Say whatever you want about groups all thinking exactly alike and all being responsible for the actions of individuals and small percentages of the group:
I will maintain that you actually are not responsible for plowing a car into protestors in Charlottesville. I have no reason to believe that you ever marched while chanting “the Jews will not replace us.” I will maintain that you never attacked a Capitol police officer. I believe you never chanted “Hang Mike Pence.” I believe you stole nothing off Nancy Pelosi’s desk. I steadfastly believe that you did not murder the Hortmans.
I’m less certain that you think political violence is always wrong and that it is wrong to celebrate political violence, but I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that you think otherwise.
People who believe things similar to what I believe are dwindling in number, though. That’s the real problem.
Charlottesville was organized by 2 Democrat. Jason Kessler and Richard Spencer. Trump disavowed the white supremacists present and to this day the democrats lie about it. They do this for a reason.
If the Republican Party uniformly supported all of the things on your absurd list you might have a point.
Unfortunately for you virtually everyone in the GoP condemned Charlottesville and January 6th.
Its worth noting that you could only come up woth 2 bad examples whole there are dozens and dozens on the left.
Democrats across the board supported the BLM riots.
Democrats across the board call conservatives fascists and nazis.
Say whatever you want about groups all thinking exactly alike and all being responsible for the actions of individuals and small percentages of the group:
I will maintain that you actually are not responsible for plowing a car into protestors in Charlottesville. I have no reason to believe that you ever marched while chanting “the Jews will not replace us.” I will maintain that you never attacked a Capitol police officer. I believe you never chanted “Hang Mike Pence.” I believe you stole nothing off Nancy Pelosi’s desk. I steadfastly believe that you did not murder the Hortmans.
I’m less certain that you think political violence is always wrong and that it is wrong to celebrate political violence, but I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that you think otherwise.
People who believe things similar to what I believe are dwindling in number, though. That’s the real problem.
Now, it appears that you did vote for a guy who apparently looks on those things and says “no big deal,” but you’re right that there are plenty of leftists who do worse things than that.
Democrats called Trump a racist and a nazi from the start.
You then went on to bankrupt him, jail him, jail his family, and murder him.
Now, it appears that you did vote for a guy who apparently looks on those things and says “no big deal,” but you’re right that there are plenty of leftists who do worse things than that.
Democrats called Trump a racist and a nazi from the start.
You then went on to bankrupt him, jail him, jail his family, and murder him.
Normal people understand why he doesn't like you.
You have ZERO moral high ground. NONE.
“You.” Cute.
You can make a fine case about yourself, as you did in saying that you didn’t start saying very angry and hateful things until you saw Democrats saying them.
But trying to claim that Trump was not petty, vindictive, angry, hateful, deceitful, and overwhelmed by a warped understanding of justice until all of that was prompted in him by a reaction to the Democrat bugbear: Oh, that’s really cute.
By the way, I also thought it was wrong of Lefties to excuse bad actions from people who were prompted by circumstances in their lives. Right is right, justice is justice, and everyone is supposed to abide by those principles.
Democrats called Trump a racist and a nazi from the start.
You then went on to bankrupt him, jail him, jail his family, and murder him.
Normal people understand why he doesn't like you.
You have ZERO moral high ground. NONE.
A key thing, though, is that you act at times as though you’re practical and reasonable rather than a partisan absolutist incapable of seeing the bigger picture. You pragmatically see the world as it is, unlike the “ivory tower” idealists.
If that were really the case, you might actually know the history of people who are convinced that they are right, the outcome of “100%” all-or-nothing formulations, and the effect of just hammering away, hammering away because of what you are assuming “they all” do or what “they all” would do.
I don’t agree that “all” on the left are a problem in the way that you do. I do, however, believe that nearly all those on the left with dangerous ideas are as inflexible in their views of the right as you seem to be in your views of the left.
You seem to know enough to realize that if destruction occurs in the context of people being bitterly divided with both utterly determined that they’re the ones in the right, being convinced that you’re right is only OK if you willing to be unrelenting in your commitment to principle and to never, ever stoop to any, any, any of the low tactics and any other contemptible actions of the other side.
Well, I suppose I might have missed something.
