Predisent Donald J. Skroob: Episode VIII: I'm Surrounded By Hamberders

[D44kpunk]

Also let's assume the best possible scenario in your case. Someone just didn't think Trump would be this bad.

Isn't the onus on them now to a) reject Trump vehemently and openly and b) demand better of the GOP?

Neither is happening. Instead Dem midterm results were driven by Democratic non-voters realizing they can't afford to stay on the sidelines and that mediocrity (Dems) still beats actively shitty.

i'm not sure what conclusion you're wanting me to come to.

you're basically saying republicans will still vote for trump because they are bad people. i disagree and i think for a presidential candidate (republican Vs democrat, not democrat Vs democrat) that both republicans and democrats will vote the party line. and i think demonizing and making these people into the enemy is something a child would do

It's fun seeing deplorables still having an identity crisis 3 years later.

i voted for bernie in 2016 because i think the lesser of both evils argument is horse shit. you can probably go back through my BG posts and find me saying so in 2016. but yes, totally

You think Democrats would enable a racist, bigoted President who removes the rights if trans soldiers, encourages death penalties for abortions, and allows elected officials to be threatened because they're brown, as well as violating the emoluments clause in addition to running on white privilege extreme by advocating for gl sexually assaulting women? You think they would do that?

And you think it's okay for the President to be a pathological, uneducated liar because the Democrats would do it too?

Just so we're clear, of course.

i responded to the "do you think this is ok" post about 2 posts up. good lord

[Mrbeansman]

Trump voters are like people who spew the words "In my opinion" as a criticism proof shield. Who you vote for reflects on you as a person. I mean Romney had some terrible policy positions but I would hesitate to call someone who voted for him a bad person.

[kuronosan]

You didn't answer my question. You think Hillary would have done the exact same shit we're dealing with now?

[D44kpunk]

Trump voters are like people who spew the words "In my opinion" as a criticism proof shield. Who you vote for reflects on you as a person. I mean Romney had some terrible policy positions but I would hesitate to call someone who voted for him a bad person.

you lack reading comprehension

You didn't answer my question. You think Hillary would have done the exact same shit we're dealing with now?

i don't see that question anywhere in any of your posts.

no i don't think hillary would have done the exact same things trump did, is this a trick question? i don't know what our problems would be if hillary had gotten elected. there's always something

[Gredival]

1. is there any poll that doesn't have biden winning?

2. pretty sure we've went over this quite a few times now, refer to anywhere where i'm referencing a less of two evils. the best people tend to not be our presidential candidates if you'd like me to read between the lines for you.

3. sounds like a societal problem, seats for congress can capture more specific demographics which is why i keep going back to presidential.

it's really hard to stay on topic

1. Yes, his support fell through the floor and is basically a non-viable candidate now.

2. ...so? Even if you are right, my point is that if the line had to be drawn, it would be here. Also your main point was arguing against the example of Franken by saying Presidential, which is non-applicable to Biden. The Dems consistently hold a line that the GOP refuses to at all levels.

3. What? We're discussing blind party loyalty. This is a demonstration that the GOP is much more tribalistic than the Dems. It is a strength for them in elections, but it also enables the worst of them in politics.

[D44kpunk]

1. Yes, his support fell through the floor and is basically a non-viable candidate now.

2. ...so? Even if you are right, my point is that if the line had to be drawn, it would be here. Also your main point was arguing against the example of Franken by saying Presidential, which is non-applicable to Biden. The Dems consistently hold a line that the GOP refuses to at all levels.

3. What? We're discussing blind party loyalty. This is a demonstration that the GOP is much more tribalistic than the Dems. It is a strength for them in elections, but it also enables the worst of them in politics.

1. got a link? i can't find anywhere that has biden not leading. like an actual poll, i don't mean an article from the times saying biden is out

2. dependent on 1 really, i can't see biden exiting over the current scandals.

