How to talk to Republicans who don't like "your facts" or facts in general.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

48 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

If you you truly believe that, then why did you vote for him TWICE? Because he delivered those judges before the elections. 

Because there was no downside to not voting for him from the perspective of supreme court nominations (and in fact, there was an incentive if you were to believe the adding seats to the court talk in the run-up of the election), in the off-chance another judge could prematurely pass between now and 2024. I say there is no downside because Joe Biden, to me, is not some horrible outcome from our binary, winner-take-all election.

I would suggest that for many of the tens of millions who voted for Trump--probably a good silent majority-- they aren't horrified by a Biden presidency for the next 4-8 years. Biden was absolutely the best-case scenario from the Democrat camp and I think we saw his cross-appeal (or begrudging comfort by most Republicans) in that he re-took independents/undecideds/battle-grounds. 

God bless Joe Biden, I say. He's not going to fundamentally change anything and he won't rock the apple cart too much when it comes down to it and, if the markets are any indication, the economy and wealth-building vehicles are looking forward to a return to a stability and stasis which I think is an appeal to everyone except the fringe lunatics on both sides (but especially the right side and on parlar) with nothing to lose. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by DonkeyCigars

[Nice Guy Eddie 13707]

1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

And I don't really watch the NFL anyway. (Do they even actually show the players kneeling on TV? I honestly don't know.)

Before it became a big deal, Fox and CBS would still have their pre-game show on during the national anthem. And fans at home are sitting on their couch. 

I have at least one conservative friend that brings up the NFL constantly on to let you know that he doesn't watch anymore. Great. No one cares.

[Brisketexan 106627]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Because there was no downside to not voting for him from the perspective of supreme court nominations (and in fact, there was an incentive if you were to believe the adding seats to the court talk in the run-up of the election), in the off-chance another judge could prematurely pass between now and 2024. I say there is no downside because Joe Biden, to me, is not some horrible outcome from our binary, winner-take-all election.

I would suggest that for many of the tens of millions who voted for Trump--probably a good silent majority-- they aren't horrified by a Biden presidency for the next 4-8 years. Biden was absolutely the best-case scenario from the Democrat camp and I think we saw his cross-appeal (or begrudging comfort by most Republicans) in that he re-took independents/undecideds/battle-grounds. 

God bless Joe Biden, I say. He's not going to fundamentally change anything and he won't rock the apple cart too much when it comes down to it and, if the markets are any indication, the economy and wealth-building vehicles are looking forward to a return to a stability and stasis which I think is an appeal to everyone except the fringe lunatics on both sides (but especially the right side and on parlar) with nothing to lose. 

Look guys, it's fun to shit on Donkey here because he voted for Trump (and we SHOULD shit on him.....because he voted for Trump), but I appreciate reading his perspective.  And from my limited personal experience with some Trumpkins (not all, but some), this is the take of a decent subset of them.  They're shrugging their shoulders and moving on, and do think that the more extreme element of their wing is nutbar.

That doesn't change the fact that the extreme Trumpkin element is dangerously large and super-toxic.  And that includes people who SHOULD be sane and rational -- educated professionals, etc. -- which is even more disturbing.

The "return to stability" isn't about policies -- we have had policies that have changed radically over the years (hey, black people can VOTE NOW!), but our institutions remained generally stable and were not assaulted.  That is the singular and horrific damage and danger of the Trumpkin movement -- not policy disagreements, but rather a foundational belief that our foundations of government 1) must be destroyed (and it turns out they can be, rather easily) and 2) we should replace them with a one-sided autocracy that will forever bar any alternative viewpoint from having a say in government.

[SydneyCarton 49325]

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Because there was no downside to not voting for him from the perspective of supreme court nominations (and in fact, there was an incentive if you were to believe the adding seats to the court talk in the run-up of the election), in the off-chance another judge could prematurely pass between now and 2024. I say there is no downside because Joe Biden, to me, is not some horrible outcome from our binary, winner-take-all election.

I would suggest that for many of the tens of millions who voted for Trump--probably a good silent majority-- they aren't horrified by a Biden presidency for the next 4-8 years. Biden was absolutely the best-case scenario from the Democrat camp and I think we saw his cross-appeal (or begrudging comfort by most Republicans) in that he re-took independents/undecideds/battle-grounds. 

God bless Joe Biden, I say. He's not going to fundamentally change anything and he won't rock the apple cart too much when it comes down to it and, if the markets are any indication, the economy and wealth-building vehicles are looking forward to a return to a stability and stasis which I think is an appeal to everyone except the fringe lunatics on both sides (but especially the right side and on parlar) with nothing to lose. 

So you're a single issue voter for the Supreme Court, which you'd already achieved. But you're ignoring the fact that, even as you admit to myriad and legion issues with him being and staying in office, you voted for him anyway with at best minimal upside for the courts. But with him attempting to tearing down democracy and promoting racial tension et al never factored into your math. Makes perfect fucking sense. 

 

 

[Serak The Preparer 3482]

21 hours ago, Enchubben said:

"Who built the cages, Joe?" Do you think the separating of illegal immigrant children from their parents started with Donald Trump?

 

18 hours ago, Serak The Preparer said:

Yes. It sounds like you don't, probably because you are misinformed. Let me ask you, do you think the separating of illegal immigrant children from their parents started with Donald Trump?

Hey @Enchubben, just asking questions and all, but do you think the separating of illegal immigrant children from their parents started with Donald Trump? Several people answered you but I can't seem to find a response from you for some reason.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

7 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

So you're a single issue voter for the Supreme Court, which you'd already achieved. But you're ignoring the fact that, even as you admit to myriad and legion issues with him being and staying in office, you voted for him anyway with at best minimal upside for the courts. But with him attempting to tearing down democracy and promoting racial tension et al never factored into your math. Makes perfect fucking sense. 

