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

And I said how one votes and the ability to evaluate someone's actions and culpability are not one in the same.

Why would I feel moved to vote for a party or candidate which I feel doesn't reflect my views just so a dolt like you can pretend doing so is some kind of idiotic representation of being fair-minded? The absurdity of this position astounds me. Point me in the direction of a Republican who fits my ideological thinking more so than does the Democratic or third party candidate and I'll vote for them.

You continually fail to understand the concept of an ideologically motivated vote, as in I vote based upon my beliefs. If a party identifies itself as conservative and I'm a pretty solid liberal, I don't know when they'll put forth a candidate which reflects the sort of governance which I want. Why is this so [dadgum] hard for you to get?

 

If someone is a jackass they are a jackass, like you for instance, an arrogant one to boot. but having the [uck fay]ing arrogance to call other people [uck fay]ing idiots for not agreeing on politics is ridiculous. People see things differently and neither one of you can handle it.

 

Uni did not say he voted straight dem.

The nuance comes in with what ssmiff intended with his post. If you want to pretend he meant that Uni literally voted dem with every single vote he cast over the last 20 years, that's your prerogative. Ssmiff's point was that Uni doesn't consider the other side of the aisle, which, in Uni's own words of not remembering voting for a Republican, seems to be a correct position.

If I say "IP always jumps in and inserts himself into my arguments with Uni" do you read it to mean that I think you literally have done that with every single argument I've had with Uni? I did say "always," didn't I?

No, of course not. You'd read it to mean it happens a lot, as intended.

 

You do call a lot of people names while simultaneously whining about them calling people names.

 

Nothing more exhausting then coming back to the forum and seeing:

 

I dont recall Uni and IP being on opposite sides of any political commentary. And usually feel the need to jump in and help each other. It's cute

 

It's what we do here, shithead

 

I wonder what Tenny thinks about the Capitol riots, Trump's responsibility for them, and this second impeachment. There's been a number of right-leaning folks on here who think he should have been impeached and removed for what happened. There's a few on here who don't. I wonder where Tenny falls.

 

It's convoluted to create some kind of equivalency with the speeches by Obama and Sanders with January 6th. I mean, if you can't live in the realm of reality, I don't know what to say to convince you how completely different those situations were. The Trump people took it waaaay too far, but were there specifically because Trump wanted them there. There were trying to overturn the election because that's what Trump wanted. Trump showed no interest in making the stop when prodded by his own supporters in Congress because Trump was fine with what they were doing as he noted in his response to McCarthy. In the end, Trump stated this is what happen when you try to steal the vote from him because he was fine they fought for him, as he demonstrated in his 6:01 pm tweet. It couldn't be more clearly laid out for you and the House Managers presentation was about as thorough and damning a take down as I've seen in such circumstances. If you need a higher threshold than this, then it really means you are simply interested in creating a threshold not reasonably attainable in giving the facade of being impartial.

So, like I said, it's not remotely the same and no serious person would, or should, make such connections. Merely being speeches where they criticize people or groups does not make it the same thing. It's simply the creation of a vague enough criteria and connection to satisfy the attempt to make them equal.

 

Other questions I've had:

• What percentage of the rioters came to DC legitimately intending to overthrow democracy and potentially even kill certain people as part of that process, and what percentage just sort of saw what was happening and went along with it?
  
  
• If the Capitol rioters were truly attempting to overthrow democracy and potentially even kill certain people as part of that process, why weren't they more heavily armed? Like, if I was truly attempting to stop the transfer of power by all means necessary, I feel like I would be much more heavily armed.
  
  
• I have seen a number of articles suggesting that many people were armed. If people were armed and legitimately wanted to overthrow democracy and potentially kill elected officials, how were more people not ultimately killed or injured during this thing? As far as I know, rioters didn't shoot and kill anyone, did they?

 

Again, you focus on such meaningless shit. You mean IP and I, who both have posted quite frequently on this board for years and have similar political ideologies, typically come to the same conclusion on a topic? You don't say!?!

Who gives a [uck fay]?

 

It's not convoluted at all. People literally asked if Obama incited the Dallas police shooting back in 2016. People literally asked Bernie incited the Congressional baseball shooting back in 2017. People pondered those questions. Ultimately, most people eventually came to agreement that they weren't responsible, but people didn't hate them with the same fervor as those who hate Trump. So here we are.

I know you think that it helps your argument when you say I don't live in the realm of reality because I disagree with you, but it doesn't. It just makes you look like a drama queen.

Trump wanting them there doesn't mean anything. That's like saying BLM organizers wanting people to gather for protests in cities where riots took place are responsible for the riots. They wanted them there! It's ridiculous.

Trump being fine with what they're doing doesn't equal him inciting them to do it. Trump is as egotistical as they come. I'm sure he not-so-secretly enjoyed the fact that people cared enough to do this sort of thing on his behalf. That doesn't mean he incited them to do it.

 

Obama didn't direct the Dallas shooter to go to the police office and stop something from happening. Bernie didn't tell the guy to go the baseball field. They didn't directly go from Obama or Sanders rallies, exhorted to do something or the country will, literally, be lost to them, saying you can't be weak, you have to be strong. The fact a few people came up with convoluted ideas that Sanders' or Obama's rhetoric incited these guys doesn't make the point any more valid. The situations were completely dissimilar.

He was the instigator, the immediate instigator. They were there at his beckoning. They were riled up at his beckoning. They went to the capitol at his beckoning. They tried to stop the vote at his beckoning. They would have stopped at his beckoning. The best, the very best, argument he could put forth is the actions went further than he intended. But, if you are the one which sets everything in motion and recklessly lights the fire, then you are held accountable for your actions.

 

You keep harping on the "telling them to go somewhere" piece, as if that's the part that matters. The part that matters is what they do when they arrive, and no one told them to do what they did, in any of the 3 situations. Also, smooth move writing off the Bernie and Obama pieces of the discussion. "A few people," lol.

Did they peacefully protest at his beckoning as well? He said peacefully protest during his speech, right? Did they do that?

 

lol, you sweet summer child. Only 4?

 

Thanks! I don't recall being in disagreement with Uni. I do think we've had different takes on things, albeit not in opposition. I think on some social issues we come to similar conclusions from different paths, in particular. Does that make us right? No. There is no "correct" on these things. It does mean that we have similar values. Heck, I've seen some here sneer at the mention of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" as a virtue in and of itself. I have a perspective on why it is. I am guessing Uni has a perspective on that, which is different because mine is quite weird. We're gonna show up to argue those points in the same exchange from the same "side" because we both see it as both a virtue and an American reality. It isn't about "helping each other." Open up a coffee shop, a bunch of damn beatnicks show up. Here we are.

 

The drop down box could only show 4. I believe there were 9 alerts, though the more exhausting part is that they were all from you, Uni, and Float.

 

Let's play spot the difference.

 

Then don't come back. That, or don't re-kick an argument that has already been had, because you know exactly what is going to happen. Or should know. The fact that you think something different is going to happen makes you... you.

 

The group/single person thing is a difference, but not one that is important for this discussion. Incitement is incitement, whether you're inciting one person or multiple people. If I make a speech saying that we should burn down Chick-fil-A because their owner hates gay people, I'm in hot water whether 1 person burns down a single Chick-fil-A or multiple people burn down multiple Chick-fil-A's.

And let's also not pretend that the Dallas shooting was the only example of a person committing violent acts against police officers during that period.