3. i already admitted the GOP is more tribalistic than democrats, i said i'd imagine 90% of active voting republicans vote the party line and 75% of democrats do, then i went on to say this board would fall in the 75%, thus our discussions. i'm pulling these numbers out of my ass based on what i've read/who i've talked to but i think you'd be hard pressed to find people here who would vote republican instead of democrat in any fictitious situation you can make up

[Gredival]

i'm not sure what conclusion you're wanting me to come to.

you're basically saying republicans will still vote for trump because they are bad people. i disagree and i think for a presidential candidate (republican Vs democrat, not democrat Vs democrat) that both republicans and democrats will vote the party line. and i think demonizing and making these people into the enemy is something a child would do

The fact that Democrats consistently demonstrate higher levels of accountability means nothing, the only way you can be proven wrong is if a Democrat with a history of sexual abuse makes it past the primary into a general election?

That's called moving goalposts and poor levels of falsifiability.

Also, even if Democrats were to do that, you have failed to address the "end" part of the "means to an end."

Even if a Democrat and Republican had equivalent sins, they still stand for fundamentally different policy goals. That matters.

You haven't responded at all to the fact that it is not-defensible to accomplish the goals of the GOP (business friendly tax changes and deregulation) by making a bargain with sexists, racists, etc.

i voted for bernie in 2016 because i think the lesser of both evils argument is horse shit. you can probably go back through my BG posts and find me saying so in 2016. but yes, totally

Yes because we are so much better off now not having Hillary.

[Mrbeansman]

i voted for bernie in 2016 because i think the lesser of both evils argument is horse shit. you can probably go back through my BG posts and find me saying so in 2016. but yes, totally

Let me guess you stayed home on election day and enabled our current situation as much as those that voted for Trump.

[Gredival]

Here's the simple principle behind the lesser of two evils that also demonstrates why Republicans are responsible for any harmful Trump policies even if those policies aren't why they voted for him.

You are morally responsible for the net marginal difference between your actions.

If voting for Trump instead of Hillary meant I became a billionaire, yes it is in my personal interest to do so. And I'll admit that I would do it. But that doesn't mean it's not wrong. The fact that my life would be better for it is not a defense for how this worsens the lives of almost everyone else.

We all commit sins everyday. The chances are that spending a dollar on a chocolate bar is probably a net worse moral world than if you donated that dollar to UNICEF. People who vote Republican commit the same sort of sin. You can vote for something that makes your life marginally better at the cost of someone else's life that could be tremendously better.

[D44kpunk]

The fact that Democrats consistently demonstrate higher levels of accountability means nothing, the only way you can be proven wrong is if a Democrat with a history of sexual abuse makes it past the primary into a general election?

That's called moving goalposts and poor levels of falsifiability.

Also, even if Democrats were to do that, you have failed to address the "end" part of the "means to an end."

Even if a Democrat and Republican had equivalent sins, they still stand for fundamentally different policy goals. That matters.

You haven't responded at all to the fact that it is not-defensible to accomplish the goals of the GOP (business friendly tax changes and deregulation) by making a bargain with sexists, racists, etc.



Yes because we are so much better off now not having Hillary.

i've responded to everything you've said quite a few times now, specifically when i said that republicans have different interests than you, as you pointed out. the fact that they have different interests in your mind makes them wrong and you right, that's fine but demonizing them for that is childish. did that sound familiar? i should get a notepad going that i can copy/paste from.

there's been a shift recently of what people are willing to expect and accept from their politicians and presidential candidates. should we bring up the debacle that was the DNC? you're correct that i'm assuming that democrats would vote the party line for someone "just as bad" as trump in their own way. but democrats will never view them as just as bad as trump because of the difference in interests. is this making sense?

i'm not going to apologize for not voting for hillary, i voted for the candidate i thought was best for the position. is it a naive way to approach politics? sure, but i don't regret it.

[D44kpunk]

Let me guess you stayed home on election day and enabled our current situation as much as those that voted for Trump.

i want whatever it is that you smoke

[Mrbeansman]

The minute seeking those interest starts ruining lives it ceases to be childish and yes the same would apply if this shit was happening in a bizarro world run by Hilary. I'm sure some lives would be worse with her in office but its unlikely it would be a number more then we have under Trump.

[Cichy]

Damn you're dumb.

so woke

[Mrbeansman]

Lets not demonize people who's actions are demonstrably harming people is such a shitty take. Would you like to talk about the way that right speaks about liberals?

