Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 229 - Swalwell that ends well

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Neither of you guys have heard of that one Republican guy, President, very famous for using Twitter constantly to insult people?

I'm saying when Trump insults people, he goes HARD. No pussyfooting around it, fearful of hurting some kind of identity group's feelings like the Dems do.

So you are saying it's better when he does it because he does it like an asshole.

I see.

Yes. That's how men argue. The Democrats argue like soft nancies who are afraid to accidentally hurt feelings. Generally society despises those kinds of people.

Which party gets more votes nationwide?

This is one of many reasons I support repealing the 19th amendment
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Neither of you guys have heard of that one Republican guy, President, very famous for using Twitter constantly to insult people?

I'm saying when Trump insults people, he goes HARD. No pussyfooting around it, fearful of hurting some kind of identity group's feelings like the Dems do.

So you are saying it's better when he does it because he does it like an asshole.

I see.

Yes. That's how men argue. The Democrats argue like soft nancies who are afraid to accidentally hurt feelings. Generally society despises those kinds of people.

Which party gets more votes nationwide?

This is one of many reasons I support repealing the 18th amendment

They already repealed that one
---

*19th
---

So you outright admit that you don't think you can get more votes without literally taking away the right to vote en masse for certain groups of people
---

My favorite part of this entire thing is his Dems only subtweet comment was in response to the actual House Dems Twitter account literally calling out a Democrat by name who was calling out another Democrat by name.

My second favorite part is how the Right constantly celebrates when the Left eats itself because we actually have diversity of thought, and now hes trying to say the Left is too soft to go after each other.

Well which is it?

(And if you want proof of the phenomenon, type Left eating itself into Twitter and youll get thousands of tweets in the last week alone).
---

StealThisSheen posted...

So you outright admit that you don't think you can get more votes without literally taking away the right to vote en masse for certain groups of people

Dude, you give women the right to vote, and then 10 years later its the Great Depression. Coincidence?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Neither of you guys have heard of that one Republican guy, President, very famous for using Twitter constantly to insult people?

I'm saying when Trump insults people, he goes HARD. No pussyfooting around it, fearful of hurting some kind of identity group's feelings like the Dems do.

So you are saying it's better when he does it because he does it like an asshole.

I see.

Yes. That's how men argue. The Democrats argue like soft nancies who are afraid to accidentally hurt feelings. Generally society despises those kinds of people.

Which party gets more votes nationwide?

This is one of many reasons I support repealing the 18th amendment

They already repealed that one

how can anybody be this stupid
---

Oh no I made a typo that I immediately corrected how can I keep living
---

Thin-skinned SissyG once again showing how little he actually knows about our constitution. Sad!
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Oh no I made a typo that I immediately corrected how can I keep living

Extreme masculine disagreement

man i'm glad i'm a beta male so i don't have to be an asshole.
---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150152760362438657

Pauls final year numbers were, according to Breitbart, abysmal.

no arguing against such exquisite sources as breitbart.
---

I am always confused the only the democrats eat themselves line of thinking when we just had the tea party people less than a decade ago who destroyed the careers of many effective republican politicians.

Its the only reason why democrats had seats in places like Indiana and Missouri in the first place.
---

i think the difference is that the democrats have a wide variety of opinions in their party while the republicans all go from one school of thought to the other. like, right now they have been completely taken over by the alt-right.

which is cool if you like the alt-right, i guess, but if i were a more traditional conservative i wouldn't be too happy with the direction the party has gone in.
---

So Donald Trump told AOC (Born in the Bronx), Ayanna Pressley (born in Ohio) and Rashida Tlaib (born in Michigan) to 'go back to their own inept country'
---

Donald being a racist moron has been known for a very long time <_<

Maybe hes actually being clever and telling them to stop trying to fix his constant fuck-ups and self-destructive behavior.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i think the difference is that the democrats have a wide variety of opinions in their party while the republicans all go from one school of thought to the other. like, right now they have been completely taken over by the alt-right.

which is cool if you like the alt-right, i guess, but if i were a more traditional conservative i wouldn't be too happy with the direction the party has gone in.