 

 

I'll join you, and everyone else, in the outrage and be on the front row of calling for his head if the clock hits double zero and he's still in the office refusing to leave. Until then, he's being a petty troll throwing a tantrum and trying to cause confusion and mayhem because he's a poor sport without a humble bone in his body. Completely on-brand for this guy (and by the way, completely legal, if indeed also in defiance of tradition, good taste and professionalism) and not something to catastrophize about in the "tearing down the literal piers of capital D Democracy that American exceptionalism created on the 8th day!" type of way I'm hearing from people who should be pleased at the new day.

Edited November 11, 2020 by DonkeyCigars

[wildcat09 29558]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Look guys, it's fun to shit on Donkey here because he voted for Trump (and we SHOULD shit on him.....because he voted for Trump), but I appreciate reading his perspective.  And from my limited personal experience with some Trumpkins (not all, but some), this is the take of a decent subset of them.  They're shrugging their shoulders and moving on, and do think that the more extreme element of their wing is nutbar.

That doesn't change the fact that the extreme Trumpkin element is dangerously large and super-toxic.  And that includes people who SHOULD be sane and rational -- educated professionals, etc. -- which is even more disturbing.

The "return to stability" isn't about policies -- we have had policies that have changed radically over the years (hey, black people can VOTE NOW!), but our institutions remained generally stable and were not assaulted.  That is the singular and horrific damage and danger of the Trumpkin movement -- not policy disagreements, but rather a foundational belief that our foundations of government 1) must be destroyed (and it turns out they can be, rather easily) and 2) we should replace them with a one-sided autocracy that will forever bar any alternative viewpoint from having a say in government.

The problem with not shitting on people like him is that, had Trump won, they would've also shrugged their shoulders and been fine with him rounding us up and putting us into camps. Most of them may not understand that because they like to think they're good people, but that's simply the truth. It's people like him who are the real danger, because there's many more of them than there are of the really extreme obvious monsters.

Edited November 11, 2020 by wildcat09

[Brisketexan 106627]

Just now, DonkeyCigars said:

I'll join you, and everyone else, in the outrage and be on the front row of calling for his head if the clock hits double zero and he's still in the office refusing to leave. Until then, he's being a petty troll throwing a tantrum and trying to cause confusion and mayhem because he's a poor sport without a humble bone in his body. Completely on-brand for this guy (and by the way, completely legal, if indeed in defiance of tradition, good taste and professionalism) and not something to catastrophize about in the "tearing down the literal piers of capital D Democracy that American exceptionalism created on the 8th day!".

Actually, you overestimate the strength of our democracy and institutions.  You've heard the phrase "America is an idea!"?  Well, it's also true to say that America (and really, any country and system of government) "is an agreement."  That's all it is.  It's a mutual agreement by the people in society that we'll accept and follow rules and norms, both written and unwritten.  All it takes to kill that -- seriously, all it takes -- is for enough people in positions of power to decide that they aren't going to follow them anymore.

Then it becomes rule of the fist/gun.

[SydneyCarton 49325]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I'll join you, and everyone else, in the outrage and be on the front row of calling for his head if the clock hits double zero and he's still in the office refusing to leave. Until then, he's being a petty troll throwing a tantrum and trying to cause confusion and mayhem because he's a poor sport without a humble bone in his body. Completely on-brand for this guy (and by the way, completely legal, if indeed also in defiance of tradition, good taste and professionalism) and not something to catastrophize about in the "tearing down the literal piers of capital D Democracy that American exceptionalism created on the 8th day!".

But you knew who he was. You knew who he was, and you'd achieved your Supreme Court goals, and 8 days ago you voted for him ANYWAY. And despite that, you were comfortable voting for a petty troll prone to throwing tantrums and happy to cause confusion and sew mayhem and who exists without a humble bone in your body. You knew this and THAT was the guy you selected to be your president. Because nothing has and could continue to go wrong with that. 

So even if you were a single issue voter, and having achieved your single issue, you chose to vote for him anyway. THIS is why many people on this site and in the world have issues with Trump voters and are happy to generalize them. Because of this shit right there. It's easy to be dismissive of people like this. "Well, sure, Hitler sucked, but look at the Autobahn!" 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Actually, you overestimate the strength of our democracy and institutions.  You've heard the phrase "America is an idea!"?  Well, it's also true to say that America (and really, any country and system of government) "is an agreement."  That's all it is.  It's a mutual agreement by the people in society that we'll accept and follow rules and norms, both written and unwritten.  All it takes to kill that -- seriously, all it takes -- is for enough people in positions of power to decide that they aren't going to follow them anymore.

Then it becomes rule of the fist/gun.

If the stress test that is Donny J Trump is enough to undue the American experiment, what does that mean? Serious question.

Does that mean that our fragile nation was a house of cards and civic studies propaganda about democracy and capitalism was so strong that we were unable to see we were leaving in the straw house when the run-of-the-mill wolf came a-blowing?

Does that mean DJT is such a force of brilliance and brains and charisma and "Great Man Theory" make-up that he was able to fell the great and might American empire and just bad luck we ran into the greatest and most able villain of all time?

Does it mean that America as an experiment, as evolved and outlived the controls and confines for which it was meant. It's unwieldy in population and values and geography and unable to be a controlled fire anymore due to the rapid expansion of technology and lightspeed spread of ideas?

Or maybe I don't take your point.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Had my meeting with a bunch of Trumpers this morning.  They spent most of the time shitting on Joe Biden.  Things like, “he’s going to fuck up my taxes if he can even remember what his plan is.”  Mostly just nonsense they hear off Fox News.  They shit on Cuomo too which was funny.  The good news is none are in denial about the election results. They’re ready to hate on Joe Biden all day. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

16 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

But you knew who he was. You knew who he was, and you'd achieved your Supreme Court goals, and 8 days ago you voted for him ANYWAY. And despite that, you were comfortable voting for a petty troll prone to throwing tantrums and happy to cause confusion and sew mayhem and who exists without a humble bone in your body. You knew this and THAT was the guy you selected to be your president. Because nothing has and could continue to go wrong with that. 