You may actually know that you’re selecting the path that’s likely to be more destructive. And the problem might be that you just don’t care.
Democrats called Trump a racist and a nazi from the start.
You then went on to bankrupt him, jail him, jail his family, and murder him.
Normal people understand why he doesn't like you.
You have ZERO moral high ground. NONE.
“You.” Cute.
You can make a fine case about yourself, as you did in saying that you didn’t start saying very angry and hateful things until you saw Democrats saying them.
But trying to claim that Trump was not petty, vindictive, angry, hateful, deceitful, and overwhelmed by a warped understanding of justice until all of that was prompted in him by a reaction to the Democrat bugbear: Oh, that’s really cute.
By the way, I also thought it was wrong of Lefties to excuse bad actions from people who were prompted by circumstances in their lives. Right is right, justice is justice, and everyone is supposed to abide by those principles.
Youre so dishonest.
Go watch Trump as a guest on the View before he was a politician and watch how they treated him after he declared.
The idea that Trump started this is complete BS.
Trump isnt anything today that he wasnt before he entered politics and the left adored him.
Democrats called Trump a racist and a nazi from the start.
You then went on to bankrupt him, jail him, jail his family, and murder him.
Normal people understand why he doesn't like you.
You have ZERO moral high ground. NONE.
A key thing, though, is that you act at times as though you’re practical and reasonable rather than a partisan absolutist incapable of seeing the bigger picture. You pragmatically see the world as it is, unlike the “ivory tower” idealists.
If that were really the case, you might actually know the history of people who are convinced that they are right, the outcome of “100%” all-or-nothing formulations, and the effect of just hammering away, hammering away because of what you are assuming “they all” do or what “they all” would do.
I don’t agree that “all” on the left are a problem in the way that you do. I do, however, believe that nearly all those on the left with dangerous ideas are as inflexible in their views of the right as you seem to be in your views of the left.
You seem to know enough to realize that if destruction occurs in the context of people being bitterly divided with both utterly determined that they’re the ones in the right, being convinced that you’re right is only OK if you willing to be unrelenting in your commitment to principle and to never, ever stoop to any, any, any of the low tactics and any other contemptible actions of the other side.
Well, I suppose I might have missed something.
You may actually know that you’re selecting the path that’s likely to be more destructive. And the problem might be that you just don’t care.
Your dishonesty is showing again.
Bill Maher was pretty far left in 2000. Today most Democrats think hes a right wing zealot.
The Democrat party has gone insane.
Not all of them. But when you vote with the crazies and the crazies are steering the ship its pretty stupid to pretend youre not a part of it.
The right says the left is stupid.
The left used to say the right was stupid.
Now they say the right is evil.
You can prance around with your nose in the clouds and use your embarrassingly naive "logic" to justify the left's behavior but the sane people have had enough.
The problem is 100% the left.
You cannot call your opponents evil and then clutch your pearls when they aren't nice to you.
Go watch Trump as a guest on the View before he was a politician and watch how they treated him after he declared.
The idea that Trump started this is complete BS.
Trump isnt anything today that he wasnt before he entered politics and the left adored him.
Huh? I talk about his character prior to others treating him a certain way because of his politics, and your answer to that is to … talk about how others treat him?
“Isn’t anything today that we wasn’t before he entered politics” was exactly my point. You are the one who just made the assertion that his actions and views of others are based on having been treated badly. I consider what he is and was to be the very reason to not vote for him. And the key reason behind that is this: The more his political methods become apparently successful, the more politics takes on his character.
The more politics takes on his character, everyone loses.
“And the left adored him” ? Yeah, all those glowing views of him as the loudest crank in Birtherism. Boy, they were just dying to have that guy in politics. They thought we all needed his reasoned voice and leadership. The epitome of a civic-minded American, the Left thought. They were up in arms when he was the butt of jokes at the WHC dinner. How dare you go after a man we love so dearly, cried “the Left.”
Oh, the Clintons and some NY politicians were willing to have him around because they wanted him to cut them a check? Yeah, you ‘re right that other people are naive but you decide that means “the left adored him.”