Republicans have a huge amount of variety and your thoughts and opinions are your own. You have complete freedom there. It's just that after a healthy debate, Republicans agree to vote in lockstep for the good of the party. Democrats don't seem to care so much about the voting - they insist that other Democrats actually agree with them.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Republicans have a huge amount of variety and your thoughts and opinions are your own. You have complete freedom there.

yeah, but they don't show it as explicitly as the dems.

herman cain is now praising trump, for instance. it's possible that he still thinks trump sucks, but he doesn't show it. the repubs care very much about maintaining a "we're one united party" brand.
---

Like, Paul Ryan isn't going to suffer any consequences because Trump went on a Twitter tirade against him. If he wants to get back into politics, no one will care about that. In the Democratic Party, it would matter a great deal.

I think it's because Democrats seem to choose their candidates by trying to find the most virtuous person, while Republicans want the most effective representative for them. Democrats have a hard time even getting to policy nowadays, because they spend so much time talking about identity politics stuff and it's so easy to sidetrack any real policy discussion with some baseless attack based on identity politics.

Trump and McConnell have the right idea about negotiating with Democrats - the time is not ripe for substantive negotiations because the Democrats don't know what they want and aren't able to figure it out. They need to be crushed at the polls, repeatedly, for them to learn.
---

Also I wonder how many people who call for Democrats to condemn people every time one of them does something dumb/stupid will condemn Donald Trump for his racist remarks here? My guess: Zero.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Also I wonder how many people who call for Democrats to condemn people every time one of them does something dumb/stupid will condemn Donald Trump for his racist remarks here? My guess: Zero.

Huh? I'm calling for Democrats not to condemn each other. Republicans don't condemn each other even if they use stronger language than Democrats, because it's not meant to be taken as a condemnation of the person, just a disagreement about a policy position.
---

I would be surprised if more than even a tenth of a percent of the population from either party knows enough to really vote based on policy in a logical manner. People (I suspect) just don't have time to learn and process all the necessary information while also living out their own lives.
---

pyresword posted...

I would be surprised if more than even a tenth of a percent of the population from either party knows enough to really vote based on policy in a logical manner. People (I suspect) just don't have time to learn and process all the necessary information while also living out their own lives.

The Republican party learned this a long time ago which is why they constantly wedge in easy to (not) understand social issues.

red sox 777 posted...

I think it's because Democrats seem to choose their candidates by trying to find the most virtuous person, while Republicans want the most effective representative for them. Democrats have a hard time even getting to policy nowadays, because they spend so much time talking about identity politics stuff and it's so easy to sidetrack any real policy discussion with some baseless attack based on identity politics.

Chakrabarti's criticism was literally about someone voting on actual policies he deemed as supporting a racist system. So was, for example, Harris calling out Biden. These are not personal attacks and are in fact policy issues.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I think it's because Democrats seem to choose their candidates by trying to find the most virtuous person, while Republicans want the most effective representative for them. Democrats have a hard time even getting to policy nowadays, because they spend so much time talking about identity politics stuff and it's so easy to sidetrack any real policy discussion with some baseless attack based on identity politics.

Chakrabarti's criticism was literally about someone voting on actual policies he deemed as supporting a racist system. So was, for example, Harris calling out Biden. These are not personal attacks and are in fact policy issues.

Harris opened with "I don't think you are a racist but...."

That's highly suggestive, and a personal attack. It shuts down the conversation. Now, maybe it shouldn't inherently be a personal attack. And the exact same words in a Republican debate could lead to a substantive discussion. But in the modern Democratic Party, people get "triggered" and stop thinking, so it ends the discussion.
---

Leafeon13N posted...

pyresword posted...

