Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[YUPPIE]

You don't often see Biden hats on the same rack as hats bearing the logo of the Nazi's or the SS.



And I mean, these Trump supporters did decide to illegally march on a college campus with fuckin tiki torches chanting "Jews will not replace us."
.

this image is scary as fuck. That's how crazy Trump supporters are.

[Machismo]

Well the discussion keeps evolving and it is an MMO forum subsection, I didn't initially look to make a concrete 12,000 word post that had concrete bullet points and substantial citations to back it up lol.

We can move on, when you agree your claim is utterly baseless, and you have no data to offer. A simple retraction will do.

But, to beg people to move on, after you got caught lying, is an act of cowardice, or deceit. So, if you truly want to move on, then retract your claim, or provide evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

this image is scary as fuck. That's how crazy Trump supporters are.

You are a Trump supporter....

Well, this is awkward.

- - - Updated - - -

Well the discussion keeps evolving and it is an MMO forum subsection, I didn't initially look to make a concrete 12,000 word post that had concrete bullet points and substantial citations to back it up lol.

- - - Updated - - -



It's not moving goal-posts, I don't think you know what that means. What I'm doing is not substantiating my argument.

if you want to substantiate your argument, then show how they are equally as corrupt... because the data disagrees with you.

[BronzeCondor]

Without data to support that conclusion, there's no more reason to entertain that possibility than, say, the possibility that Democrats are all lizardpersons wearing skinsuits and prepping humanity for the Great Consuming.

You want me to believe your "possibility"? Give me actual data and evidence. Otherwise, it's a nothing but a fantasy, and you can keep it to yourself.

You're not wrong for demanding what you do, it helps preserve the integrity of arguments and makes it easy to push away unsubstantiated claims.

I'm simply engaging in discussion.

We can move on, when you agree your claim is utterly baseless, and you have no data to offer. A simple retraction will do.

But, to beg people to move on, after you got caught lying, is an act of cowardice, or deceit. So, if you truly want to move on, then retract your claim, or provide evidence.

Please don't accuse me of lying, I will admit when I'm wrong.

[Machismo]

You're not wrong for demanding what you do, it helps preserve the integrity of arguments and makes it easy to push away unsubstantiated claims.

I'm simply engaging in discussion.

Yes, unsubstantiated claims... like when people claim that Democrats and Republicans are equally as corrupt.

- - - Updated - - -

You're not wrong for demanding what you do, it helps preserve the integrity of arguments and makes it easy to push away unsubstantiated claims.

I'm simply engaging in discussion.



Please don't accuse me of lying, I will admit when I'm wrong.

I'm accusing you of literally ignoring data, and making baseless claims that are refuted by that data. The fact that you insisted on perpetuating that false claim, even after being corrected, shows it to be a lie.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie

[BronzeCondor]

Does anyone have any further questions or anything they want me to articulate? Sorry if I didn't get to everyone.

[Edge-]

I think it's just cracking the egg with the notion that corruption is even a possibility is important way to move the conversation forward.

This is a pathetic strawman argument, honestly. No reasonable person by default believes, "There is no corruption in politics." and literally nobody in this thread has stated anything remotely to that effect.

You seem to be less interested in an actual discussion and more interested in ensuring the pot remains stirred, honestly. You may bristle at the "Fox News" mention, but you're repeating a lot of those same talking points. So if you're not getting them from Fox, you're getting them from wherever Fox is getting them.

[BronzeCondor]

This is a pathetic strawman argument, honestly. No reasonable person by default believes, "There is no corruption in politics." and literally nobody in this thread has stated anything remotely to that effect.

You seem to be less interested in an actual discussion and more interested in ensuring the pot remains stirred, honestly. You may bristle at the "Fox News" mention, but you're repeating a lot of those same talking points. So if you're not getting them from Fox, you're getting them from wherever Fox is getting them.

I tend to avoid partisan talking heads, blue checkmarks and the like because absorbing and regurgitating other peoples' opinions doesn't make someone smart (or interesting to talk to).

In fact, in regards to your false assumptions, my mentality towards Washington has pretty much been the same for over 20 years. I tend to tailor my comments to the audience, engaging with Conservatives about the corruption of their respective political party receives just as much hostility as it does here when discussing Democrats. So it's definitely an interesting experience parsing both sides for sentiment.

[Elegiac]

I tend to avoid partisan talking heads, blue checkmarks and the like because absorbing and regurgitating other peoples' opinions doesn't make someone smart (or interesting to talk to).

Which is extremely curious since, again, you are literally repeating the talking points generated by said partisan talking heads.

Hint: Getting them secondhand from Facebook or Joe Rogan or whatever the fuck you claim as a news source isn't better than getting them firsthand.

[BronzeCondor]

Which is extremely curious since, again, you are literally repeating the talking points generated by said partisan talking heads.

Hint: Getting them secondhand from Facebook or Joe Rogan or whatever the fuck you claim as a news source isn't better than getting them firsthand.

My talking points have been the same talking points since the Democrats were raging at Republicans back in the late 90s for weaponizing impeachment aimed at Clinton over a relatively minor issue. The political climate is much more volatile and vivacious today than it was 20 years ago though, so I find myself engaging in more discussion with people who seem to be interested in politics. I've always been weary of the government as a necessary evil, that at times, needs to be unbridled and also reeled in. It's part of the natural cycle for politics in our country.

For the Record: I don't have Facebook, and I don't listen to Joe Rogan.

[Machismo]

My talking points have been the same talking points since the Democrats were raging at Republicans back in the late 90s for weaponizing impeachment aimed at Clinton over a relatively minor issue. The political climate is much more volatile and vivacious today than it was 20 years ago though, so I find myself engaging in more discussion with people who seem to be interested in politics.

For the Record: I don't have Facebook, and I don't listen to Joe Rogan.

So, where are you getting the information for all your claims?

[Belize]

Can you answer the question directly?

Can you answer mine?

Are both rat poison and sodas bad for your health?

[Endus]

what was your data that democrats are facists?

Pretty sure you grossly misunderstood something, or are willfully misrepresenting it. Why would I entertain this kind of nonsense with a response?

You're not wrong for demanding what you do, it helps preserve the integrity of arguments and makes it easy to push away unsubstantiated claims.

I'm simply engaging in discussion.

"I'm just asking questions", the hallmark of sealioning.

That's not good-faith discussion.

[BronzeCondor]

So, where are you getting the information for all your claims?

Across a wide spectrum of sources, MotherJones, for example. They used to be better years ago but they've now absorbed a newer generation of staff that suffers from political near-sightedness. Something a lot of sources suffer from who've turned more hyper-politicized.

Can you answer mine?

Are both rat poison and sodas bad for your health?

Be careful, you might get an infraction for repeating your question, like I did.

Both are terrible.

[Shadowferal]

We shouldn't be comparing who is more corrupt. There is no gotcha, it's just an acknowledgement that this problem transcends party lines and to shed away the notion that being less corrupt is somehow more acceptable.

Then why bother with voting...or even having a government?

[Elegiac]

My talking points have been the same talking points since the Democrats were raging at Republicans back in the late 90s for weaponizing impeachment aimed at Clinton over a relatively minor issue.

I.e. ignoring the social and political changes that have happened over the past thirty years.

Stop living in a fucking fantasy.

[Machismo]

Across a wide spectrum of sources, MotherJones, for example. They used to be better years ago but they've now absorbed a newer generation of staff that suffers from political near-sightedness. Something a lot of sources suffer from who've turned more hyper-politicized.



Be careful, you might get an infraction for repeating your question, like I did.

Both are terrible.

Great, then use those sources to back up your claims you've made about them being equally corrupt.

[BronzeCondor]

Then why bother with voting...or even having a government?

Because change, balance, corrections, etc can happen. It's all part of the ebb & flow of politics. People (or corporations) fight for what is in their best interest and you hope it makes a difference in the end.

I.e. ignoring the social and political changes that have happened over the past thirty years.

Would you mind articulating that a bit further?

Great, then use those sources to back up your claims you've made about them being equally corrupt.

I think that discussion has run its course.

[Machismo]

Because change, balance, corrections, etc can happen. It's all part of the ebb & flow of politics. People (or corporations) fight for what is in their best interest and you hope it makes a difference in the end.

But, you stated they are all equally corrupt... so no... there would be no change, ebb, or flow.

[Elegiac]

Would you mind articulating that a bit further?

"I use the same talking points from the 90s" = "I have not adjusted my viewpoints to account for the fact that the 90s are thirty years in the past and that there have been fairly massive political and social shifts in that time".

Reading comprehension is hard, apparently. If you're not going to reckon with the present state of affairs as it actually is and pretend we still operate under consensus politics, my advice to you is to keep said fantasies to yourself rather than bothering us with them.

[Machismo]

Because change, balance, corrections, etc can happen. It's all part of the ebb & flow of politics. People (or corporations) fight for what is in their best interest and you hope it makes a difference in the end.



Would you mind articulating that a bit further?



I think that discussion has run its course.

Does that mean you are admitting your claims are utterly baseless, and you are retracting them?

Great!!!