Well sometimes you have to choose between someone Bat-shit crazy, a criminal, a giant douche, a turd sandwich, and a trump.
Republicans have nuts I will say that
- Thread starter HighStickHarry
- Start date
Honestly, JD, Marshall, it's legalistic attempts to pin down people based on what the definition of is "is" that is exhausting. You're doing it in this thread. It's time to modernize fellas, and I say that with respect.
I frankly expect a President Trump to disappoint me in several ways, but I also expect that the ways that he'd be effective, where others don't dare to go, has even more potential.
We aren't kindergartners here. From where I sit, the purer conservatives either i) don't get into office or ii) are giant pussies once in office. Neither are helpful.
Back to Trump. I might not get all I want, but I think what he would bring would be more good than bad. I measure this in both expected substance of legislation (more positions clustered near to mine), but also in what I feel is an enormous potential upside in effectively manuevering outside of establishment lanes. For example, I can see him putting forth some legislation that is relatively practical, but contains provisions where both sides are equally butthurt. He's got the media wrapped around his little finger, the legislation is decent, and he builds coalitions that don't rely on monolithic chunks from either side.
I frankly expect a President Trump to disappoint me in several ways, but I also expect that the ways that he'd be effective, where others don't dare to go, has even more potential.
We aren't kindergartners here. From where I sit, the purer conservatives either i) don't get into office or ii) are giant pussies once in office. Neither are helpful.
Back to Trump. I might not get all I want, but I think what he would bring would be more good than bad. I measure this in both expected substance of legislation (more positions clustered near to mine), but also in what I feel is an enormous potential upside in effectively manuevering outside of establishment lanes. For example, I can see him putting forth some legislation that is relatively practical, but contains provisions where both sides are equally butthurt. He's got the media wrapped around his little finger, the legislation is decent, and he builds coalitions that don't rely on monolithic chunks from either side.
You do yourself, and more importantly that which you represent, a disservice. Your pot shots are CUP level theatrics. Expect more of yourself.
This presidential race is fascinating. On one hand I'm already sick of it and on the other quite intrigued.
Regardless of what one thinks about Trump, he, on his worst days, could never be as un-American and anti-America as the current Asshole-in-Chief. Likewise, he could never do and get away with dictator complex Obama does because the media, which has taken a pass the last 8 years, will be all over him from the moment it appears he will win the election. As much as they have refused to delved into Obama they will make up for it with Trump or any GOP president.
And I have already voted and not for him.
Regardless of what one thinks about Trump, he, on his worst days, could never be as un-American and anti-America as the current Asshole-in-Chief. Likewise, he could never do and get away with dictator complex Obama does because the media, which has taken a pass the last 8 years, will be all over him from the moment it appears he will win the election. As much as they have refused to delved into Obama they will make up for it with Trump or any GOP president.
And I have already voted and not for him.
My response to you last night was cranky. I need to pull the stick outta my ass. My bad.
You can assert that I'm being misled by a guy with a flute, but whatever, it's all an estimation/preference thing. I'll be comfortable with any of the R's on the ballot in Nov. And I've got the benefit of time to determine exactly how comfortable that is.
Gentlemen, the fascinating thing from a liberal perspective is:
1. at least 1/3 of republicans could care less what the substance is -- it's "tone" and attitude that matter. That validates a lot of suspicion. Please, any more thoughts on liberal "low information" voters?
2. At least 1/3 of republicans are voting for a guy for universal health care, protectionist trade, obvious pro-life background, etc.
3. I can't believe some flag-snorting, true believer isn't gonna run a "true" conservative third party candidacy in the general. Maybe it's too late to get on the ballots, but wth are the "true" conservatives gonna do?
4. Welcome to 21st century conservatism. What did the RNC, Dumbya, Mehlman, McConnell, Ryan, et al think would ultimately happen with their misinformation and lowest common denominator messaging for the last 20 years? Government bad, minorities are lazy, etc. Well -- I present you the full blossom of 20 years of bullshit and careful nurturing of anti-intellectual, me-first evangelism.