That would’ve been a great rebuttal if my point had been “the media was always fair to him.” Oh, and the coup de grâce? The View. Yeah, I’m sorry The View doesn’t play nice. I’ve been here talking about good thinking and productive discussion. Yeah, I’m exactly the guy you need to tell about shortcomings with people on The View. Now how about Facebook? X? You gonna try to convince me that Keith Olbermann is an irresponsible, unhinged nitwit?
Go watch Trump as a guest on the View before he was a politician and watch how they treated him after he declared.
The idea that Trump started this is complete BS.
Trump isnt anything today that he wasnt before he entered politics and the left adored him.
Huh? I talk about his character prior to others treating him a certain way because of his politics, and your answer to that is to … talk about how others treat him?
“Isn’t anything today that we wasn’t before he entered politics” was exactly my point. You are the one who just made the assertion that his actions and views of others are based on having been treated badly. I consider what he is and was to be the very reason to not vote for him. And the key reason behind that is this: The more his political methods become apparently successful, the more politics takes on his character.
The more politics takes on his character, everyone loses.
“And the left adored him” ? Yeah, all those glowing views of him as the loudest crank in Birtherism. Boy, they were just dying to have that guy in politics. They thought we all needed his reasoned voice and leadership. The epitome of a civic-minded American, the Left thought. They were up in arms when he was the butt of jokes at the WHC dinner. How dare you go after a man we love so dearly, cried “the Left.”
Oh, the Clintons and some NY politicians were willing to have him around because they wanted him to cut them a check? Yeah, you ‘re right that other people are naive but you decide that means “the left adored him.”
That would’ve been a great rebuttal if my point had been “the media was always fair to him.” Oh, and the coup de grâce? The View. Yeah, I’m sorry The View doesn’t play nice. I’ve been here talking about good thinking and productive discussion. Yeah, I’m exactly the guy you need to tell about shortcomings with people on The View. Now how about Facebook? X? You gonna try to convince me that Keith Olbermann is an irresponsible, unhinged nitwit?
What does his character matter when the alternatives are people with equal or lesser character???
Trump is direct and transparent. People like Clinton, Biden, and Harris are just as bad but they lie to your face.
You have absolutely no leg to stand on on morality... lol.
Huh? I talk about his character prior to others treating him a certain way because of his politics, and your answer to that is to … talk about how others treat him?
“Isn’t anything today that we wasn’t before he entered politics” was exactly my point. You are the one who just made the assertion that his actions and views of others are based on having been treated badly. I consider what he is and was to be the very reason to not vote for him. And the key reason behind that is this: The more his political methods become apparently successful, the more politics takes on his character.
The more politics takes on his character, everyone loses.
“And the left adored him” ? Yeah, all those glowing views of him as the loudest crank in Birtherism. Boy, they were just dying to have that guy in politics. They thought we all needed his reasoned voice and leadership. The epitome of a civic-minded American, the Left thought. They were up in arms when he was the butt of jokes at the WHC dinner. How dare you go after a man we love so dearly, cried “the Left.”
Oh, the Clintons and some NY politicians were willing to have him around because they wanted him to cut them a check? Yeah, you ‘re right that other people are naive but you decide that means “the left adored him.”
That would’ve been a great rebuttal if my point had been “the media was always fair to him.” Oh, and the coup de grâce? The View. Yeah, I’m sorry The View doesn’t play nice. I’ve been here talking about good thinking and productive discussion. Yeah, I’m exactly the guy you need to tell about shortcomings with people on The View. Now how about Facebook? X? You gonna try to convince me that Keith Olbermann is an irresponsible, unhinged nitwit?
What does his character matter when the alternatives are people with equal or lesser character???
Trump is direct and transparent. People like Clinton, Biden, and Harris are just as bad but they lie to your face.
You have absolutely no leg to stand on on morality... lol.
I’ve seen you make that assertion in some of your posts.
I doubt I’ve seen more than a few hundred of your posts, but I’d be willing to wager that across your 20,000 posts (well, it’s got to be more than that if we look at the posts from all angles, right?) you’ve never treated the assertion seriously and fully enough to argue it convincingly.
