Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Hillary Clinton’s Vaunted GOTV Operation May Have Turned Out Trump Voters"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Escape2Victory
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I'd say she represented the Old School wing. That is the wing that could be bought and paid for by Big Business, Unions, and other groups with cash to squander.
    While the Progressive Left is highly monolithic they don't buy into Old School Democrat politics of the establishment. That's why Sanders did so well with the college age demographic.

    If the Democrats are going to be Socialist revolutionaries they'll lose. If they stick with Old School politics of the machine and graft, they'll lose. They need to figure out a strategy for the Electronics age and 21st Century.
    The Republicans have the edge here. They represent the more Centrist and Right Wing. The Right wants to be left the Hell alone. The Centrists want limited government. That is doable on popular vote when the electorate gets pissed at those who want to impose too much government come along.
    Hillary represented the worst of all those worlds. She was Old School machine politics, combined with Progressivism, and topped with a good helping of lying corruption.
    If Clinton had been left in charge of border and immigration control she would made sure enough Dem voters were imported from the Third World to force the GOP to be the ones who had to radically change their stance. A Trump defeat and America would have been set for radical social change and Republicans would not have had the citizen numbers to stop it in any future election.

    Leave a comment:


  • Escape2Victory
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    That is why the Democrats have their own split coming. Clinton represented the moderate wing of the party: liberal, but still capable of being pro-business and playing well with Wall Street.

    They lost this election. Now it is the more stringent elements, the explicitly anti-business, anti-Wall Street, distrustful of capitalism, anti-establishment elements that look likely to jump into the fray. Not as far as Bernie, but much more Bernie than Bill.
    Not to say that because it happened in the UK it will happen in the US, but that has been the recent Labour Party experience. Tony Blair was able to move the party to a pro-Business, politically central position. After Blair it has taken two election defeats but the hold of the Blairites is broken. Labour has swung hard left under pressure from its own registered members and now has the attributes you describe above, to which I would add 'anti-military'.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    I can't see how you could be confused.
    I'll be the first to admit I just lack the faculties to understand how pedophilia is a logical counter to a discussion on state authority and the differences between murder and consensual sex and how that relates to individual rights and your moral superiority.

    You'll have to spell it out for me, like you would with a child. Just be sure to adequately back up your statements so we avoid something equally useless as "this is right because god said so" or something similar. Maybe aim for upper middle school level? Just connect the dots to complete your picture and that should do enough to clarify just what you were saying.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    What fact? You stated that you knew more about morality than I did, then went on to say that pedophiles use the same argument I had, which was (among other things) that rape and consensual sex were altogether different concepts in terms of "being left alone".

    So I'm sorry again: I assumed your unwillingness to provide anything to back up your claims, or even point out exactly how your supposed points worked, was the sign of a mature adult recognizing their argument's limitations and bowing out when unable to support their, um, "fact". Another false assumption on my part that I must apologize for.

    Maybe you would do better to prove you have stated a "fact" if you actually supported your argument well? Use some quotations, perhaps? Provide a coherent response to say why X is Y and not Z? I understand if you don't want to, though - like I said, I thought that the outward feebleness of the "that's what pedophiles say" argument was self-evident, hence my assumption of bowing out.
    I can't see how you could be confused.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    I stated a fact, and you immediately began trying to use word count to cope with failure. You have been amusing, but you haven't changed a thing.
    What fact? You stated that you knew more about morality than I did, then went on to say that pedophiles use the same argument I had, which was (among other things) that rape and consensual sex were altogether different concepts in terms of "being left alone".

    So I'm sorry again: I assumed your unwillingness to provide anything to back up your claims, or even point out exactly how your supposed points worked, was the sign of a mature adult recognizing their argument's limitations and bowing out when unable to support their, um, "fact". Another false assumption on my part that I must apologize for.

    Maybe you would do better to prove you have stated a "fact" if you actually supported your argument well? Use some quotations, perhaps? Provide a coherent response to say why X is Y and not Z? I understand if you don't want to, though - like I said, I thought that the outward feebleness of the "that's what pedophiles say" argument was self-evident, hence my assumption of bowing out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    No, I was applauding your maturity in recognizing that you had no real ground to stand on with your response and thus were backing out of a weak position instead of continuing on to try and prove that... uh, molesting children is like using drugs?

