The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[jamil]

See that's another thing. The places I vary with the Trumpskyites, I consider myself more conservative on those issues. I guess it all depends on how you define right. I don't consider these yahoos marching around Charlottesville as being on the right in anyway whatsoever.

This is why the alt-right is dying, because conservatives are willing to say, no, I’m not with you. But the the left ignores that and conflates the right with alt-right. To them it’s the same thing.

 

[T.Lex]

This is why the alt-right is dying, because conservatives are willing to say, no, I’m not with you. But the the left ignores that and conflates the right with alt-right. To them it’s the same thing.

Doesn't that work the other way, ESPECIALLY on INGO?

I mean, all leftists/progressives/socialists/democrats are pretty much lumped in together. Daily.

This raises the notion that there will be one huge chasm in the electorate, or a really big new middle ground with people re-aligning for moderates.

Well. A boy can dream.

 

[jamil]

You might not be binary, but IMO, too many are. And don’t try to label me as binary because I don’t feel the need to jump on the anti-Trump bandwagon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am anti-bandwagon. I am not on the anti-Trump bandwagon. I am not on the pro-Trump bandwagon. I prefer to rate Trump by the things he does, ranging from good to bad and all points between. If you feel that you have to be on one side or the other, that’s a binary choice. It’s not a label. It’s a definition. I didn’t make up the definition. I just pointed it out that it’s a binary choice. In the case of support for an elected leader, we should hold them all accountable. We shouldn’t ignore the bad things just because we’re on the same bandwagon.

 

[T.Lex]

I am anti-bandwagon. I am not on the anti-Trump bandwagon. I am not on the pro-Trump bandwagon.

[Steven Wright impersonation]
So you're on the anti-bandwagon bandwagon.
[/Steven Wright impersonation]

 

[jamil]

Doesn't that work the other way, ESPECIALLY on INGO?

I mean, all leftists/progressives/socialists/democrats are pretty much lumped in together. Daily.

This raises the notion that there will be one huge chasm in the electorate, or a really big new middle ground with people re-aligning for moderates.

Well. A boy can dream.

Yes. Of course. I still remember the debates about whether “libhrals”/Democrats can be pro-gun.

It would help if the people on the left would occasionally let people know they’re not marxists. Or, that they still believe individualism is superior to collectivism, in terms of civil rights. It’s really getting hard to tell they even care about anything but “collective rights” anymore.

 

[jamil]

[Steven Wright impersonation]
So you're on the anti-bandwagon bandwagon.
[/Steven Wright impersonation]

Yes. As well, I’d like to ban banning stuff.

 

[T.Lex]

Anarchists: working together to stop working together.

 

[printcraft]

Doesn't that work the other way, ESPECIALLY on INGO?

I mean, all leftists/progressives/socialists/democrats are pretty much lumped in together. Daily.

This raises the notion that there will be one huge chasm in the electorate, or a really big new middle ground with people re-aligning for moderates.

Well. A boy can dream.

Damn hard to tell them apart when all of their spokespeople are lunatics.

If moderate democrats wanted to distance themselves from far left anti American behavior they are doing a bad job.

”We are going to fundamentally change America” was about putting America in its place.

 

[printcraft]

Right on ****ing cue.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-political-discussion/457740-america-never-great.html

 

[Fargo]

Anarchists: working together to stop working together.

LOL, when I was in law school, I learned a lot from an older lawyer on a forum who gave me a ton of perspective and really knew his stuff. His avatar was a stick figure of a grumpy mouse and at top it said "People are stupid" and below it said "I hate them all".

I always wondered why a guy so kind and knowledgeable would have that as his avatar. The older I get, the more I understand...

I'm with Jamil, I'm off bandwagons. I don't even know what the political parties really stands for these days outside of wanting power and purse strings. They seem to think that the libertarian model of coherence is to be striven for, but without the limitations on government.

 

[T.Lex]

Damn hard to tell them apart when all of their spokespeople are lunatics.

If moderate democrats wanted to distance themselves from far left anti American behavior they are doing a bad job.

”We are going to fundamentally change America” was about putting America in its place.

Joe Donnelly said that?

 

[printcraft]

Joe Donnelly said that?

I didn’t mention joe but that’s probably a bad example. He’s not a recognized “spokesperson” of the party nationally.

BUT he does vote with Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, Warren, Sanders 84% of the time and you cannot say their positions are pro America.

 

[Leadeye]

LOL, when I was in law school, I learned a lot from an older lawyer on a forum who gave me a ton of perspective and really knew his stuff. His avatar was a stick figure of a grumpy mouse and at top it said "People are stupid" and below it said "I hate them all".

I always wondered why a guy so kind and knowledgeable would have that as his avatar. The older I get, the more I understand...

