TrumPutinGate

#26,103
#26,103
RockyTop85 said:
Moderate, pragmatic conservative would be the most accurate, I think?

Conservative meaning individual liberty, value of human life (although not a hardcore anti-abortionist), limited government, fiscal responsibility, capitalism, personal responsibility, personal integrity/credibility etc.

The present Republican Party does not represent any of those principles in the way that I feel they ought to although until recently I thought they were ok. The last few years I’ve been claiming libertarian although that’s not exactly it, either.

Mostly, I’m put off by tribal partisanship that requires people to sell out their principles to stay on the team. I try to be balanced but I seem to be exposed to more of it from the right, so I probably react to that more strongly. I believe in applying free market remedies to these problems, which is why I’m especially critical of people like Charlie Kirk, Michael Avenatti, and Jakob Wohl who basically just throw **** at the wall and let confirmation bias do what it does.
Click to expand...
I fly the libertarian flag now also but it isn’t a direct fit. Classic libertarianism supports open borders for example. I’m definitely not for that. As more refugees show up debates are forming to adapt the platform. Historically the libertarian party I think was its own worst enemy with its own infighting. But I think if they can find a way to play nice with the refugees and their historical internal self there’s a chance they could attract both red and blue moderates.
 
#26,106
#26,106
sk022419dAPR20190222024514.jpg
 
#26,109
#26,109
RockyTop85 said:
Moderate, pragmatic conservative would be the most accurate, I think?

Conservative meaning individual liberty, value of human life (although not a hardcore anti-abortionist), limited government, fiscal responsibility, capitalism, personal responsibility, personal integrity/credibility etc.

The present Republican Party does not represent any of those principles in the way that I feel they ought to although until recently I thought they were ok. The last few years I’ve been claiming libertarian although that’s not exactly it, either.

Mostly, I’m put off by tribal partisanship that requires people to sell out their principles to stay on the team. I try to be balanced but I seem to be exposed to more of it from the right, so I probably react to that more strongly. I believe in applying free market remedies to these problems, which is why I’m especially critical of people like Charlie Kirk, Michael Avenatti, and Jakob Wohl who basically just throw **** at the wall and let confirmation bias do what it does.
Click to expand...

I think we may differ in the balance within the government between capitalism and socialism required to meet the needs of its citizens and promote a health economy. Identity politics prevents many simple understandings between individuals.
 
#26,110
#26,110
Putin flat out said so and still the red hats are in denial.

Putin: I wanted Trump to win the election

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday he wanted President Donald Trump to win the 2016 election because he believed Trump's policies would be more friendly to the Kremlin.


"Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal,” Putin said, standing alongside Trump at a joint news conference.
Click to expand...
It's like reality doesn't exist to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick, luthervol and tvolsfan
#26,113
#26,113
C-south said:
Who knows? Who cares? It’s not like voter fraud is nonexistent and is predominantly something dims participate in.
Click to expand...
So if Trump questions the legitimacy of an election your response is "Who knows? Who cares?"
If people question the legitimacy of the Trump election,.................................?
 
#26,114
#26,114
Velo Vol said:
It's really this simple.
Click to expand...

It's also simple to say that there continues to be no evidence that the Russian efforts actually impacted the outcome of the election.

The indictment of the Russian IRS specifically says no evidence was found that their efforts impacted the vote. None, zero, zilch, nada.

So saying "it's possible" or "you can't say it didn't" is a BS argument. Anything it technically possible but when no evidence exists that something happened it's meaningless to say "well you can't prove it didn't" (LG's argument)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt2496
#26,115
#26,115
luthervol said:
So if Trump questions the legitimacy of an election your response is "Who knows? Who cares?"
If people question the legitimacy of the Trump election,.................................?
Click to expand...

It’s been over 2 years. If he had lost and nothing disparaging was proven I’d have long accepted it and moved on.
 
#26,117
#26,117
Velo Vol said:
Putin flat out said so and still the red hats are in denial.

Putin: I wanted Trump to win the election

It's like reality doesn't exist to them.
Click to expand...

I'm going to use LG's logic here and say we can't say this is true because it could be he's just saying that now to mess with us and you can't prove he isn't so you can't say for sure Putin really wanted Trump to win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#26,120
#26,120
RockyTop85 said:
First, the question is an unanswerable, rhetorical trap. Either the person attempts to answer the question and their answer is ridiculed for being inadequate or they fail to answer and their opinion is declared invalid.

Here, the premise of this rhetorical device hinges on an assumption that gullible or uninformed individuals are uncommon in the electorate and that this assumption must be refuted for any theory of dumb voters being duped to be valid.

You clearly thought it would be effective, because you implemented it. Thus, you think highly of the electorate.

However, there is plenty of evidence right here to prove that the electorate is not so clever.

Therefore, I concluded that you are overestimating the electorate.

Of course, you already knew all of that. That’s doubly confirmed by your unwillingness to acknowledge the tremendous amount of voter stupidity that you overlooked on your way to asking the question, and your desire to attribute ignorance to Mick’s insults to wedge his response back into the binary choice explained above.
Click to expand...

I think you are reading a little to much into my motives. It really was just a simple question.
 
#26,121
#26,121
volinbham said:
It's also simple to say that there continues to be no evidence that the Russian efforts actually impacted the outcome of the election.
Click to expand...

Of course it had an impact. Enough to change the outcome? There's no way to say for sure. Why do swing voters vote as they do? Sometimes there's little rhyme or reason.
 
#26,123
#26,123
NorthDallas40 said:
I fly the libertarian flag now also but it isn’t a direct fit. Classic libertarianism supports open borders for example. I’m definitely not for that. As more refugees show up debates are forming to adapt the platform. Historically the libertarian party I think was its own worst enemy with its own infighting. But I think if they can find a way to play nice with the refugees and their historical internal self there’s a chance they could attract both red and blue moderates.
Click to expand...

I know Gary Johnson wasn’t the ideal candidate but only getting 3% or whatever as the condiment on the turd sandwich we got served last time, killed my hope for an actual third party.

Part of my “will there be a primary challenge of trump” schtick is a hope that somebody can put together the funding to found a party that picks off the never trumpers and moderates enough to scare both parties back to the center but it’s more of a pipe dream.

Ironic since I really want Trump to lose but running any kind of third party candidate between him and some socialist democrat in this election seems like the best bet to get him re-elected.
 
#26,125
#26,125
volinbham said:
It's also simple to say that there continues to be no evidence that the Russian efforts actually impacted the outcome of the election.

The indictment of the Russian IRS specifically says no evidence was found that their efforts impacted the vote. None, zero, zilch, nada.

So saying "it's possible" or "you can't say it didn't" is a BS argument. Anything it technically possible but when no evidence exists that something happened it's meaningless to say "well you can't prove it didn't" (LG's argument)
Click to expand...
I think you should put some time into the business aspect of spending millions of dollars in negative advertising if you know it has no effect. It's simple because there is mountains of evidence that suggests it works. It's a rather simple generally accepted truth really. The principal of "mudslinging" is evident in every election that has ever been, but it something that cannot be measured.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top