I would be surprised if more than even a tenth of a percent of the population from either party knows enough to really vote based on policy in a logical manner. People (I suspect) just don't have time to learn and process all the necessary information while also living out their own lives.

The Republican party learned this a long time ago which is why they constantly wedge in easy to (not) understand social issues.

Most non-Democrats have a pretty good understanding of the policy issues. Democrats don't because they are fed neoliberal lies about how complicated it all is and how they shouldn't even bother trying, but just accept that some experts have researched the issues and formed good conclusions.
---

Ok red sox honestly.

To pick one example, how many Republicans (or Democrats) do you think have themselves read a single sociological study discussing the impacts of gun control laws on things like violent crime rate?

Or is your claim that it's possible to substantively understand issues without doing that in a manner that is different from "some experts have researched the issues and formed good conclusions"?
---

It's highly suggestive...that Kamala Harris does not think Joe Biden is a racist. It certainly isnt her fault that people have such a poor understanding of racial issues that they don't understand how someone can not be "a racist" and still engage in racist behavior. Nor is it her fault that one of those people is Joe Biden. Also not her fault that people brush off discussion and education on real issues that affect policy as "identity politics."
---

pyresword posted...

Ok red sox honestly.

To pick one example, how many Republicans (or Democrats) do you think have themselves read a single sociological study discussing the impacts of gun control laws on things like violent crime rate?

Or is your claim that it's possible to substantively understand issues without doing that in a manner that is different from "some experts have researched the issues and formed good conclusions"?

The point is that people can have informed opinions about issues without reading sociological studies. As Chief Justice Roberts said, such studies can be "sociological gobbledygook."
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

It's highly suggestive...that Kamala Harris does not think Joe Biden is a racist. It certainly isnt her fault that people have such a poor understanding of racial issues that they don't understand how someone can not be "a racist" and still engage in racist behavior. Nor is it her fault that one of those people is Joe Biden. Also not her fault that people brush off discussion and education on real issues that affect policy as "identity politics."

It is her fault insofar as she is complicit in the modern Democratic Party being the way it is, which shuts down all possibility of serious discussion about these issues.
---

red sox 777 posted...

It is her fault insofar as she is complicit in the modern Democratic Party being the way it is, which shuts down all possibility of serious discussion about these issues.

"We should improve society somewhat."
"Yet you participate in society. Curious!"

Congratulations on making an argument that's impossible to engage with.
---

Pyresword, to respond to you more substantively:

Something like gun control has more variables than just how effective it is at reducing crime. That analysis misses the primary reasons people want to own guns. The right to bear arms is historically the hallmark of a free society - a citizen with the right is trusted by society with the ability to use deadly force, which means that that citizen is held in high esteem by society. That citizen is a free and equal peer of his fellow citizens.

There are many things that people may not be able to articulate, or that they are deciding by intuition, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

It is her fault insofar as she is complicit in the modern Democratic Party being the way it is, which shuts down all possibility of serious discussion about these issues.

"We should improve society somewhat."
"Yet you participate in society. Curious!"

Congratulations on making an argument that's impossible to engage with.

The right move is to abandon the Democratic Party and join the Republican Party, or run as a third-party candidate.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

It's highly suggestive...that Kamala Harris does not think Joe Biden is a racist. It certainly isnt her fault that people have such a poor understanding of racial issues that they don't understand how someone can not be "a racist" and still engage in racist behavior. Nor is it her fault that one of those people is Joe Biden. Also not her fault that people brush off discussion and education on real issues that affect policy as "identity politics."

Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuup, damn spot on. Too many people think racism is just a cartoonish personality trait where you either hate minorities or you're a perfect ally, and people constantly read any suggestion of racial insensitivity on their part as an accusation that they're a monstrous hateful and they just spiral down to showing how clueless they are on race out of that kneejerk defensiveness.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Republicans don't condemn each other even if they use stronger language than Democrats, because it's not meant to be taken as a condemnation of the person, just a disagreement about a policy position.

yeah, "paul ryan is weak, ineffective & stupid" is not a condemnation of a person
---

red sox 777 posted...