You’ve definitely made innumerable points about the low character of so many on the left. You’ve definitely made innumerable points about poor policies from Democrats. You’ve definitely made innumerable points about poor leadership from Democrats. Some of those points were unconvincing. Others did not convince me, but that’s just because I was not in need of convincing. I pretty much agreed with you already.
But I’ll maintain that you’ve still done a very poor job of making that case about the current president’s character relative to that of his opponents (and, more importantly, what the best, quickest path is to transitioning to having leadership from people of better, albeit still imperfect, character, and limiting the effect of the people of poor character, who cannot be weeded out entirely).
What does his character matter when the alternatives are people with equal or lesser character???
Trump is direct and transparent. People like Clinton, Biden, and Harris are just as bad but they lie to your face.
You have absolutely no leg to stand on on morality... lol.
I’ve seen you make that assertion in some of your posts.
I doubt I’ve seen more than a few hundred of your posts, but I’d be willing to wager that across your 20,000 posts (well, it’s got to be more than that if we look at the posts from all angles, right?) you’ve never treated the assertion seriously and fully enough to argue it convincingly.
You’ve definitely made innumerable points about the low character of so many on the left. You’ve definitely made innumerable points about poor policies from Democrats. You’ve definitely made innumerable points about poor leadership from Democrats. Some of those points were unconvincing. Others did not convince me, but that’s just because I was not in need of convincing. I pretty much agreed with you already.
But I’ll maintain that you’ve still done a very poor job of making that case about the current president’s character relative to that of his opponents (and, more importantly, what the best, quickest path is to transitioning to having leadership from people of better, albeit still imperfect, character, and limiting the effect of the people of poor character, who cannot be weeded out entirely).
And so you and I will disagree on that.
I'm not sure what you think this fence sitting act and pretending to be above it all does for you.
You sound like a Joe Walsh type and there are few people more worthless to American society than Joe Walsh.
I’ve seen you make that assertion in some of your posts.
I doubt I’ve seen more than a few hundred of your posts, but I’d be willing to wager that across your 20,000 posts (well, it’s got to be more than that if we look at the posts from all angles, right?) you’ve never treated the assertion seriously and fully enough to argue it convincingly.
You’ve definitely made innumerable points about the low character of so many on the left. You’ve definitely made innumerable points about poor policies from Democrats. You’ve definitely made innumerable points about poor leadership from Democrats. Some of those points were unconvincing. Others did not convince me, but that’s just because I was not in need of convincing. I pretty much agreed with you already.
But I’ll maintain that you’ve still done a very poor job of making that case about the current president’s character relative to that of his opponents (and, more importantly, what the best, quickest path is to transitioning to having leadership from people of better, albeit still imperfect, character, and limiting the effect of the people of poor character, who cannot be weeded out entirely).
And so you and I will disagree on that.
I'm not sure what you think this fence sitting act and pretending to be above it all does for you.
You sound like a Joe Walsh type and there are few people more worthless to American society than Joe Walsh.
It is not fence-sitting.
I did leave out one point: If you actually cared about honesty (you are quick to call others dishonest), good logic, good character versus bad character, or if you genuinely had the best interests of America in mind, you would never go through the mental gymnastics you need to make “you all” points.
You just want to hammer away, hammer away until your “side” wins.
I'm not sure what you think this fence sitting act and pretending to be above it all does for you.
You sound like a Joe Walsh type and there are few people more worthless to American society than Joe Walsh.
It is not fence-sitting.
I did leave out one point: If you actually cared about honesty (you are quick to call others dishonest), good logic, good character versus bad character, or if you genuinely had the best interests of America in mind, you would never go through the mental gymnastics you need to make “you all” points.
You just want to hammer away, hammer away until your “side” wins.
We live in a two party system.
It's hopelessly naive to pretend otherwise.
There's no mental gymnastics required to claim that the people who vote for party A are complicit in whatever party A does.
There's no mental gymnastics required to claim that crazy people who do awful things and directly quote the rhetoric of party A were inspired and radicalized by party A.
There's no mental gymnastics required to see elected officials from party A continue to use the rhetoric which is getting people murdered in the streets and conclude that party A is the problem.
If my side doesnt win western civilization dies. That's not hyperbole. Liberals are killing the western world with their stupidity.