So even if you were a single issue voter, and having achieved your single issue, you chose to vote for him anyway. THIS is why many people on this site and in the world have issues with Trump voters and are happy to generalize them. Because of this shit right there. It's easy to be dismissive of people like this. "Well, sure, Hitler sucked, but look at the Autobahn!" 

I feel like I'm a reasonable guy and if you want to write me off as deplorable or piece of crap human being or whatever, I'll respect that and give you your space and not encroach, both online and in person. Which is what these posts are all about-- how do people interact and get along or have discussions with folks who voted for Trump, right?

My point was exactly what another poster made which was to just not discuss politics with friends, family or business partners. Even if they agree with you, it's a low value exercise in my opinion because everyone has internalized emotions and beliefs built around facts. One fact set can be shared by both a Trumpkin and an Antifa, and those two can both have such a different response and belief pattern arise out of that same fact set based on experiences, values, circumstances, motives, and ideals. 

I guess what I'm saying is that there are no such things that humans can abstract from the world as timeless, sacrosanct facts that stand on their own as a universal truth. (This is why, to me, people who say flatly "You are a nazi" or "you are evil" or whatever get immediately written off as unstable or unreasonable. Anyone who uses those terms for anyone who voted for Trump is employing a heuristic to short-cut the effort and level of thinking and I get it, it's exhausting and I don't judge them for doing it, but it's a tell to me). So any fact-based appeal or discussion or argument isn't going to be effective unless there is previous alignment on what those facts mean and you can sing from the same sheet of music.

And I'm fully aware that I'm not helping any cause here by belaboring points and using a lot of words to not say much, but I'm really trying to explain and express a perspective in a decent way that is unmoored of disrespect and insult and that I know is unpopular here, and apparently as the election told us last week, in America in 2020.

Edited November 11, 2020 by DonkeyCigars

[DonkeyCigars 143]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Had my meeting with a bunch of Trumpers this morning.  They spent most of the time shitting on Joe Biden.  Things like, “he’s going to fuck up my taxes if he can even remember what his plan is.”  Mostly just nonsense they hear off Fox News.  They shit on Cuomo too which was funny.  The good news is none are in denial about the election results. They’re ready to hate on Joe Biden all day. 

I think we will find in time these folks will enjoy a Biden presidency as well, but not for any of the right reasons.

I think inherently a lot of these folks viscerally understand that being the underdog or marginalized is actually more enjoyable than being in power. Disruptive movements thrive in the margins for a reason, and it's much more enjoyable for these folks to tune into the local squak box and be on the offensive, cribbing about every minor thing Biden does for the next 8 years, rather than having to play defense and deflect all the smoke that Trump got everyday. 

Plus their victim and persecution complex needs the oxygen that the Dems insulting them and being in power will give to conflagrate.

 

[SydneyCarton 49325]

44 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I feel like I'm a reasonable guy and if you want to write me off as deplorable or piece of crap human being or whatever, I'll respect that and give you your space and not encroach, both online and in person. Which is what these posts are all about-- how do people interact and get along or have discussions with folks who voted for Trump, right?

My point was exactly what another poster made which was to just not discuss politics with friends, family or business partners. Even if they agree with you, it's a low value exercise in my opinion because everyone has internalized emotions and beliefs built around facts. One fact set can be shared by both a Trumpkin and an Antifa, and those two can both have such a different response and belief pattern arise out of that same fact set based on experiences, values, circumstances, motives, and ideals. 

I guess what I'm saying is that there are no such things that humans can abstract from the world as timeless, sacrosanct facts that stand on their own as a universal truth. So any fact-based appeal or discussion or argument isn't going to be effective unless there is previous alignment on what those facts mean and you can sing from the same sheet of music.

And I'm fully aware that I'm not helping any cause here by belaboring points and using a lot of words to not say much, but I'm really trying to explain and express a perspective in a decent way that is unmoored of disrespect and insult and that I know is unpopular here, and apparently as the election told us last week, in America in 2020.

I think this is a pretty disingenuous post. And that's something something, because I personally agree with most of what you say. Political conversations are a low value proposition. I try to avoid them unless they're thrust on me, like my mother in law sneering at my wife because she voted for Biden and being rude. So I actively ACTIVELY, try not to have political conversations unless I can't escape it. And yes, American's need to find a way to communicate. Also, I'd like to point out I've been exceedingly polite in my interactions with you to this point. I haven't called you a deplorable. I've engaged you relatively tamely. 

But here is why your post is disingenuous, and let me spell out the point you've failed to perceive that I've been attempting to illustrate VERY explicitly. A fundamental problem (on both sides) with people finding ways to interact with with one another is because they don't fucking trust them. That's a both sides, thing, but I'll focus on my point of view since it's the one I'm most familiar. You and I have just exchanged several posts where you attempted to tell us why you voted for trump, admitted he was a child like shitbag with a mentality that probably shouldn't be in the highest office, AND he'd already gotten the justices you craved appointed, so his purpose was done. Then you voted for him again anyway with no more justices to fill. Realistically, as a critical thinker, after you acknowledged his failings and flaws, how is anyone supposed to trust a single thing that comes out of your mouth as heartfelt and genuine?. You keep coming here and throwing up your hands and saying "Whoa whoa I'm just talking" but your actions don't match your words, and you can't really account for your decision to vote for him the second time. It reeks of a man who knows he did something shitty and now wants to join normal society and shit on Trump without having to face any consequences or fallout from their choices. That's a hard pill for rational adults to swallow. But that's just my take on it. But absolutely, if we don't think we can take what you say at face value, well, there's a real communication problem there. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by SydneyCarton

[Brisketexan 106627]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The problem with not shitting on people like him is that, had Trump won, they would've also shrugged their shoulders and been fine with him rounding us up and putting us into camps. Most of them may not understand that because they like to think they're good people, but that's simply the truth. It's people like him who are the real danger, because there's many more of them than there are of the really extreme obvious monsters.