5. This may be the beginning of the end of the GOP as a majority party. I don't see how this coalition can survive.
6. I'll always appreciate Trump for annihilating Bush and Cruz.
7. Name of Bush? Need not apply. Again -- he was so epically shitty, nobody will even entertain the idea of another Bush presidency except of the usual vapid greed-heads that enabled the first two.
1. at least 1/3 of republicans could care less what the substance is -- it's "tone" and attitude that matter. That validates a lot of suspicion. Please, any more thoughts on liberal "low information" voters?
2. At least 1/3 of republicans are voting for a guy for universal health care, protectionist trade, obvious pro-life background, etc.
3. I can't believe some flag-snorting, true believer isn't gonna run a "true" conservative third party candidacy in the general. Maybe it's too late to get on the ballots, but wth are the "true" conservatives gonna do?
4. Welcome to 21st century conservatism. What did the RNC, Dumbya, Mehlman, McConnell, Ryan, et al think would ultimately happen with their misinformation and lowest common denominator messaging for the last 20 years? Government bad, minorities are lazy, etc. Well -- I present you the full blossom of 20 years of bullshit and careful nurturing of anti-intellectual, me-first evangelism.
5. This may be the beginning of the end of the GOP as a majority party. I don't see how this coalition can survive.
6. I'll always appreciate Trump for annihilating Bush and Cruz.
7. Name of Bush? Need not apply. Again -- he was so epically shitty, nobody will even entertain the idea of another Bush presidency except of the usual vapid greed-heads that enabled the first two.
Stopped reading at "could care less"
You might want to reconsider your offer. According to this PHD you're going to lose your shirt.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/24/p...s-of-president-trump-range-between-97-and-99/
He's got some impressive credentials and Stony Brook will never be confused for Liberty University.
http://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/polisci/professors/norpoth.html
Gotta disagree with this bit - specifically that conservatives are intellectually more grounded - without a doubt the reliance and appeal to religious belief in a political discussion is most prominent in conservative circles and IMO is just plain lazy.
Your take, on its face and at its best, can certainly be labeled the same.... At its worst, bigoted.
That model. ..that's a very large delta.
In short, the only thing that will stop Trump, is Trump.
Vaginas power exists in a bar, where people are inebriated and in purposeful pursuit of vagina. Only weak minded fools like CUP are under its illusion as a political pull.
It's looking like this may be correct, to include things he's already done that aren't common knowledge as of yet.
Lazy? Hmmm...interesting. I think it's more obvious and simple than that. I think conservatives are just more religious. I think they have convictions rather than opinions.
Can't remember a political discussion here that took a sharp turn into religion. Maybe it happened. I don't read every single thread. But I'm truly having a hard time remembering anything like that.
No "bad" necessary; I was polishing my smartass late night "pinot" routine, and my other brother Darrel/the dog/or bofem said yes.
You touch on probably the one thing I think may lurk out there....something too big for people to forgive, played the Friday before election Tuesday.
Though if the nominee is Trump, I'm sure he'll be equally zealous in finding every inch of hidden dirt on Hillary out there.
On the flip side, people know what they are getting in Trump, and to a large extent, that insulates him from 'gotcha' tactics.
It'll all be very interesting.
Would love to hear you define the difference between the two...
Per my handy dictionary:
conviction |kənˈvikSH(ə)n|
noun
1 a formal declaration that someone is guilty of a criminal offense, made by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law: she had a previous conviction for a similar offense.
2 a firmly held belief or opinion: his conviction that the death was no accident | she takes pride in stating her political convictions.
• the quality of showing that one is firmly convinced of what one believes or says: his voice lacked conviction.
ORIGIN
late Middle English: from Latin convictio(n-), from the verb convincere (see convince) .
Lol...a conviction is more like a belief. It's bigger than an opinion. There's a basis for it. An opinion is more like a view that people have that is adopted.
Appreciate the you can laugh at yourself! "There's a basis for it" - is circular reasoning a habit or is this a one off?
To be clear you think the conviction of the religious is better because the belief system you agree with provides a basis for it - where the opinion of the non religious is worse because their belief system provides a basis for it with which you don't agree. Do I have that right?
