POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

I don't defend every conservative/Republican. I've called out ssmiff on multiple occasions.

 

looks like he didn't vote straight ticket, and smiff made that up. go ahead and get on him like you did unimane. go ahead and give a mea culpa to unimane. you having no agenda and are just a middle of the road guy with no real bias, this should be no problem. you are so reasonable, why you are probably typing those posts already. right?

 

Hm, so you deem those with a like perspective as fair, but those who do not are, coincidently, not so. The number of times criticizing someone or voting has absolutely nothing to do with "fairness", by the way.

 

so not both sides?

 

What conservative on this site said they have never voted dem?
That's what I thought. If you are gonna butt into a debate where your political buddy called people [uck fay]ing idiots for not agreeing with him, get your shit straight

 

Nuance is a thing. When ssmiff says that Uni has voted straight ticket for 2 decades, I don't take it to literally mean that Uni has voted Democrat with every single vote he has ever cast in the last 20 years. I take it to mean that Uni is set in his ways and doesn't really consider the opposite side of the aisle. The "I don't remember voting for a Republican" part confirms.

 

He said he'd never voted republican. You and he can't deflect and semantic your way out of it, so maybe sit this one out.

 

The idea that I have to throw in a Republican vote here and there to prove I'm not "set in my ways" is absurd. If I vote on ideology and I'm pretty clearly a lefty, which Republican should I have voted for?

It's a rhetorical question. I know who and why I've voted for each time and it isn't due to this ridiculous idea I had to spread out the vote a few times to prove some kind of authenticity. In fact, the times I didn't vote Democrat was due to the fact they weren't lefty enough.

 

It's a stupid [uck fay]ing idea that who you vote for matters, completely and utterly [uck fay]ing stupid. The details of the case merit the only determination and your ridiculous obsession with "teams" is the only reason we are having this discussion, as in the idea of one voting for one side or the other makes any bit of difference for one noting how foolish it is for someone to not see the obvious implications of Trump's guilt.

 

He's not saying that you have to vote for a Republican. He's just pointing out that you don't, ever, and so are obviously biased in any conversation that naturally pits Republicans against Democrats. You are always (always, in the literal meaning of the term, not the bull shit one, like when you claim I always defend Republicans/Trump) going to side with the Democrat/left leaning person/point/argument. Doesn't matter how incorrect the person/point/argument is. You come into the conversation with a pre-determined position.

 

Just classic. you stated a premise, and even asked a question rhetorically. every response contradicted your claim. unimane said he had voted third party some. you have failed to internalize this and keep repeating your original claim, now proven false. you yourself even said you know Republicans that vote straight R to block the other side, but now have moved the goal posts to "on this forum."

 

My point was simple. You said people were [uck fay]ing idiots for not believing Trump was guilty of insurrection, urging people to storm the capitol.
I think someone who votes in every election for 25 years, and never feels moved to vote for the opposing party on any level is a bigger [uck fay]ing idiot, whether red or blue. It means said person is simple-minded, biased, and incapable of seeing anything other than what they want to see. Yeah I said it, so deal with it.

 

If nuance is a thing, you have to admit he did not say he voted straight dem, that smiff has invented this, and should be calling that out like you did when you mistakenly though unimane made something up. but you are not. Because nuance only works one way with you. wonder why.

 

You deflect better than hockey goalie. Stay in you lane and stfu, you dont know what you are talking about here and I've explained it two or 3 times.
And yes I do know republicans who have done that, and like you and uni, they are [uck fay]ing idiots

 

oh my stars, name calling! You trail hypocrisy like a slug leaves slime.

 

You mean I'm going to favor the ideological position which fits my own ideological position? If so, that describes everyone, which is why one holds that ideological position.

If the argument is I've voted for mostly Democrats, so I can't reasonably be "fair" in discussions of an event such as this regarding a fair evaluation of a person's actions is completely absurd and utterly arrogant. It's a fallacy of the highest order. It's based upon a non-thinking idea of "teams", as if it were like I'm merely a fan in a football game.

 

I was told it's what we do here and always have, so am joining the fun, you [uck fay]ing douchebag

 

I know when a poster says he votes third party, it means isn't voting straight ticket. that's not a lane, that's the plane of reality in which we exist. I literally cannot leave it. to say he votes straight ticket with one party is just a lie.

 

cry more about name calling, it is funny.

 

No, I don't. I defend him when I don't think the criticism being levied against him is justified.

I wouldn't call the majority of people at the January 6th rally unstable. I think desperate and not in the right state of mind describes many of those who committed crimes well. And no, I've never said they just happened to, coincidentally, be there. They were gathered there by Trump to protest what he claimed was a fraudulent election.

The arguments are not convoluted at all. They are actually quite succinct. Bernie Sanders said things that one of his followers heard and then took waaaaaay too far when he shot up a Republican baseball game. Trump said things that a group of his followers heard and took waaaaaaay too far when they stormed the Capitol. Obama said things about police officers that one of his followers heard and took waaaaaay to far when he shot a dozen cops in Dallas. All of these men said things that their followers heard and took way too far. None of these men is responsible for the actions of those followers because none of those men told those followers to do what they did.

I never said they were "random crazies." I don't really see why Trump's situation including a mob makes it any different from the other examples. I don't see why the number of people puts it in a different ball park. That'd be like me saying the Bernie and Obama situations were worse because those folks went in with guns and the intention to kill.