Something like gun control has more variables than just how effective it is at reducing crime. That analysis misses the primary reasons people want to own guns. The right to bear arms is historically the hallmark of a free society - a citizen with the right is trusted by society with the ability to use deadly force, which means that that citizen is held in high esteem by society. That citizen is a free and equal peer of his fellow citizens.

I wasn't trying to imply that crime rate was a be-all-end-all metric, though I can see why my post came across that way. (However, I would argue that knowledge of impact on crime rates is a necessary piece of forming a fully informed opinion. Unless I guess your view is that people should have guns regardless of whatever influence it has on crime rates, but I don't think that undermines my more general point as it applies to a wide range of issues)

And generally speaking, I'm not trying to argue that people are wrong or uninformed because they don't do this. (And for the record I don't do this myself) I'm arguing that in that case you're necessarily trusting experts to have made reasonable conclusions on these issues on some level.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Republicans don't condemn each other even if they use stronger language than Democrats, because it's not meant to be taken as a condemnation of the person, just a disagreement about a policy position.

yeah, "paul ryan is weak, ineffective & stupid" is not a condemnation of a person

You have to consider who it's coming from. We're talking about a man who lies more than he tells the truth.
---

red sox 777 posted...

You have to consider who it's coming from. We're talking about a man who lies more than he tells the truth.

what the hell kind of a response is that?

you claim that republicans don't condemn each other, i come up with an example of a republican who clearly condemns another republican, and you say "well yeah but he's a liar"? wut?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

what the hell kind of a response is that?

a typical redsox response
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

You have to consider who it's coming from. We're talking about a man who lies more than he tells the truth.

what the hell kind of a response is that?

you claim that republicans don't condemn each other, i come up with an example of a republican who clearly condemns another republican, and you say "well yeah but he's a liar"? wut?

Almost no one takes anything Donald Trump says to be the truth. Because he lies constantly. So how many people are going to think worse of Paul Ryan based on Trump's attack? Almost no one.
---

Welcome to red sox engagement, where every argunent is made up and the talking points don't matter.
---

Mega Mana posted...

Welcome to red sox engagement, where every argunent is made up and the talking points don't matter.

There's a reason people are commonly asked not to bother with red sox. It's impossible to have a reasonable and honest discussion with him.

Reading all those red sox posts in a row is like reading the diary of a mad man.

Dancedreamer posted...

So Donald Trump told AOC (Born in the Bronx), Ayanna Pressley (born in Ohio) and Rashida Tlaib (born in Michigan) to 'go back to their own inept country'

Hes right when he says the countries they come from have corrupt government!
---

That tweet was obviously directed at ilhan omar with the expressed purpose to not use her name directly. That people don't understand this is fascinating. We've been reading Trump tweets for years.

Anyway, love it or hate it, I promise you that most of the electorate agrees with that sentiment.
---

I don't think Trump knows who AOC is
---

Also, I think Trump wrote it himself, but this is a great take:

https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1150430005379268610?s=19

Basically he's just baiting Pelosi and the Dems for a quote in support of the four least popular congressmen with swing voters (Omar has a 9% approval rating amongst swing voting Dems, look it up). Why? So the GOP can run ads with those quotes juxtaposed with these ladies saying abrasive shit and protestors raising the Mexican flag in place of the American flag.

Trump is quietly a brilliant tactician.
---

Seph would you just go back to your own country already?
---

https://twitter.com/noahpinion/status/1150431493975662594?s=21

You can really see both an ideology and a strategy being built around Trumpism - a combination of trolling, white-nationalism, and attempts to exploit divisions on the left.

I predict this approach will outlast Trump...

(end)

This really does define Sephs ideology about life in a nutshell though
---