This is also true.  And why folks like Donkey need to wake the fuck up.  What made Germany horrific wasn't fanatical nazis.  It was ordinary folks, just wanting to do well, and have a great 401k, that sort of thing......going ALONG with an evil, destructive regime.  They are a necessary piece.  The bad shit can't happen without them and their support, either overt or tacit.

So....STOP THAT SHIT.  I don't care if his platform is nothing but ideas that you like, if his means of accomplishing them is "destroy our institutions and norms, so that his regime is not answerable for its actions," NOPE.  DO NOT support him.

If a coach comes to Texas and says "let me do things my way, and we'll win every game" (our goal), but I find out that "his way" is to physically threaten and harm the families of players on opposing teams in order to coerce them to throw the game to Texas, nope, I ain't hiring that guy.  The ends do not justify the means.  In fact, once you take a broad view of the world, the means matter MORE than the ends, because having valid and effective means/process that stand regardless of the agenda of a particular person or movement is necessary for ALL people to have a voice and  chance to have that voice heard.  Never, ever trust a "benevolent dictator" -- because once the word "dictator" is in play, "benevolent" is irrelevant.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

Weird, 

I don't know how that happened but I got my responses mixed into your quotes and it's probably just a mesh network of confusion to read.

Edited November 11, 2020 by DonkeyCigars

[DonkeyCigars 143]

To edit: in response to SydneyCarton's post about not being heartfelt.

 

Great post. Here is where I would say we got disconnected:

You say:

Then you voted for him again anyway with no more justices to fill.

I said and earlier up thread I mentioned:

Because there was no downside to not voting for him from the perspective of supreme court nominations (and in fact, there was an incentive if you were to believe the adding seats to the court talk in the run-up of the election), in the off-chance another judge could prematurely pass between now and 2024

To restate, because I responded to you directly and either I didn't land the point or you missed it:

I voted for Trump again in the off-chance that another justice could untimely or prematurely pass and he can fill the seats, as well as in defense of the chatter in the run-up to the election of a Dem president strategically and proactively adding seats to the supreme court to dilute what Trump accomplished. 

It's like when you have a Board of Directors with preferred equity, and there are 9. You don't want some cheap, new money flooding in to get 9 more board seats and diluting your power to vote on and set strategy with a bunch of noise, if that makes sense. You don't want that unless you are the current minority with strong opinions.

And I'll even offer something extraconversational here that I've said about my decision in the past on another thread that I haven't mentioned or referenced here:

I thought I had it in me to vote against Trump or write-in a candidate, but when push comes to shove I defaulted to what was easy and that was probably cowardice from a place of comfort and laziness and all the other flaws and negative attributes I have as a person. Or it might have been the right choice, for me. I am still processing.

My exact quote from November 3rd. Maybe this will help you with some additional context or damn me further in your eyes as disginenous. Heck I might be disgenious, I don't even know what that word means. I certainly can't spell it:

I thought I might not vote for Trump and had vaguely, sort of wishy-washily built up some mental justifications and a case for not doing so over the past few weeks in anticipation of it being crisis of self, but when it came down to the actual ballot and myself staring down that barrel, I reverted back to what was comfortable and easier for me to do (both socially/culturally and politically) and I voted for Trump again.

I don't know if I have kept my integrity or if I am a coward. Probably equal parts both, ammirite?

Edited November 11, 2020 by DonkeyCigars

[DonkeyCigars 143]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This is also true.  And why folks like Donkey need to wake the fuck up.  What made Germany horrific wasn't fanatical nazis.  It was ordinary folks, just wanting to do well, and have a great 401k, that sort of thing......going ALONG with an evil, destructive regime.  They are a necessary piece.  The bad shit can't happen without them and their support, either overt or tacit.

So....STOP THAT SHIT.  I don't care if his platform is nothing but ideas that you like, if his means of accomplishing them is "destroy our institutions and norms, so that his regime is not answerable for its actions," NOPE.  DO NOT support him.

If a coach comes to Texas and says "let me do things my way, and we'll win every game" (our goal), but I find out that "his way" is to physically threaten and harm the families of players on opposing teams in order to coerce them to throw the game to Texas, nope, I ain't hiring that guy.  The ends do not justify the means.  In fact, once you take a broad view of the world, the means matter MORE than the ends, because having valid and effective means/process that stand regardless of the agenda of a particular person or movement is necessary for ALL people to have a voice and  chance to have that voice heard.  Never, ever trust a "benevolent dictator" -- because once the word "dictator" is in play, "benevolent" is irrelevant.

I agree with you, which is why I stated if DJT tries to actually keep power after Jan 5th or whatever the turn-into-a-pumpkin date is, then off with his head.

And I think you are a very smart and reasonable poster from what I have gathered so I am really interested on an answer to the question posed upthread:

Hypothetically of course, if the stress test that is Donny J Trump is enough to undue the American experiment (or idea, as you put it), what does that mean?

Edited November 11, 2020 by DonkeyCigars

[Brisketexan 106627]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Hypothetically of course, if the stress test that is Donny J Trump is enough to undue the American experiment (or idea, as you put it), what does that mean?

It means we are weak, and always have been.  So, we should avoid submitting ourselves to stress tests that other western democracies have undergone.....and failed.  You think we're better than the Germans?  We're not.

[SydneyCarton 49325]

14 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

To edit: in response to SydneyCarton's post about not being heartfelt.

 

Great post. Here is where I would say we got disconnected:

You say:

Then you voted for him again anyway with no more justices to fill.

