• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Right, Left and coddling

applecorped said:
I'm a racist, she's a racist, you're are a racist, he's a racist. Wouldn't you like to be a racist to?
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's some reason Trump supporters invariably resort to hyperbole, but seriously (and I use that word advisedly), what percentage of the U.S. would you say are racists, and what percentage of racists are Trump supporters?

ETA: Make it an open question. I'm interested in how many Trump supporters will give an honest answer.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Go back two more. That wasn't in response to any question from me. If that post wasn't an excuse for Obama's lie, then it was irrelevant.
Click to expand...
It was not an excuse. That comment was providing perspective.

Your question was in regards to my comment. Your response was in reference to my answer to your question. Was I to understand you were asking for an excuse?

And, of course, you did ask something of me. By your own strict standard, that would make this a lie:
Ziggurat said:
I didn't ask for anything, you provided it unprompted.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you agree?
 
BobTheCoward said:
There are people who want mass confiscation and little evidence that the people who are willing to settle for some regulation is willing to stop them.

People who point to Australian gun laws are calling for mass confiscation.
Click to expand...

Only in the sense that a huge number of gun owners in the US are not eligible to own them. The NRA is supposedly in favor of enforcing existing gun laws, which is equivalent to mass confiscation were they not full of ****.

In Florida it is illegal to carry a firearm into a bar; there goes half of all Florida's gun owners. It's also illegal to own a gun if one uses controlled substances; there goes a large percentage of the rest.

If laws were enforced about 5% of the population would be eligible.
 
Fudbucker said:
It's not ignorance that's the problem. Ignorant people can be educated. The problem with the Right is they believe factually incorrect things, and they believe them strongly. This is not exclusive to the Right, but it is a far bigger problem on that side.

Take climate change. If Republicans simply said, "I don't know" about it, that would be one thing. Instead many of them believe there's a cabal of scientists cooking the books to get grant money and every country on earth is in on it. Or it's some way to usher in a one-world-government. It's no coincidence Trump called global warming a Chinese hoax. He didn't say, "we need more information", which is wrong but forgivable. He went straight for the conspiracy brass ring because he knows what sells with his supporters.

There are two popular political shows at night: Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow. The difference between those shows is night and day. There's also Tucker Carlson, who might as well call his show "The White Power Hour" (I stole that from someone).



It's ironic you bring up smoking. The conservative Heartland Institute (which churns out anti-global warming nonsense) was busy back in the 80's and 90's disputing the links between smoking and cancer. Maybe they still do.

But you're right. The strategy I use, which is labeling Trump supporters as idiots and moral degenerates, is probably not going to be successful in bridging the divide in this country. I think liberals can overwhelm them by sheer numbers, but the results won't be pretty.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you're saying, but Manicheism isn't going to bring the US to a healthy culture. That's the mistake of the Left: they are as much haters of their opposition as the Right is. And the problem is they (the Left) don't realize that, lacking some other defects GOPpers show in abundance, such hate is noticed louder and clearer. It's really irritant.

That's the capital mistake that will bring the situation to an endless quagmire.

If I had to qualify both groups with Argentinian language, I would say Republicans are inimputables* and Democrats dan vergüenza ajena** with their constant bickering and criticism of anything Right.

*inimputables: they can't be held accountable owing to their diminished capacity ---> a popular way to say "they're incorrigible because they aren't smart enough to be corrected"

*dar vergüenza ajena: behaving in such a nasty way that people observing blush just because the offenders don't (and they certainly should)

If the Left wants to change the Right, they better start changing themselves first.
 
Upchurch said:
I will happily question your legitimacy equals fitness assertion, which is absurd.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not: legitimacy is everything needed to fitness. You're just applying your own concept of fitness, which is immaterial for any constitutional or political use.