[D44kpunk]

The minute seeking those interest starts ruining lives it ceases to be childish and yes the same would apply if this shit was happening in a bizarro world run by Hilary. I'm sure some lives would be worse with her in office but its unlikely it would be a number more then we have under Trump.

ok, well when i spin up my alternate reality machine i'll let you know. the fact is you can't really know. we could have gone to war with north korea and have a nuclear war on our hands. i don't think that would have happened but i can't wait to be taken out of context on this message as well

Lets not demonize people who's actions are demonstrably harming people is such a shitty take. Would you like to talk about the way that right speaks about liberals?

i'm not even part of the right and look at the way you and others have spoken to me in this thread.. stop being delusional. please take your head out of your ass

[Gredival]

i've responded to everything you've said quite a few times now, specifically when i said that republicans have different interests than you, as you pointed out. the fact that they have different interests in your mind makes them wrong and you right, that's fine but demonizing them for that is childish. did that sound familiar? i should get a notepad going that i can copy/paste from.

You have repeated this, but have not responded to the thesis of the argument which is that it is an ethically poor (or morally wrong) decision to prioritize your interests at the costs of enabling racism or sexism.

THAT is what makes demonization okay.

Means to end isn't bad. It's a question of what means to what ends.

should we bring up the debacle that was the DNC?

You mean the one email where a staffer suggested going religious on Bernie and got shot down?

Yes it was so bad that a political party wanted the nomination to go to someone from its own ranks instead of a guy that stoked the red scare fear of socialism.

you're correct that i'm assuming that democrats would vote the party line for someone "just as bad" as trump in their own way. but democrats will never view them as just as bad as trump because of the difference in interests. is this making sense?

And the point you are consistently missing is that there is no "in their own way." Some people may have wrong opinions on what is bad and good. But bad is ultimately not subjective.

[Gredival]

The Underwoods in House of Cards are basically the GOP voter's most demonic vision of the Clintons possible. Willing to kill, cheat, steal, etc. for power. I'd be perfectly fine with voting for the Underwoods if they were the Democratic ticket so long as they were ushering in progressive policy.

They would still undoubtedly be bad and evil people. But I'm for them voting based on the world they leave behind, not on them personally.

[Andalusian girls]

I mean Romney had some terrible policy positions but I would hesitate to call someone who voted for him a bad person.

wrong i voted for Mittens and i'm a bad person

checkmate atheists

[Andalusian girls]

The Underwoods in House of Cards are basically the GOP voter's most demonic vision of the Clintons possible. Willing to kill, cheat, steal, etc. for power. I'd be perfectly fine with voting for the Underwoods if they were the Democratic ticket so long as they were ushering in progressive policy.

They would still undoubtedly be bad and evil people. But I'm for them voting based on the world they leave behind, not on them personally.

has it occurred to you that those kinds of people generally leave the world a worse place than they found it

the means are so often inseparable from the ends. it becomes necessary to destroy the town in order to save it.

[D44kpunk]

You have repeated this, but have not responded to the thesis of the argument which is that it is an ethically poor (or morally wrong) decision to prioritize your interests at the costs of enabling racism or sexism.

THAT is what makes demonization okay.

Means to end isn't bad. It's a question of what means to what ends.

last i checked ignorance is a justifiable defense, if half of our country is ignorant you're saying it's ok to demonize them? let's take a single issue voter for example. they vote republican because they see a democrat as someone who wants to kill babies. that is their logic. is it right? according to you i'm guessing that no it isn't. but that doesn't change the fact that morally they are doing what they think is right and calling them dumb or demonizing them for that is childish. i understand that you don't want to see this argument and that's perfectly fine. i used to think the same thing

You mean the one email where a staffer suggested going religious on Bernie and got shot down?

Yes it was so bad that a political party wanted the nomination to go to someone from its own ranks instead of a guy that stoked the red scare fear of socialism.

i'm simply pointing out that a party of puppies and rainbows doesn't exist, they both do shitty things and consist of shitty people and will continue to be so. believing otherwise makes you what 9/10 of the posters who have responded to me have called me.

And the point you are consistently missing is that there is no "in their own way." Some people may have wrong opinions on what is bad and good. But bad is ultimately not subjective.

think i got this in the first quote, you can see them as being wrong. there are people even within their respective parties that think the other is dead wrong about x or y issue. i fail to see how some issues are not subjective. or are we still just on the "if u vote for trump ur endorsing racism and sexism" shtick?