(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.
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.
And you keep saying I'm implying you support Trump - I haven't made that implication. Stop saying I have.
LIKELY? I can show you probably a dozen leaders, including Biden, Pelosi and Bernie all advocating for it. I have yet to see you say one word critical of that.... or that you intend to vote for your preferred candidate, even though they're not representing 'Democrats'.
As to what you implied, I quoted you. You know very well that this was what you were implying. The entire conversation came about from an 'indistinguishable' comment..... and you're still making that same inference.