I'm with Jamil, I'm off bandwagons. I don't even know what the political parties really stands for these days outside of wanting power and purse strings. They seem to think that the libertarian model of coherence is to be striven for, but without the limitations on government.

Always follow the money,

leadership always does.

 

[T.Lex]

I didn’t mention joe but that’s probably a bad example. He’s not a recognized “spokesperson” of the party nationally.

BUT he does vote with Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, Warren, Sanders 84% of the time and you cannot say their positions are pro America.

My point was all the moderate Dems that get lumped into Antifa (basically). I think of Donnelly as a moderate dem.

I agree he's not a "spokesperson" type guy - either by role or by nature. (I don't think I've ever met him, but I know people who are involved on that side of the aisle.)

But see - what you did there - is to lump him together with despicable people based on party. Thanks for confirming my assertion.

 

[Fargo]

My point was all the moderate Dems that get lumped into Antifa (basically). I think of Donnelly as a moderate dem.

I agree he's not a "spokesperson" type guy - either by role or by nature. (I don't think I've ever met him, but I know people who are involved on that side of the aisle.)

But see - what you did there - is to lump him together with despicable people based on party. Thanks for confirming my assertion.

84% percent of your assertion at best...

Voting record is somewhat different from party affiliation.

 

[T.Lex]

84% percent of your assertion at best...

Voting record is somewhat different from party affiliation.

Sure - inside baseball stuff, but these "voting record" percentages are BS. How many of those votes are on procedural matters or amendments or whatever.

He didn't lump them together because of voting record; he lumped them together because of party affiliation.

ETA:
Kinda neat tool here:
https://projects.propublica.org/rep...-donnelly/compare-votes/P000603-rand-paul/115

Donnelly and Rand Paul agreed about half the time, and on 9 "major" (whatever that means) votes. It does include the Gorsuch nomination. That's pretty important.

ETA2:
https://projects.propublica.org/rep...donnelly/compare-votes/Y000064-todd-young/115

Donnelly agrees with Young about 60% of the time.

Although that may speak to Young more than Donnelly....

 

[BugI02]

Campaign Trump: "Lock her up!"

President Trump: "If she likes her security clearance, she can keep her security clearance."

Kutsistency Anomaly! She hasn’t been convucted of any more crimes than Brennan has. If the argument is Brennan should keep his if he only is criticizing the president then you are essentially arguing she should keep hers and Rice should keep hers yada yada

Its the Al Capone defense; many charges but no convictions = innocence

Waiting to hear “ ... what difference does it make”

I’m sure it won’t be long

 

[T.Lex]

Your efforts to graft an argument on to my post that doesn't belong is fruitless. I don't care if Brennan keeps his or HRC or Flynn or Ivanka. I have an opinion on the larger issue of former employees/appointees keeping their security clearance after separation, but haven't expressed it. Ultimately, just like POTUS can decide what is and isn't classified, he can decide who gets clearance. It is part of being the executive.

Rather, my post was indicative of another of Trump's inconsistencies.

Those inconsistencies that Trumpists appear unable to see, or at least acknowledge.

 

[BugI02]

Your efforts to graft an argument on to my post that doesn't belong is fruitless. I don't care if Brennan keeps his or HRC or Flynn or Ivanka. I have an opinion on the larger issue of former employees/appointees keeping their security clearance after separation, but haven't expressed it. Ultimately, just like POTUS can decide what is and isn't classified, he can decide who gets clearance. It is part of being the executive.

Rather, my post was indicative of another of Trump's inconsistencies.

Those inconsistencies that Trumpists appear unable to see, or at least acknowledge.

Dude, why would you expect me to even care whether Trump is Kutsistent or not. I’m not one of the ones who thinks that is a rare or desirable quality



One size does not fit all, the map is not the territory
I get confused whether you’re speaking Ex Kuthedra or giving your own opinion when you answer for him

I have posed a reasonable rationale for Trump’s behavior. Refute the hypothesis or accept reasonable doubt (you’ve had practice, no?)

 

[T.Lex]

Dude, why would you expect me to even care whether Trump is Kutsistent or not. I’m not one of the ones who thinks that is a rare or desirable quality



One size does not fit all, the map is not the territory
I get confused whether you’re speaking Ex Kuthedra or giving your own opinion when you answer for him

I have posed a reasonable rationale for Trump’s behavior. Refute the hypothesis or accept reasonable doubt (you’ve had practice, no?)

Clearly, given the discrepancies between your treatment of Trump v. Obama inconsistency, you have a consistency problem of your own.

I have a great deal of reasonable doubt about Trump's ability to be rational or reasonable. More and more, that extends to those who continue to support him in all things, great and small.