Nothing has happened since the election to make Trump less fitting than the moment he was "enthroned" president. To use the real concept of fitness for office, wait until something meaningful as a severe stroke renders Trump really "unfitting". For now, Trump continues to be exactly as immoral and stupid as he was on November 8th 2016, when a majority of people and states [not a majority of people plus a majority of states, as you misunderstood from the beginning] said he was the right fit for office.
 
aleCcowaN said:
I agree with most of what you're saying, but Manicheism isn't going to bring the US to a healthy culture. That's the mistake of the Left: they are as much haters of their opposition as the Right is. And the problem is they (the Left) don't realize that, lacking some other defects GOPpers show in abundance, such hate is noticed louder and clearer. It's really irritant.

That's the capital mistake that will bring the situation to an endless quagmire.

If I had to qualify both groups with Argentinian language, I would say Republicans are inimputables* and Democrats dan vergüenza ajena** with their constant bickering and criticism of anything Right.

*inimputables: they can't be held accountable owing to their diminished capacity ---> a popular way to say "they're incorrigible because they aren't smart enough to be corrected"

*dar vergüenza ajena: behaving in such a nasty way that people observing blush just because the offenders don't (and they certainly should)

If the Left wants to change the Right, they better start changing themselves first.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty clear that Republicans are both inimputables and dar vergüenza ajena
 
WilliamSeger said:
I'm sure there's some reason Trump supporters invariably resort to hyperbole, but seriously (and I use that word advisedly), what percentage of the U.S. would you say are racists, and what percentage of racists are Trump supporters?

ETA: Make it an open question. I'm interested in how many Trump supporters will give an honest answer.
Click to expand...

Precisely 15.6% of the US is racist. And about 45.7% of them are Trump supporters. Hillary got the support of the vast majority of black and Hispanic racists, while Trump received slightly less disproportionate support from white racists.

Cite? Obviously I made those numbers up, but I doubt they're far off the mark.
 
Ziggurat said:
This was a forseeable (and forseen) consequence of the incentive structure of the ACA. Blame whoever you like, but it was still a lie.
Click to expand...



Exactly. All ACA did was preserve and strengthen the system that caused all the problems to begin with: the “insurance” system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Brainster said:
Precisely 15.6% of the US is racist. And about 45.7% of them are Trump supporters. Hillary got the support of the vast majority of black and Hispanic racists, while Trump received slightly less disproportionate support from white racists.

Cite? Obviously I made those numbers up, but I doubt they're far off the mark.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess that estimate does fit right in with surveys of Republican vs. Democrat views on racism: Republicans are much more likely to say they don't believe racism is much of a problem any more; that "reverse discrimination" against whites is just as much of a problem; and that seeing discrimination where there really is none is a bigger problem than not seeing discrimination where there really is.

Giving credit where it's due, Trump's demagoguery exploited both racism and resentment that racism is still a "thing."
 
Professor Gerard Alexander in the New York Times:

Liberals, You're Not as Smart as You Think

...And a backlash against liberals — a backlash that most liberals don’t seem to realize they’re causing — is going to get President Trump re-elected.

Liberals often don’t realize how provocative or inflammatory they can be. In exercising their power, they regularly not only persuade and attract but also annoy and repel.
Click to expand...

I think it comes across as really concern-trollish, Petersonesque.
 
Venom said:
Professor Gerard Alexander in the New York Times:

Liberals, You're Not as Smart as You Think



I think it comes across as really concern-trollish, Petersonesque.
Click to expand...

What little I read struck me as another example of abuser logic: "Someone called me a racist, so now I'm really becoming a racist." From a third party, it's also remarkably condescending to conservatives, a bizarre claim that they're completely unable to control themselves due to, at most, minor insults.

It's further worth noting that dems are called, depending sometimes on skin color, "communists", "the real racists", "on the democrat plantation", "feminazi", and so forth - and these are routinely ignored or mocked.
 
Venom said:
Professor Gerard Alexander in the New York Times:

Liberals, You're Not as Smart as You Think



I think it comes across as really concern-trollish, Petersonesque.
Click to expand...