I have no issue with you believing your point of view is more correct - so long as you support it with some kind of rational argument. But you disrespect others, attempting to shut down the conversation, by asserting that others have simple "opinions" where you have righteous "conviction" on your side.
Last edited:
Please expound on how the appeal to religion/authority equates to being more "intellectually grounded"... This type of convo is what I am here for!
This debate will interest me but I do have a question for you David. Are you under the assumption that one who rejects religion, such as an atheist, is more intellectually grounded because, to put it bluntly, "science?" I only ask this because atheists have a tendency to try to pull the "I believe religion is hoohah so I'm smarter than you" card pretty frequently. Which in and of itself, in my opinion, is an intellectually defunct card to pull.
I see that same tendency - and fight it myself. I don't actively consider myself any kind of "-ist" - not an Atheist, not an Islamist, not a an "ian" either so not a Christian. Closest to an agnostic.
I will freely admit my belief that the scientific method is much more "intellectual" than an appeal to authority (religious or otherwise) when discussing science, public policy, law, etc. I admire the "poetry" of belief in discussions of art, the significance of existence, philosophy, metaphysics, etc. In the end, if your argument revolves around "I believe in science so I am right" - well then you lost the point. Either you have reasonable evidence to support your point or you don't. Evidence that can be validated using the scientific method trumps evidence that can't. To me, that should be enough to get to an answer to most questions.
Finally, I do think I am smarter than about 70% of the US population. A test once said it was 99% - but I have killed many a brain cell since then!
That is great news! Now I feel I can look forward to reading the debate between the two of you.
LOL.
Next time I'll just call people lazy so I don't disrespect them.
My father is a preacher and believes marriage is between a man and woman. That won't change because popular opinion changes or because it will benefit him to do so...unlike someone like Obama and Hillary who get their opinions from polls. That was the point I was making.
I don't know your dad, sure he is not a lazy person, and since he is not arguing the point he wouldn't be my example but plenty of people said "because my holy book says so" in the debate over marriage equality. They are entitled to their opinion, but it holds no sway over the rest of us. Now if you want to argue about the long term negative impacts on children in same sex households (and you have some credible studies to quote), or you want to argue negative economic impacts, or whatever then we have something to discuss. That is my point.
To the OP - "more intellectually grounded" is not a conservative trait - at least not a religious conservative trait IMO.
Not sure who "us" is. Most Americans do not favor gay marriage.
But to your point, I don't think very many people decide where they stand on issues because of the results of studies, etc. I think most are sheep that follow their leaders and get their beliefs from Huffpost and foxnews. Maybe that's laziness, maybe it's lack of intelligence. Neither side has a monopoly on either of those.
Pew says you're wrong: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
In Pew Research polling in 2001, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a 57% to 35% margin.
Since then, support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown. Based on polling in 2015, a majority of Americans (55%) support same-sex marriage, compared with 39% who oppose it. See the latest data on same-sex marriage.
I think I speak for the more libertarian conservatives when I say we don't give a flip about gay marriage. Hook up with whoever or whatever you want.
Just don't force people who have legitimate feelings against it to go against their believes. The problem is the LGBT community wants to force people to participate and say they accept it. Why can't they just leave people who have issues with their life style alone? It's not like people are going out of their way to deny them anything, they seek out people who disagree with them in order to make examples of them. I think that is wrong.
Just don't force people who have legitimate feelings against it to go against their believes. The problem is the LGBT community wants to force people to participate and say they accept it. Why can't they just leave people who have issues with their life style alone? It's not like people are going out of their way to deny them anything, they seek out people who disagree with them in order to make examples of them. I think that is wrong.
I think he probably had something more like this in mind:
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/02/248...g-couple-150k-refusing-bake-cake-gay-wedding/
If a public servant doesn't want to follow the law they should resign.
Nice try at a gotcha but I'm no more sympathetic to religious people who want to force their believes on others as I am LBGT activists shoving their life style in everyone's faces.
I think most rational people agree.