I said and earlier up thread I mentioned:

Because there was no downside to not voting for him from the perspective of supreme court nominations (and in fact, there was an incentive if you were to believe the adding seats to the court talk in the run-up of the election), in the off-chance another judge could prematurely pass between now and 2024

To restate, because I responded to you directly and either I didn't land the point or you missed it:

I voted for Trump again in the off-chance that another justice could untimely or prematurely pass and he can fill the seats, as well as in defense of the chatter in the run-up to the election of a Dem president strategically and proactively adding seats to the supreme court to dilute what Trump accomplished. 

It's like when you have a Board of Directors with preferred equity, and there are 9. You don't want some cheap, new money flooding in to get 9 more board seats and diluting your power to vote on and set strategy with a bunch of noise, if that makes sense. You don't want that unless you are the current minority with strong opinions.

And I'll even offer something extraconversational here that I've said about my decision in the past on another thread that I haven't mentioned or referenced here:

I thought I had it in me to vote against Trump or write-in a candidate, but when push comes to shove I defaulted to what was easy and that was probably cowardice from a place of comfort and laziness and all the other flaws and negative attributes I have as a person. Or it might have been the right choice, for me. I am still processing.

My exact quote from November 3rd. Maybe this will help you with some additional context or damn me further in your eyes as disginenous. Heck I might be disgenious, I don't even know what that word means. I certainly can't spell it:

 

 

Yeah, I read it the first time, which is why in my first response I said "limited upside." Your limited upside is one more justice maybe, of limited value when you own a 6-3 majority now. Where you are being DISINGENUOUS is when you say there's NO DOWNSIDE. You claim there is no downside to voting for him again after several posts saying you want him to GTFO, he is immature, an egomaniac unstable, etc. After years of evidence. THIS is why your posts are disingenuous. Because you just said a childlike piece of shit who has stoked racial tensions, ignored a pandemic, and seems only interested in himself over the needs of the American people, as has been demonstrated repeatedly over the last 4 years and YOU YOURSELF has admitted he is demonstrating RIGHT NOW with this non concession bullshit...THAT man deserves your vote because you don't see any downside. 

How can anyone take you seriously after that? So tell us, Donkey, do you see a potential downside NOW? 

Cowardice, comfort, and laziness. Now that I believe. 

[SydneyCarton 49325]

2 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I agree with you, which is why I stated if DJT tries to actually keep power after Jan 5th or whatever the turn-into-a-pumpkin date is, then off with his head.

And I think you are a very smart and reasonable poster from what I have gathered so I am really interested on an answer to the question posed upthread:

Hypothetically of course, if the stress test that is Donny J Trump is enough to undue the American experiment (or idea, as you put it), what does that mean?

I'll go ahead and field this one too. It means Democracy is fragile and people are fucking stupid. That's fine. 

So tell me, do you believe that democracy is fragile and people are stupid it means that millions of people deserve to suffer more than they are currently with the removal of democracy because...reasons? Please justify that to me. Because if it's "Well, it wasn't that iron clad so we should all live in a country like Russia" that's not a compelling argument either. Let me try a more stark illustration that is meant to be offensive. Just because I CAN overpower a woman and rape her forcibly, probably doesn't mean I should. But you know, I can. I just happen to find the idea horrific. Under your premise, if the American experiment can be overcome, I guess it's perfectly acceptable for it to be raped and tossed aside like so many Baylor Co-eds. Is that what you're saying?

[DonkeyCigars 143]

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yeah, I read it the first time, which is why in my first response I said "limited upside." Your limited upside is one more justice maybe, of limited value when you own a 6-3 majority now. Where you are being DISINGENUOUS is when you say there's NO DOWNSIDE. You claim there is no downside to voting for him again after several posts saying you want him to GTFO, he is immature, an egomaniac unstable, etc. After years of evidence. THIS is why your posts are disingenuous. Because you just said a childlike piece of shit who has stoked racial tensions, ignored a pandemic, and seems only interested in himself over the needs of the American people, as has been demonstrated repeatedly over the last 4 years and YOU YOURSELF has admitted he is demonstrating RIGHT NOW with this non concession bullshit...THAT man deserves your vote because you don't see any downside. 

How can anyone take you seriously after that? So tell us, Donkey, do you see a potential downside NOW? 

Cowardice, comfort, and laziness. Now that I believe. 

I think I see the disconnect now and it's completely my fault. When I said "no downside" I wasn't referring to a Trump presidency not having negatives or downsides, which after rereading seems to be what I was suggesting to you.

I was meaning that I was in a win/win situation in that if my candidate of choice, Trump, wins with his low probability upside (which is huge in reality, but limited in probability) and his downsides, then I would have felt good about four more years of his being able to hopefully set and steer to his strategy to which I'm most aligned, but if he loses, I'm more than comfortable with 4-8 years of Biden. There was no downside to me as a voter in whatever the result was on November 4th (or 8th as it were), was my point. Sorry for the confusion.

Read Brisket's post/response as an example of someone getting what I meant by downside if the above explanation doesn't help, maybe.

Edited November 11, 2020 by DonkeyCigars

[NWBuck 8619]

25 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Weird, 

I don't know how that happened but I got my responses mixed into your quotes and it's probably just a mesh network of confusion to read.

[SydneyCarton 49325]

2 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I think I see the disconnect now and it's completely my fault. When I said "no downside" I wasn't referring to a Trump presidency not having negatives or downsides, which after rereading seems to be what I was suggesting to you.

I was meaning that I was in a win/win situation in that if my candidate of choice, Trump, wins with his low probability upside (which is huge in reality, but limited in probability) and his downsides, then I would have felt good about four more years of his being able to hopefully set and steer to his strategy to which I'm most aligned, but if he loses, I'm more than comfortable with 4-8 years of Biden. There was no downside to me as a voter in whatever the result was on November 4th (or 8th as it were), was my point. Sorry for the confusion.

Read Brisket's post/response as an example of someone getting what I meant by downside if the above explanation doesn't help, maybe.

Right. So you don't care if America overall is worse off than it was 4 years ago, or would be worse of 4 years from how it is right NOW, as long as you have a shot to keep getting those justices. No other possible downside exists to counter a chance for justices, including an end to the fragile american experiment. Is that more or less accurate?

Because, again, how do you expect any rational person to take that position and not think it is, AT BEST, short sighted? Or Oblivious. Because it certainly seems, to ME, at the very least, selfish. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It means we are weak, and always have been.  So, we should avoid submitting ourselves to stress tests that other western democracies have undergone.....and failed.  You think we're better than the Germans?  We're not.

We are weak and have always been. So we should avoid stress tests. 

All I hear when you say this is the American Experiment/Idea and/or Democracy is a weak architecture and bad policy/government for the American people--a people of very disparate values, judgements, beliefs, experiences, and goals, across a very wide swath of land spanning very different geographical and regional needs and desires, interconnected through Cat-5 cable and 5G and the good of those in major metropolitan areas, but disconnected in almost every other way.

This is a very different conversation and topic of discussion for another thread and time, however, but I appreciate the response.

[atomheartbevo 90548]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I have at least one conservative friend that brings up the NFL constantly on to let you know that he doesn't watch anymore. Great. No one cares.

1234.  And my relatives/friends who have pulled that, I seriously doubt if they've ever seen anybody kneeling before a pre-game.

But when they do the "I don't watch the NFL anymore", I have a strong urge to say "fuck you, you quit watching because some player you don't care about, on a team you don't care about, kneeled, which you didn't even see, and meanwhile I quit watching over 20 years ago because that shitbag that took human form by the name of Bud Adams, took my team to another state and renamed them.  Fuck you, you're a shitty fan."

[Enchubben 5598]

1 hour ago, Serak The Preparer said:

 

Hey @Enchubben, just asking questions and all, but do you think the separating of illegal immigrant children from their parents started with Donald Trump? Several people answered you but I can't seem to find a response from you for some reason.

No i do not.  I think the policies were already in place that required separation of adults from children. By prosecuting adult illegal immigrants, those policies that were already in place resulted in the separation of children from parents. 

I think it increased during Trump's presidency (potentially significantly) because a lot more illegal immigrants were caught and prosecuted during his presidency. As far as I can tell, they also didn't start tracking those figures until 2018. Weird how that works.

So no, I don't think Trump sat in some dark room and pondered how to separate immigrant kids from families and then passed laws to separate them. More got separated because of his zero tolerance policy.  Now if you want to argue that we should be jailing the children as well with their parents then that is your prerogative. I would prefer them be placed in proper foster care or with relatives until their parent's cases are figured out.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Enchubben
country grammar

[Foosters 18225]

1 minute ago, Enchubben said:

No i do not.  I think the policies were already in place that required separation of adults from children. By prosecuting adult illegal immigrants, those policies that were already in place resulted in the separation of children from parents. 

I think it increased during Trump's presidency (potentially significantly) because a lot more were illegal immigrants were caught and prosecuted during his presidency. As far as I can tell, they also didn't start tracking those figures until 2018. Weird how that works.

So no, I don't think Trump sat in some dark room and pondered how to separate immigrant kids from families and then passed laws to separate them. More got separated because of his zero tolerance policy.  Now if you want to argue that we should be jailing the children as well with their parents then that is your prerogative. I would prefer them be placed in proper foster care or with relatives until their parent's cases are figured out.

They literally sat in rooms and discussed separating children from adults. This was not an escalation of an existing policy. You're free to "think" the policies were already in existence. Just know that is fiction.

[Brisketexan 106627]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

We are weak and have always been. So we should avoid stress tests. 

It starts with the fact that we have never, ever reckoned with our original sin of slavery (and the embedded racism that it was built upon, or the long continuation of its legacy via Jim Crow).  It continues with our repeated lie to ourselves about "American Exceptionalism," which is a religious dogma that prohibits any introspection or problem solving (how dare you say we have problems?  We are perfect!  Any suggestion of solutions is heresy!).

There have always been bases for division, but they all seem to come back to some common threads.  Occasionally, they result in war -- they did 160 years ago.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

I don't think American democracy is any more fragile than any other democratic-type government anywhere in the world.  They all operate with the consent of the governed or the people.  But that consent should be rather easily revoked, at least by the democratic process, in extremis by revolt.

But when the governed give blanket, irrevocable consent to a ruler, or a party, or even an anti-democratic ideal, the whole enterprise is endangered.  Because when the people give up their right to revoke consent by the democratic process, the only remaining option is revolution.

Edited November 11, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29558]

Y'all, enchubben is trolling. Don't bother engaging with him.

[Brisketexan 106627]

4 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

So no, I don't think Trump sat in some dark room and pondered how to separate immigrant kids from families and then passed laws to separate them.

Then you are a dumbfuck, either by ignorance or on purpose, because....

1 minute ago, Foosters said:

They literally sat in rooms and discussed separating children from adults. This was not an escalation of an existing policy. You're free to "think" the policies were already in existence. Just know that is fiction.

This is EXACTLY what happened.  And the admitted reason was to use those actions as a form of terrorism, to strike fear into parents to discourage asylum seekers.

So, you are either a liar or breathtakingly ignorant.  

[Enchubben 5598]

1 hour ago, Serak The Preparer said:

 

Hey @Enchubben, just asking questions and all, but do you think the separating of illegal immigrant children from their parents started with Donald Trump? Several people answered you but I can't seem to find a response from you for some reason.

@Foosters @Serak The PreparerHere are some links for you that show this is not fiction:

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-27/presidential-immigration-debate-fact-check-and-who-built-the-cages

Are you suggesting that we should not prosecute people for crossing the border illegally? Or are you suggesting we jail children while the parents await trial etc? 

[Brisketexan 106627]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because when the people give up their right to revoke consent by the democratic process, the only remaining option is revolution.

This.  It's the elimination of he option of "revoking consent by democratic process" that is the danger.  When a ruling person/party pulls up the ladder behind them, so they/their regime are functionally beyond challenge through democratic means.....the bad, bad thing is the elimination of that option.  Because it puts the people in a position where their only option, if they want any change in course, is violent revolution.

The entire reason for HAVING a democratic process is to AVOID a process of regime change by competing violent acts of force.

[wildcat09 29558]

God damnit Brisket, what did I just say?

Enchubben knows Jeff Sessions' DOJ crafted the new policy. He knows Sessions held a press conference with an enormous shit-eating grin on his face announcing the new policy. He's just fucking with y'all. It's part of the playbook.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

8 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'll go ahead and field this one too. It means Democracy is fragile and people are fucking stupid. That's fine. 

So tell me, do you believe that democracy is fragile and people are stupid it means that millions of people deserve to suffer more than they are currently with the removal of democracy because...reasons? Please justify that to me. Because if it's "Well, it wasn't that iron clad so we should all live in a country like Russia" that's not a compelling argument either. Let me try a more stark illustration that is meant to be offensive. Just because I CAN overpower a woman and rape her forcibly, probably doesn't mean I should. But you know, I can. I just happen to find the idea horrific. Under your premise, if the American experiment can be overcome, I guess it's perfectly acceptable for it to be raped and tossed aside like so many Baylor Co-eds. Is that what you're saying?

This is an intense post but I appreciate the attempt to drive the stark contrast, as you said.

I fundamentally believe that if the American experiment can be overcome by something BETTER, then it should be rationalized. The monkey wrench in the works is that term BETTER. What does better mean to you? What does it mean to me? What does it mean to the 40% of Americans who voted for Trump? What does it mean to 60% of Americans that voted for Biden?

 

[Brisketexan 106627]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I fundamentally believe that if the American experiment can be overcome by something BETTER, then it should be rationalized.

If your idea of "BETTER" involves autocracy and a reduction in answerabilty of the governing class, it is by definition NOT "BETTER."  Means/mechanism are more important than ends.

I may have the best ideas in the world for governing this country.  But if the MEANS of me implementing them is to make me the Grand Emperor, Answerable to Nobody (and I actively demonize and punish anyone who did not agree with my plan), then that is a non-starter.  Because the only mechanism left for the disaffected (those fools who disagree with my brilliant platform) is violence.

[SydneyCarton 49325]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

This is an intense post but I appreciate the attempt to drive the stark contrast, as you said.

I fundamentally believe that if the American experiment can be overcome by something BETTER, then it should be rationalized. The monkey wrench in the works is that term BETTER. What does better mean to you? What does it mean to me? What does it mean to the 40% of Americans who voted for Trump? What does it mean to 60% of Americans that voted for Biden?

 

Oh, I see. You're going to equivocate. Well, the folks form the Handmaid's Tale certainly think it's better for men to subjugate women. Racists think it's great to subjugate blacks and jews. Lets be certain to take their feelings into account. Actually, lets not. Because some things AREN'T actually that tricky. It's pretty easy to say that "The democratic model that until recently was the envy of the world is better than Not Democracy."
 

So why don't you tell us the "Something better" that you think your vote for Donald Trump represented. Please, be specific, unlike his complete lack of a 2nd Term agenda he refused to put forth, or a party Platform that was just "More Donald Trump." You're implying that your vote for Trump could represent something BETTER than American Democracy. So by all mean, tell us what that means to you.

[Enchubben 5598]

18 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Y'all, enchubben is trolling. Don't bother engaging with him.

Just because you don't like the answer, it doesn't mean its trolling. It was stated upthread that republicans like putting children in cages. Besides that being an absurd generalization about tens of millions of people, its false. It was also stated that children were not separated from parents prior to Trump - also blatantly false as provided above.

The goal of a zero-tolerance policy was to limit illegal immigration, true. To do that, you have to enforce the law and detain and charge people that break it.  That means you either need to either jail children with their parents while they await trial and deportation, or put them in proper care while it gets figured out. I would rather the children be under the care of relatives or foster care while that is done. It sounds like you prefer the kids in prison/cages. Or I guess in your perfect world we never arrest them to begin with and we have open borders. So which is it ?

Edited November 11, 2020 by Enchubben

[DonkeyCigars 143]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If your idea of "BETTER" involves autocracy and a reduction in answerabilty of the governing class, it is by definition NOT "BETTER."  Means/mechanism are more important than ends.

I may have the best ideas in the world for governing this country.  But if the MEANS of me implementing them is to make me the Grand Emperor, Answerable to Nobody (and I actively demonize and punish anyone who did not agree with my plan), then that is a non-starter.  Because the only mechanism left for the disaffected (those fools who disagree with my brilliant platform) is violence.

I agree with you. When I say better, I mean a stronger democracy.

I think ultimately the problem is that America has grown, through manifest destiny, explosive population growth, and immigration, that democracy as we exercise it actually does not do a great job of aligning the people's desires/will with the direction and strategy of the country. At best the straight throughput is what? 50-60% these days? Meaning 40% of Americans, amounting to what? 150mm people? feeling disconnected and unheard and unrepresented.

That is a fundamental problem. And it is a both sides problem, which fuels the division and creates a grand canyon between reasonable conversations, I think.

Edited November 11, 2020 by DonkeyCigars

[SydneyCarton 49325]

2 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I agree with you. When I say better, I mean a stronger democracy.

I think ultimately the problem is that America has grown, through manifest destiny, explosive population growth, and immigration, that democracy as we exercise it actually does not do a great job of aligning the people's desires/will with the direction and strategy of the country. At best the straight throughput is what? 50-60% these days? Meaning 40% of Americans, amounting to what? 150mm people? feeling disconnected and unheard and unrepresented.