Know your authors. Alexander has been a well-spoken source for condescending-liberals-you're-your-worst-enemy rhetoric through several election cycles. He's also a past master of the Playing The Race Card card, whereunder if you get there early enough or often enough and say "Eeew, you can't do that, you're playing the race card!", you can excuse all sorts of conservative excesses because you called it first.

He's not a concern troll. He's a hard line Claremont Institute conservative. Taking advice from him on how to be a better liberal is like taking advice from a wolf on how to be a better sheep. This ploy worked somewhat in '16 - the right wing media went ape**** because Hillary called all of you god-fearing conservatives a bunch of "deplorables". She didn't, of course. She called the deplorables deplorable. And then we had Charlottesville, but by then it was too late - the You Gotta Respect The Opinions of Morons brigade had garnered enough support.
 
Being from the other side doesn't invalidate their claims. Sometimes outsiders or opponents can even be more accurate than self-description. And in this case, one of the two points that were quoted here is right, and the other is sort of both right and wrong but more wrong than right.

The one they're just plain right about is that lefties' habit, in many cases more like obsession, with spouting hate-speech instead of actually making their case does indeed drive people away from the left. What else could really expected to happen if there were a group that consistently threw false accusations at you of one of the most heinous things someone could think/do/be?... and then only responded to every attempt to reason with them by just cranking it up some more? Not change yourself to make their accusations true, of course, but at least oppose them and not take them seriously. Nobody is ever going to side with their accusers or even stay neutral. (This got particularly hilarious during & shortly after the Obama-Clinton contest, when a group that was normally unified in calling everybody else racist & sexist at all times over everything split into, according to them, the racists versus the sexists, and they all suddenly had to deal with being called either racist alone or sexist alone for just a few months, and were shocked & horrified to discover that their own side could do such a thing and how much more vicious it was than anything the right had ever thrown at them... but apparently the lesson didn't stick.)

And on top of that is the fact that even when there's a serious case for the left that could be presented and might convince people, spouting SJWism instead means not presenting that argument, which means letting the other side's argument stand unopposed. For example, for years and years, I kept hearing Republicans/conservatives saying that higher taxes would decrease revenues and lower taxes would increase them, complete with a theory of how & why that would work that way, but any source actually stating the opposite was nowhere to be found. I'd listen to the left, but they never touched it; they were too busy with "hate the rich just for having money, hate businesses for doing business, and your opinion of the tax rate means you're a homophobe or something". Guess what impression that creates: even someone who studiously ignores the foaming-at-the-mouth attackery still sees that the Republican/conservative claim about a real-world fact has gone unopposed, which makes it appear to be generally accepted as fact by both sides. After years of this, I finally found some lefties who actually do make the counter-claim about taxes & the economy, so now it's clear that that is not a generally accepted fact... but it shouldn't have been so obscure and well-hidden from the outside behind such a wall of rabid shrieking berserkery.

Where they do go wrong, though, is in predicting that that will get Trump re-elected. It contributes, but the bigger factor in Trump having a chance of getting re-elected is that the people in control of the Democrat party are still desperately struggling and straining to come up with a way to lose with their winning hand again. And the way they're doing it is almost the opposite of being too much of the extreme lefty type: they're trying to bury any actual liberals/progressives in their own party and make sure the party stays in the control of its Republican-mimicking corporate wing and digs up another insider-machine candidate who might as well be hand-picked for them by the Republicans.
 
xjx388 said:
Exactly. All ACA did was preserve and strengthen the system that caused all the problems to begin with: the “insurance” system.
Click to expand...
I can think of an obvious solution to the insurance system. Hillary Clinton championed a version of it in the 90s.

What do you think should be done about the insurance system?
 
Upchurch said:
I can think of an obvious solution to the insurance system. Hillary Clinton championed a version of it in the 90s.

What do you think should be done about the insurance system?
Click to expand...

Make it actual insurance again, not what amounts to prepaid health plans. There are many ways to skin a cat, after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom