The Democrat Primary Race Is Filling Up

[nonobaddog]

That's what I'm saying. You can't judge the morals of people because of who they vote for. But, I'd also say there's an objective morality where one can called immoral. Those people who voted for Marion Berry for DC council after he was arrested for drugs as Mayor, I think they're ****ing immoral.

Maybe you can't...

 

[jamil]

Maybe you can't...

Well, "legitimately" is implied.

 

[Tombs]

"I wasn't directly calling alpo immoral for voting for biden. I was calling alpo immoral for his hypocrisy."

What hypocrisy?

That it's okay to pursue Trump with a wild goose chase, but pursuing Biden with one isn't worth even discussing.

That Trump is a national embarrassment, but a senile and legitimately racist career politician, with a laundry list of skeletons in the closet, is going to be the ticket to restoring our dignity.

The list can go on, but I think it makes the point.

Yeah, Trump is certainly the embodiment and living definition of in-eloquent, but if you're going to take issue with that, Biden is the last person in the democratic party that you should ever considering supporting.

 

[jamil]

That it's okay to pursue Trump with a wild goose chase, but pursuing Biden with one isn't worth even discussing.

That Trump is a national embarrassment, but a senile and legitimately racist career politician, with a laundry list of skeletons in the closet, is going to be the ticket to restoring our dignity.

The list can go on, but I think it makes the point.

Dude, really? That's it? All this is over that?

 

[Tombs]

Dude, really? That's it? All this is over that?

Well he did pledge loyalty to those that will make us in the gun community pick between our rights or our lives.

 

[nonobaddog]

That's what I'm saying. You can't judge the morals of people because of who they vote for. But, I'd also say there's an objective morality where one can called immoral. Those people who voted for Marion Berry for DC council after he was arrested for drugs as Mayor, I think they're ****ing immoral.

You seem to have an infinite capacity to [strike]forget[/strike] forgive the dumocraps for all the immoral crap they have pulled in the last ten or eleven years.



(A little gray hair is a small price to pay for all this wisdom.)

 

[Tombs]

You seem to have an infinite capacity to [strike]forget[/strike] forgive the dumocraps for all the immoral crap they have pulled in the last ten or eleven years.



(A little gray hair is a small price to pay for all this wisdom.)

I don't think he's come to terms with the fact that those people don't play by the same rule book he does, and that hospitality will not be repaid when they kick down the door and confiscate his property.

 

[Alpo]

Jamil:

As far as I know, Biden hasn't been nominated at a convention at this point. There is still a long way to go between here and there. And, with an unknown date for the end of this epidemic, it uncertain to me whether there will actually be a convention in the usual sense. Perhaps things will be different this time around.

I think a lot of democrats are justifiably concerned about the state of Biden's health. Most of us would prefer a moderate who is somewhat younger and healthier. So, with all of the uncertainties existing at this time, it seems to me to be a waste of effort to spend a lot of time on him one way or the other.

Trump is a conundrum at this point. Last year, he was a supply-sider. Today, he's just completed the largest Keynesian redistribution in the history of the world. It's difficult to say what he will do next...for the same reason we all are not making a lot of long-term plans: we don't know enough about the epidemic at this point.

I really believe this is a discussion that is best left deferred. I know that is where I am with it. I don't care about the election in November because I don't know what we will look like as a country at that point. It may be a recovery toward business as usual. It may not be.


https://www.yahoo.com/gma/biden-con...iasm-poll-040000356--abc-news-topstories.html

 

[churchmouse]

Alpo,
Much the same mindset here. If the Dems are going to unseat the crown prince please not let it be that idiot Joe Biden. The man is a Buffoon. Not that Trump could not hold his own here but please not Biden.

There will be so many hurdles to cross when all this clears up. Who will we be. Especially after this redistribution.

 

[jamil]

You seem to have an infinite capacity to [strike]forget[/strike] forgive the dumocraps for all the immoral crap they have pulled in the last ten or eleven years.



(A little gray hair is a small price to pay for all this wisdom.)

I don’t think it’s a matter of forgiveness. I believe it’s folly to apply subjective morals derived from one’s worldview to people who don’t hold that worldview. Also, I try not to play team sports with politics. I don’t want to have one set of standards for my side and another set for the other. That’s really hard to do. I catch myself doing it often. I think that’s a human trait that’s innate, but overridable.

 

[jamil]

I don't think he's come to terms with the fact that those people don't play by the same rule book he does, and that hospitality will not be repaid when they kick down the door and confiscate his property.

That’s not at all accurate. I know “they” don’t play by the same rules. They is in quotes because it’s a subset of people that it applies to. You’re lumping together everyone into a convenient “them” package of your own version of deplorable. What you’re doing is no better than Hillary. And it’s not being hospitable to “them”. There are always different perspectives on a matter. If I always interpret everything from just one perspective, I don’t see the fullest picture. That you still think I’m trying to be hospitable is evidence that you don’t see it from my perspective, which means you have a limited understanding of what I’m really saying. It only makes sense to you if you interpret it that way.

And let’s keep it straight that I’m not talking about objective morals. We’re not talking about Nancy Pelosi’s objectively immoral behavior. We’re talking about the reasons people cote for people. And we’re talking about the subjective realm of morality.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

That’s not at all accurate. I know “they” don’t play by the same rules. They is in quotes because it’s a subset of people that it applies to. You’re lumping together everyone into a convenient “them” package of your own version of deplorable. What you’re doing is no better than Hillary. And it’s not being hospitable to “them”. There are always different perspectives on a matter. If I always interpret everything from just one perspective, I don’t see the fullest picture. That you still think I’m trying to be hospitable is evidence that you don’t see it from my perspective, which means you have a limited understanding of what I’m really saying. It only makes sense to you if you interpret it that way.

And let’s keep it straight that I’m not talking about objective morals. We’re not talking about Nancy Pelosi’s objectively immoral behavior. We’re talking about the reasons people cote for people. And we’re talking about the subjective realm of morality.

Well there’s one issue. Leftists and the MSM are projecting a belief that objective morality doesn’t exist. Everything is subjective. I will agree with you that that belief probably isn’t held by a huge majority of the democratic constituents, but that is definitely what is being projected by the loudest and most prominent. In the same way that I believe a sizeable amount of Republican constituents have a more conservative/libertarian lean, but the loudest and most prominent are more centrist-ish.

 

[Leadeye]

Morality is an interesting word, to me it implies rules that are the same for everybody and everything. The trouble arises when different versions of those rules collide. Big media has it's version of beliefs and pursues them as dogmatically as the medieval Catholic church. The degree of rabid intolerance to anything they see as contrary is pretty shocking sometimes. One thing, it has been my experience, that they all seem to have in common is the desire for money and power. Being in charge must be a very addictive drug.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Jamil:

As far as I know, Biden hasn't been nominated at a convention at this point. There is still a long way to go between here and there. And, with an unknown date for the end of this epidemic, it uncertain to me whether there will actually be a convention in the usual sense. Perhaps things will be different this time around.

I think a lot of democrats are justifiably concerned about the state of Biden's health. Most of us would prefer a moderate who is somewhat younger and healthier. So, with all of the uncertainties existing at this time, it seems to me to be a waste of effort to spend a lot of time on him one way or the other.

Trump is a conundrum at this point. Last year, he was a supply-sider. Today, he's just completed the largest Keynesian redistribution in the history of the world. It's difficult to say what he will do next...for the same reason we all are not making a lot of long-term plans: we don't know enough about the epidemic at this point.

I really believe this is a discussion that is best left deferred. I know that is where I am with it. I don't care about the election in November because I don't know what we will look like as a country at that point. It may be a recovery toward business as usual. It may not be.


https://www.yahoo.com/gma/biden-con...iasm-poll-040000356--abc-news-topstories.html

Alpo - I tend to agree with your approach. Best to wait and see who the candidates are and what the situation is. I would only add one point of observation to your thoughts on Trump and the Keynesian redistribution: I have not seen one Democrat who is griping and wishing it was smaller. There may be a Blue Dog somewhere who is - but I haven't heard it. I've seen a TON of Democrats griping and wishing it was larger. And I've seen a lot of Republicans who wanted it smaller - but had to be forced to toe the party line.

 

[Leadeye]

Joe I see more as a figurehead than an individual, something I think he has probably been most of his political career.

 

[nonobaddog]

I bet the gears are grinding in dumocrapland. Their best candidate has mush-mind. They can't seriously run with him so they will probably have to replace him and still try to give the illusion of a democratic process. This certainly will be interesting going forward.

 

[jamil]

Well there’s one issue. Leftists and the MSM are projecting a belief that objective morality doesn’t exist. Everything is subjective. I will agree with you that that belief probably isn’t held by a huge majority of the democratic constituents, but that is definitely what is being projected by the loudest and most prominent. In the same way that I believe a sizeable amount of Republican constituents have a more conservative/libertarian lean, but the loudest and most prominent are more centrist-ish.

Objective morality was pretty much dispensed with postmodernism. But, like most ideologies, there's at least a little truth there. Before postmodernism people thought their morals were absolute, and postmodernism effectively refuted that. But, like most ideologies, it goes too far, to say there is no objective morality at all. That's a simplistic view of it, but it works for this conversation.

I would say that objective morality revolves around causing other people unnecessary, irresponsible, or malicious suffering. But morality that is worldview dependent, is subjective. Objective morals are evident in that they cross cultures and borders. Just about every society has some kind of concept of murder, and have laws against it. Even in cannibalistic tribes, you can't just kill anyone and eat them. Anyway, the ideological subjectivity comes in when someone says something is unnecessary, irresponsible, or malicious suffering, and that their opponents caused it. For example, the rhetoric that sounds a lot like Tombs's, the blood of mass shooting victims is on the hands of all gun owners because they block "common sense gun safety laws". That's not just a slogan. Well, it is for the politicians who exploit/hack into people's cause-driven firmware to get them riled up. But, the people who get riled up are really riled up. They really believe this ****.

Point is, the "blood on your hands" rhetoric is asserting a moral claim of unjust harm against innocence perpetrated by their opponents. They're imposing the morality derived from their own worldview onto the people who don't share that worldview. It's just inaccurate in that it only represents one perception of reality from just one point of view.

 

[jamil]

Morality is an interesting word, to me it implies rules that are the same for everybody and everything. The trouble arises when different versions of those rules collide. Big media has it's version of beliefs and pursues them as dogmatically as the medieval Catholic church. The degree of rabid intolerance to anything they see as contrary is pretty shocking sometimes. One thing, it has been my experience, that they all seem to have in common is the desire for money and power. Being in charge must be a very addictive drug.

It's not objective though. It's immoral to wipe your ass with your right hand. Is that an objective moral? It's immoral in some cultures. I'm right handed. So...

 

[nonobaddog]

As usual it gets mired down in semantic minutiae of the meaning of is.

 

[jamil]

I bet the gears are grinding in dumocrapland. Their best candidate has mush-mind. They can't seriously run with him so they will probably have to replace him and still try to give the illusion of a democratic process. This certainly will be interesting going forward.

You'd think. But I think they're dismissive enough that they think it's fine. Or, they think the alternative is so worse that even an old man with dementia is better than what we have. Or some combination of the two. But it looks like people are supporting Biden regardless.