    Sorry. Your claim about morality and pedophilia didn't really translate when discussing how both sides of the political divide favor an interventionist government that does anything but "just leave me alone".

    But again, that's part of why I was applauding you. Understanding one has little ground to stand on with such a claim and backing down, rather than respond directly to a counter-argument one cannot defeat, is a laudable action.
    I stated a fact, and you immediately began trying to use word count to cope with failure. You have been amusing, but you haven't changed a thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    As usual, you either missed the point or are trying to change to subject.
    No, I was applauding your maturity in recognizing that you had no real ground to stand on with your response and thus were backing out of a weak position instead of continuing on to try and prove that... uh, molesting children is like using drugs?

    Sorry. Your claim about morality and pedophilia didn't really translate when discussing how both sides of the political divide favor an interventionist government that does anything but "just leave me alone".

    But again, that's part of why I was applauding you. Understanding one has little ground to stand on with such a claim and backing down, rather than respond directly to a counter-argument one cannot defeat, is a laudable action.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    I applaud you. Backing down in the face of a superior argument is a sign of maturity.
    As usual, you either missed the point or are trying to change to subject.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    Not desperate at all. Just telling it like it is.








    Like I said...
    I applaud you. Backing down in the face of a superior argument is a sign of maturity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Desperate to hold onto some moral high-ground when struggling to find purchase, I see. Well, let's see what you follow up wi-
    Not desperate at all. Just telling it like it is.


    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Really? Really? That's what you chose as a response? An ad hominem fallacy? Your argument was nothing but equating your opponent's views with that of pedophiles to try and demonstrate some sense of moral superiority? Why not just go full argumentum ad Hitlerum and claim its what the Nazis would want as well? Double down on the fallacies and go for broke.

    Maybe you'll actually read my previous post in its entirety before responding here, which means you'll see where you fell flat pretty swiftly - unless you don't believe that the actions of pedophiles violate the rights of another being, in which case I could understand your confusion, and you have my apologies for not clarifying.

    Just in case I'll tell you that most of us tend to see rape and molestation as violations of another's rights, which would make it an example of not "just being left alone". That would make it like the example of murder provided in my previous post, which was contrasted against crimes committed where no individual's rights are violated. Murder is an example of an action that does violate the rights of someone else, while drug use and consensual sex (which is different from non-consensual sex, including with a minor) were provided as examples of ones that don't violate the rights of another.

    I would have assumed someone educated about morality - or the law, which was dismissed in favor of the former - would have understood that distinction, but you know what they say about making assumptions. I'll try to avoid as much in the future to reduce the chance of another misinterpretation.


    Like I said...

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    Actually, the key word is morality, but I knew it would confuse you.
    Desperate to hold onto some moral high-ground when struggling to find purchase, I see. Well, let's see what you follow up wi-

    Your argument is the same one we hear from pedophiles.
    Really? Really? That's what you chose as a response? An ad hominem fallacy? Your argument was nothing but equating your opponent's views with that of pedophiles to try and demonstrate some sense of moral superiority? Why not just go full argumentum ad Hitlerum and claim its what the Nazis would want as well? Double down on the fallacies and go for broke.

    Maybe you'll actually read my previous post in its entirety before responding here, which means you'll see where you fell flat pretty swiftly - unless you don't believe that the actions of pedophiles violate the rights of another being, in which case I could understand your confusion, and you have my apologies for not clarifying.

    Just in case I'll tell you that most of us tend to see rape and molestation as violations of another's rights, which would make it an example of not "just being left alone". That would make it like the example of murder provided in my previous post, which was contrasted against crimes committed where no individual's rights are violated. Murder is an example of an action that does violate the rights of someone else, while drug use and consensual sex (which is different from non-consensual sex, including with a minor) were provided as examples of ones that don't violate the rights of another.

