistinguishable'. That's the specific word you used. It means, 'not able to be identified as different or distinct'.

If you are not able to identify the difference or distinction between voting FOR someone, and voting AGAINST someone else... then to plagiarize you again, I wonder if you guys are as smart as I think you are. The DNC certainly recognizes the difference and distinction.

So again, you're using specific words and then not holding yourself to the specific meaning of those specific words, and then taking me to task for using words that YOU ADMITTED (at least at some point) fairly summed up your position, and even now... is close enough. I never said it was indistinguishable... I just said it was close enough... and invited you to replace my words with yours... and you danced around that offer.

At Ease's summary paints a picture of blind support for Trump that clearly doesn't exist.... and he continues to insist that such support exists. Blind distaste for the Democratic alternative, perhaps. FTR, In addition to numbers and I actually voting 3rd party, I've said I'd vote Bernie over Trump. That sort of flies in the face of 'blind support' doesn't it.


Let me help you all....

A vote for Trump, whether it is because you support Trump or whether you simply hate Democrats is still a vote for Trump.... just as some/many of you are voting for Biden, but really support someone else. Unlike you, I submit that this much is true. Calling us 'indistinguishable from bots, maga-hat wearers etc etc' says more about your inability to discern obvious details. I can certainly tell the difference between Bernie and Biden supporters... even though both will likely vote for Biden.... especially when they tell me that they're Bernie supporters, but voting for Biden because Bernie lost the nomination.

The most interesting thing to me is that I've yet to hear any of you say that you're voting for someone else (your preferred candidate)... and yet I know at least two of us on the right here are likely to do just that.

Three lefts puts you at the same place as a single right, but clearly they aren't indistinguishable from each other to someone with average, much less above average intelligence. If you don't care about those details and merely want to cast aspersions at those who disagree with you on a fundamental basis politically, that's a little beneath the discourse we've come to expect on here.
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2020 09:50 AM by Hambone10.)
07-02-2020 09:17 AM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #12569
RE: Trump Administration
(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?

In a nutshell, why I cannot support Democrats above the county level. And I wonder why low level Democrats support these ideals when their jobs and the futures of their children depend on repudiating them.
07-02-2020 09:19 AM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,644
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #12570
RE: Trump Administration
(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
Find all posts by this user
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #12571
RE: Trump Administration
(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 09:26 AM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,644
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #12572
RE: Trump Administration
(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
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,644
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #12573
RE: Trump Administration
(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 09:30 AM
Find all posts by this user
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #12574
RE: Trump Administration
(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.

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.
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2020 09:37 AM by georgewebb.)
07-02-2020 09:32 AM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #12575
RE: Trump Administration
(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.

Damn, have you not been listening, again!

You sure are taking this "shooting on 5th Avenue" literally, and to an extreme. It just means his voters are strong for him. It would take a lot to turn us away. Shooting somebody might be enough. But when we are done arguing responses to Trump shooting somebody, could we then please turn to the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

If he shot somebody on 5th Avenue, I would have to consider the circumstances. If they made me decide that he was unfit, then the election would be between two unfit candidates. One is backed by a party that is going off the rails and will destroy capitalism, the other is not. Should I stand on my moral indignation and idly let the bad guys win? I would probably go ahead and vote against the encroachment of anticapitalsim.

Apparently corruption in office is not a dealbreaker for you. We have far more proof of that on Biden than we have of Trump shooting somebody. But I doubt not that WashPo could dig up some unnamed source to say he's done it before.
07-02-2020 09:33 AM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #12576
RE: Trump Administration
(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'.
07-02-2020 09:35 AM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,644
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #12577
RE: Trump Administration
(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.

I appreciate you admit the pig is there. Ham was seemingly trying to deny that the pig even existed and chastising others for pointing out that the pig was running around.
07-02-2020 09:40 AM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #12578
RE: Trump Administration
(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).

Tell Newsweek that they arent socialism. I remember a cover story that loudly proclaimed that not horribly long ago. Funny that.

Again, tell me a better word than that for that progressive triumvirate that the government is king, that the government will dictate social and economic policy, and that the concept of wealth possession shall be dictated by fairness.

Funny thing, all of those concepts appear in the forms of societies that are called (drum roll)...... socialist.

So what the fk do you want to call that shittard stupid triumvirate of principles? I am still waiting for that lad.
07-02-2020 09:41 AM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #12579
RE: Trump Administration
(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.

A snowball in Hell has a better chance. But yes, to vote against Trump, either (1) he would have to advocate policies worse than the ones the Dems are advocating, or (2) the Democrats would have to advocate better policies than ones he is advocating.
07-02-2020 09:42 AM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,644
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #12580
RE: Trump Administration
(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'.

Lololol - caught the deplorable tone because I used a common phrase of "putting lipstick on a pig?"

Lighten up snowflake and don't cover behind the deplorable incident as you and your ilk are so wanton to do.
07-02-2020 09:47 AM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.