• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Rethink your Trump hatred ?

varwoche said:
Here, I'm providing you this link in the hope you will join the actual conversation and stop playing whack-a-mole (the highly presumptuous edition). I enjoy that at the arcade now and then; here not so much.

And back to your tendency to be inattentive... I didn't mention the Portland event in any way, shape, or form. The youtube videos I linked to upthread are from Trump rallies. Pay just a tad bit of attention please. It's as if you treat these discussions as a game of community rorschach where you blurt any random, self-serving thing that pops into your mind.
Click to expand...

It's weird how much River knows all about you without actually knowing your positions.
 
Belz... said:
It's weird how much River knows all about you without actually knowing your positions.
Click to expand...
Such is the way with tribalism* and blind zealotry. Always assume the worst about people on the other "side".

* Where's Joe when you need him? :p
 
theprestige said:
Not to mention Roosevelt and Truman.

And more Americans died in Abraham Lincoln's war than any other. A lot of them had it coming, but still.
Click to expand...

There was, of course, an implicit premise that Bush's Iraq adventure was purely optional, not motivated by any moral necessity.

That's certainly how I see it. Going into Iraq was an unnecessary distraction with no particular good accomplished. Others who believe that Iraq was developing WMD to attack the US may disagree, but it doesn't seem to me that history has supported that view.

Back to the topic at hand, similar comments apply to Trump's odd insistence that trade deficits amount to being taken advantage of and that the proper response is tariffs. In Trump's defense, this is an attack on the livelihoods, not the lives, of those affected. In that respect, he's not as bad as W.

But I tell you what: I'd rather have W in the White House again.
 
varwoche said:
Full stop. I insist nothing of the sort.

I see that once again you decline to comment on Trump encouraging his supporters to beat protesters. Perhaps you could weigh in on that before you change the subject.
Click to expand...

My own personal feelings are; political violence is wrong and should be prosecuted like any other.

Partisanship matters not.
 
Foolmewunz said:
(((Being the new kid in town you're probably not aware that we get psychic believers, homeopaths, god-huggers, ghost hunters and conspiracy theorists here all the time who start out with a hirsute tale of how they used to be just like us but were shown the light by an unsuspecting source. It used to be a braless hippie girl but it's apparently devolved to clever offspring.)))
Click to expand...
Also the ones who start out as innocuous "hey I saw this film called Loose Change, what do you make of it", and three pages in they're in full CT Spambot Tantrum mode.
 
The_Animus said:
Well, those last hundred retorts to the disingenuous trolls weren't very effective. Maybe the next one will be better.
Click to expand...
Logic, reason, and facts don't seem to work on most any Trump disciples, be they sincere or insincere :( .
 
River said:
My own personal feelings are; political violence is wrong and should be prosecuted like any other.

Partisanship matters not.
Click to expand...
Strike N! You still can't bring yourself to condemn Trump for encouraging his followers to beat lawful protesters. Your weaseling serves to defend the indefensible.

I love(?) how you infer equivalence here between fringe vigilantes and the President of the United States, head of the US justice system.
 
Last edited:
River said:
My own personal feelings are; political violence is wrong and should be prosecuted like any other.

Partisanship matters not.
Click to expand...

Good. Could you be a tad more specific. Let me help you:

Trump is ________ to advocate violence towards citizens and I strongly _______ that.
 
You guys/gals are hilarious. I'm not up Trumps ass like you think. I voted for him because he was the better choice.

The 2016 election was like having a choice of desert like poo with peanuts, or poo with corn and peanuts.

Given the choice, which would you choose? Yeah, it really was not a great selection for viable candidates. Trump wouldve lost running against Obama, Bush, or Bill Clinton.

Not so much against Hillary.

However, since elected, I'm fairly pleased with the job he's been doing. I think liberals worst fear is not him failing or ruining things -- but instead him succeeding beyond expectations.
 
River, you claim that Trump was the better choice, yet haven't explained why. You only talked about what made Clinton "bad" - stuff that you were wrong about.
 
I read the local police debated pressing charges against Trump when he incited violence. Anyone know why they decided to not do so?
 
I'd sell my soul to have just 24 hours were in political discussions everybody had to argue postively for whatever candidate/side/party/method they support without any reference to any other "side."
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'd sell my soul to have just 24 hours were in political discussions everybody had to argue postively for whatever candidate/side/party/method they support without any reference to any other "side."
Click to expand...

I'd sell mine, if I had one, for a discussion where everybody argued positively for the other "side".
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'd sell my soul to have just 24 hours were in political discussions everybody had to argue postively for whatever candidate/side/party/method they support without any reference to any other "side."
Click to expand...

in a two-party system, is this really sensible?

I would be more interested having each side state their ideal idea for the country: it is said that constructive disagreement is only possible if you agree on the end goal and are only divided on the means.
I fear Progressives and Conservatives are deeply divided on what they believe America ought to be, making cooperation and compromise more or less impossible.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
in a two-party system, is this really sensible?

I would be more interested having each side state their ideal idea for the country: it is said that constructive disagreement is only possible if you agree on the end goal and are only divided on the means.
I fear Progressives and Conservatives are deeply divided on what they believe America ought to be, making cooperation and compromise more or less impossible.
Click to expand...
Not entirely. I want the Democrats to agree with the Republicans when appropriate. I want the Republicans to do the same, but their behavior during Obama's term suggests they are unwilling to do so.

Past behavior suggests there is not a symmetry here. Nonetheless, I don't want Democrats to adopt Republican strategies.

Some issues should be consistent with both camps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom