2018 Midterm Election Thread

#3,751
#3,751
Orange_Crush said:
You're free to make whatever distinctions you're not afraid to run from. Otherwise, that's literally the argument you've made so far. If there is a further distinction you'd like to make about religious charity, have at it. Otherwise, you've just agreed that conservatives are more charitable, most likely because religious people are more charitable than irreligious people.

Now, the next time you want to make a crass comment about conservative being selfish because they want lower taxes, we'll revisit the argument YOU have made so far. Conservatives are more charitable and religiosity should be equated to charitable.
Click to expand...
Again, not a bad attempt at a twist based on your partial understanding.
I guess we can loop through this a few more times if you wish.
Religious people give money to their place of worship and it's counted as a charitable donation. That's different than what you claim I'm saying.
Your turn to loop back around.
 
#3,752
#3,752
luthervol said:
Again, not a bad attempt at a twist based on your partial understanding.
I guess we can loop through this a few more times if you wish.
Religious people give money to their place of worship and it's counted as a charitable donation. That's different than what you claim I'm saying.
Your turn to loop back around.
Click to expand...
No different at all unless you're denigrating their religious donation as less charitable than charity. You've been too much of a coward to admit that that was your original intent. If it is, we'll discuss from there. If not, you're appealing to a distinction you're afraid to make.
 
#3,754
#3,754
luthervol said:
Dribble?
Why are you trying to get me to tell you what that destination means? Why does it have to mean anything? I'm just telling you that is why you see that difference. It may be more of a factor of being fundamentally religious than being charitable. You misinterpreted (shocker) what I said as though I was claiming religious giving was worth less than other giving. That's on you. It's not worth less but is based on different motivators.
Click to expand...
Orange_Crush said:
No different at all unless you're denigrating their religious donation as less charitable than charity. You've been too much of a coward to admit that that was your original intent. If it is, we'll discuss from there. If not, you're appealing to a distinction you're afraid to make.
Click to expand...
I highlighted the distinction for you to help since you didn't process it the first time around.
 
#3,755
#3,755
luthervol said:
I highlighted the distinction for you to help since you didn't process it the first time around.
Click to expand...

Of course we have different motivations to give. Duh. The entire conversation is that the differing motives makes one group more motivated than another. What is your problem? We agree. Conservatives are more charitable and religious people should be seen as more prone/motivated to charity than irreligious people. That's been your argument, and the motives behind the reasons are inherent in your argument.

Why are you arguing with me? (Except that your own argument contradicts your earlier crass comment that conservatives who want lower taxes are selfish.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BearCat204
#3,756
#3,756
05_never_again said:
Yes, Hannity abandoned any pretense of being a "journalist" a long time ago, if he ever had one to begin with. I don't have a problem with openly, obviously partisan talkers from a major network stumping for a candidate. He doesn't hold himself out to be anything different, and that's OK. If, say, Rachel Maddow went to a Beto event in Texas, I'd disagree with her opinion, but I wouldn't criticize her un-objectiveness, because she doesn't claim to be objective to begin with. She is really open that she approaches stories from a particular point of view.

What chaps my a$$ is disingeniousness, which is a tactic employed by the more "mainstream" news organizations (CNN, ABC/CBS/NBC, the news reporting arms of the NYT/WaPo, etc.). Just as an example, Jeffrey Toobin is presented by CNN as their "Chief Legal Analyst," a very neutral, objective sounding title. However, he's there to spout progressive, Democratic talking points to rebut claims by Trump surrogates and supporters, and who appear on the show very clearly labeled as a Trump supporter. The whole idea of it all is to create this feel that here's a very objective, balls and strikes guy, and he is just eviscerating all this nonsense a Trump person is saying.

I don't mind opinion-based commentary, not at all, no matter the opinion. The key is that it just be clearly labeled, figuratively speaking. What I can't stand are opinions presented as facts.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with this.

I can’t remember the last time I watched CNN but Toobin was on “Stay Tuned with Preet Bahrara” this week. They’re both former US Attorneys for two different districts in New York. Anyways he doesn’t seem like somebody who would go scream at Ted Cruz in a restaurant, but he also was pretty open about being, if not openly liberal, against Trump. I kind of expect that from the show and I thought he was a fairly reasonable but I agree I’d be irritated if he was portrayed as some kind of objective referee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#3,757
#3,757
RockyTop85 said:
I totally agree with this.

I can’t remember the last time I watched CNN but Toobin was on “Stay Tuned with Preet Bahrara” this week. They’re both former US Attorneys for two different districts in New York. Anyways he doesn’t seem like somebody who would go scream at Ted Cruz in a restaurant, but he also was pretty open about being, if not openly liberal, against Trump. I kind of expect that from the show and I thought he was a fairly reasonable but I agree I’d be irritated if he was portrayed as some kind of objective referee.
Click to expand...

I’ll take honestly over objectivity but they usually go hand in hand. CNN and msnbc have neither.
 
#3,758
#3,758
RockyTop85 said:
I totally agree with this.

I can’t remember the last time I watched CNN but Toobin was on “Stay Tuned with Preet Bahrara” this week. They’re both former US Attorneys for two different districts in New York. Anyways he doesn’t seem like somebody who would go scream at Ted Cruz in a restaurant, but he also was pretty open about being, if not openly liberal, against Trump. I kind of expect that from the show and I thought he was a fairly reasonable but I agree I’d be irritated if he was portrayed as some kind of objective referee.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen Bharara as much on CNN, so I can't speak to him, but the thing that grinds my gears about Toobin (and other people on supposedly "objective" shows) is that he has this manner of speaking where he frames his opinion as though it is a fact. He's very effective at it, and if you don't know any better (which most people don't, or they are listening to confirm their own bias) it is difficult to detect. Brian Stelter, also of CNN, does this too.

I have no problem listening to a debate between multiple people speaking from a particular perspective - in fact, I quite enjoy it if the arguments are made in good faith and they are clear about what perspective they are coming from. A lot of conservatives can't stand Cenk Uygur, for example, and I disagree with him on probably basically every political issue, but he makes no bones about what his perspective is. I can respect that. I think he makes bad faith, disingenuous arguments at times, but he doesn't sit there and conflate opinion with fact.

What I can't stand is when someone sits there and presents themselves as a referee, then proceeds to make subjective claims that the coach of Team A has no clue what he's doing, Team B should have not gone for it on a particular 4th down and the reason they did go for it is because the coach has a low IQ, Team C has an ugly stadium, etc.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#3,759
#3,759
Orange_Crush said:
Of course we have different motivations to give. Duh. The entire conversation is that the differing motives makes one group more motivated than another. What is your problem? We agree. Conservatives are more charitable and religious people should be seen as more prone/motivated to charity than irreligious people. That's been your argument, and the motives behind the reasons are inherent in your argument.

Why are you arguing with me? (Except that your own argument contradicts your earlier crass comment that conservatives who want lower taxes are selfish.)
Click to expand...
I'm bumping you down from the previous estimate of 50% comprehension to 33%.
Just out of curiosity and the fact you've now mentioned it twice, what was the crass comment about conservatives who want lower taxes being selfish? I don't remember it, but would love to see it.
 
#3,761
#3,761
luthervol said:
I'm bumping you down from the previous estimate of 50% comprehension to 33%.
Just out of curiosity and the fact you've now mentioned it twice, what was the crass comment about conservatives who want lower taxes being selfish? I don't remember it, but would love to see it.
Click to expand...
The one that started our conversation about socialism vs volunteerism. You've made it several times.

You often hide behind "comprehension" accusations in discussions. OK. Treat me like the idiot you claim I am. The study you responded to says that conservatives are more charitable than liberals. You said that that is explained by conservatives being religious. You've claimed that that comment wasn't discounting that religious charity is actually charity, just a difference in motive (which is inherent by the way, and needs not be stated).

So, your argument is literally an agreement that conservatives are more charitable than liberals and that religious motives produce more charitable people. So, unless you'd like to argue that religious charity isn't charity, that's where we are.

Condescend yourself and explain to the board what I'm missing.
 
#3,764
#3,764
BreatheUT said:
Maybe I'm missing something here but you do realize this chart proves how poor the Democrats have been managing the budget? I just want to make sure you aren't ignorant.
Click to expand...
You might should look again because you are certainly missing something.
 
#3,767
#3,767
Politico reporter stating Republicans outpacing Dems in Florida by around 100k total ballets cast so far. Not sure where he’s getting the numbers.
 
#3,769
#3,769
roosterjbh said:
Politico reporter stating Republicans outpacing Dems in Florida by around 100k total ballets cast so far. Not sure where he’s getting the numbers.
Click to expand...
I don't think anybody has a clue what this big turnout means. I've heard anecdotes like that in both directions in Georgia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BearCat204
#3,771
#3,771
roosterjbh said:
Politico reporter stating Republicans outpacing Dems in Florida by around 100k total ballets cast so far. Not sure where he’s getting the numbers.
Click to expand...

some of it could be data from early voting based on registration - part of it could be from exit polling
 
#3,773
#3,773
VolStrom said:
It always bothered me that Jimmy Duncan and his father never did anything for Tennessee and always won re-election. They "served" East Tennessee for over 50 years and Dumb Arse the 3rd would have stepped in to "inherit" the kingdom and ruled for another 35 years had he not been stupid and got caught with his hand in the Knox County cookie jar.

Bottom line is I always voted against those turds! Politics is local sometimes.
Click to expand...
Kind of like the Fords in Memphis. Oh. But that was kinship at work there.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top