    I would have assumed someone educated about morality - or the law, which was dismissed in favor of the former - would have understood that distinction, but you know what they say about making assumptions. I'll try to avoid as much in the future to reduce the chance of another misinterpretation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    And that's the weasel word used right there: legally.

    "You can do whatever you like... as long as it is acceptable to me. Otherwise, I will use state authority against you to ensure your compliance."

    Both liberals and conservatives use state power to enforce their approved view of social life upon others. As long as one is acting as the judgement on what is or isn't legal, they're directly intervening in the lives of their fellow citizens.

    And that's without even moving into the distinction between actions that impact the rights of others (such as murder) versus acts that only offend the sensibilities of others (such as doing cocaine off a hooker's backside).
    Actually, the key word is morality, but I knew it would confuse you.

    Your argument is the same one we hear from pedophiles.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    The Right doesn't care what you legally do so long as you don't try to force acceptance upon them.
    And that's the weasel word used right there: legally.

    "You can do whatever you like... as long as it is acceptable to me. Otherwise, I will use state authority against you to ensure your compliance."

    Both liberals and conservatives use state power to enforce their approved view of social life upon others. As long as one is acting as the judgement on what is or isn't legal, they're directly intervening in the lives of their fellow citizens.

    And that's without even moving into the distinction between actions that impact the rights of others (such as murder) versus acts that only offend the sensibilities of others (such as doing cocaine off a hooker's backside).

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    You miss the point with the Right. They don't really give a $h!+ about that stuff. What pisses them off is government forcing it down their throats. If you wanted the PCP goat fer wedding they wouldn't really care until you want to make them accept it on a legal and public basis.
    Which is why they don't just want to be left alone: they want to be left alone AND to ensure the government promotes a social vision they are comfortable with.

    Being left alone means not caring what your neighbor does as long as you're free to do your own thing as well. You are still left alone even when the law allows me to run around my house naked and covered in honey.

    If conservatives really did "just want to be left alone" they'd be more libertarian in their approach to social issues. Then it doesn't matter about my goat-marriage being recognized by the state or not because it doesn't affect them.

    After all, lets just flip that around and examine it from the other side: I "just want to be left alone" to marry my goat in peace, but these damn interventionists keep erecting laws and intervening in my private life to prevent it and ensure their views dominate legally.

    You can't use the law to protect and promote your view on society and then claim you just want to be left alone without being a major hypocrite.

    You want a gay wedding cake? Find somebody who doesn't mind baking it. Don't force some uber religious baker to make it. But NOOOooo... The Left wants to force that recalcitrant baker to make it because...
    Oh absolutely, we know the left is interventionist and a statist ideology who meddle in social issues. But they're using the law to promote their social world view... just like conservatives who tried to force in a specific definition of what marriage was and exclude any who didn't meet those standards.

    Both the major parties are imminently guilty of this behavior, and they both justify it time and again by trying to avoid being seen like the other. Whether you're using the law to promote "family values" or a "equal society", you're using the state's authority to prevent other Americans from being "left alone".

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    You miss the point with the Right. They don't really give a $h!+ about that stuff. What pisses them off is government forcing it down their throats. If you wanted the PCP goat fer wedding they wouldn't really care until you want to make them accept it on a legal and public basis.
    You want a gay wedding cake? Find somebody who doesn't mind baking it. Don't force some uber religious baker to make it. But NOOOooo... The Left wants to force that recalcitrant baker to make it because...

    That's the problem with the Left. They want a literal fair and equal. They want everyone to have exactly the same stuff, think the same way, and be the same physically. To do that, they're more than willing to use the force of government to take it from you to give to your lazy @$$ed neighbor.

    Obama won twice on racism. Blacks voted overwhelmingly for him and that gave him about a 2 percentage point victory.

    Yes, Obama winning was a GOP victory because the Progressive Left in power always screws the pooch governing.
    Exactly.

    The Left is all about intolerance. They, like ISIS, demand that all must share only one belief system, and will use force to accomplish it.

    The Right doesn't care what you legally do so long as you don't try to force acceptance upon them.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X