That is a fundamental problem.

Yes. Do you want feel Trump improved that disconnection, after 4 years?

[DonkeyCigars 143]

12 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Oh, I see. You're going to equivocate. Well, the folks form the Handmaid's Tale certainly think it's better for men to subjugate women. Racists think it's great to subjugate blacks and jews. Lets be certain to take their feelings into account. Actually, lets not. Because some things AREN'T actually that tricky. It's pretty easy to say that "The democratic model that until recently was the envy of the world is better than Not Democracy."
 

So why don't you tell us the "Something better" that you think your vote for Donald Trump represented. Please, be specific, unlike his complete lack of a 2nd Term agenda he refused to put forth, or a party Platform that was just "More Donald Trump." You're implying that your vote for Trump could represent something BETTER than American Democracy. So by all mean, tell us what that means to you.

I think you conflated two different streams of conversation (I think it got muddy when you responded to a conversation Brisket and I were having in a different swim lane). My vote for Trump had nothing to do with my belief in my thought that America needs something better if DJT is the stress test that breaks the American experiment/idea.

[ndawg 1242]

8 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I agree with you. When I say better, I mean a stronger democracy.

I think ultimately the problem is that ... democracy as we exercise it actually does not do a great job of aligning the people's desires/will with the direction and strategy of the country. At best the straight throughput is what? 50-60% these days? Meaning 40% of Americans, amounting to what? 150mm people? feeling disconnected and unheard and unrepresented.

That is a fundamental problem.

You're not even looking at the problem. Where do "people's desires/will" come from?

[DonkeyCigars 143]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yes. Do you want feel Trump improved that disconnection, after 4 years?

I don't think he improved that disconnection, nor do I think any President could at this point with how long the cake has been in the oven. Is it a noble goal? Sure. Is it the will of the people? Not so sure. Seems like people want to make things black or white. Either you are a socialist or a nazi. Evil or good. etc.

Here is what I personally think and I could be wrong:

I think that the divide is as extreme as it ever will be.

I think that due to demographics and culture that it is overwhelmingly likely that the GOP/Republicans/Trump voters will never be the majority again in America.

I think eventually the progressive wave and democrat ethic will be the American standard.

I think if you are a GOP/Trump/Republican as defined by the last 4 years (read: not a former conservative), you'd do well to adapt and get along to get along. Find a way to carve out a pocket of life you can enjoy. This is all temporary anyways.

[Gourmand 7778]

nm

Edited November 11, 2020 by Gourmand

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It starts with the fact that we have never, ever reckoned with our original sin of slavery (and the embedded racism that it was built upon, or the long continuation of its legacy via Jim Crow).  It continues with our repeated lie to ourselves about "American Exceptionalism," which is a religious dogma that prohibits any introspection or problem solving (how dare you say we have problems?  We are perfect!  Any suggestion of solutions is heresy!).

There have always been bases for division, but they all seem to come back to some common threads.  Occasionally, they result in war -- they did 160 years ago.

I would like to amend your first sentence slightly to "we have never, ever reckoned with our original sin of slavery and oppression. Without a doubt, slavery is the most egregious and heinous sin, but the oppression has always been paired alongside of it and followed it and has thwarted any meaningful attempts at introspection, reconciliation, or atonement. When slavery existed, it set as the cultural standard (of the time) that oppression was justified, that groups of others, however they may be classified into such groups, could and should be subjugated or persecuted regardless of whether it was codified into law, according to religious scriptures, or as violations of some mythical standard. (i.e. the Jared Kushner X people are lazy sentiment). That it continues in its present and institutionalized forms, that we have not reckoned with either in an honest and forthright manner seems to have led us to our current situation. As you said, bases for division have always existed, but the oppression was baked in to exist during and after so that power would not be easily forfeited.

 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

1 minute ago, ndawg said:

You're not even looking at the problem. Where do "people's desires/will" come from?

Assigning desire/will from votes is what I was doing; open to a different framework or methodology to measure this, but I don't think VOC will work with 380mm people.

[Brisketexan 106627]

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I think that due to demographics and culture that it is overwhelmingly likely that the GOP/Republicans/Trump voters will never be the majority again in America.

I think eventually the progressive wave and democrat ethic will be the American standard.

I think that these both SHOULD be true.  But realizing that they SHOULD be true, the GOP and its supporters have taken the path of "if we can't have/control the country, NOBODY can!"  They'd rather destroy it and make everyone suffer than give up power.  

 

6 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I think if you are a GOP/Trump/Republican as defined by the last 4 years (read: not a former conservative), you'd do well to adapt and get along to get along. Find a way to carve out a pocket of life you can enjoy. This is all temporary anyways.

That SHOULD be their path.  But see above.

The GOP/Trump ethic is one built on making the other suffer, being cruel to the other, bullying and denigrating the other, and punishing the other as being disloyal to Trump (and thus being disloyal to America, because they are one and the same).  If you looked at them as wanting things that are about policy -- a reasonable chance to succeed and build a decent life, for example -- then your suggested path makes sense.  But Bubba in Montgomery County doesn't think there's any way for him to succeed that doesn't involve building a giant wall and ensuring that he never hears nobody talk Mexican at the Kroger ever again!, and shit like that.  

The GOP/Trump ethic is utterly incompatible with compromise, with building on shared values and goals, etc.  It is built entirely -- and I mean ENTIRELY -- on division and demonization.  Take away those concepts from Trumpism, and what do you have left?  Grift -- shuttling tax dollars to Trump pockets.  That's really it.  There's no other "there" there.  So, that's a big fucking problem.

[ndawg 1242]

13 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Assigning desire/will from votes is what I was doing; open to a different framework or methodology to measure this, but I don't think VOC will work with 380mm people.

Our democracy is doing a great job of putting people into government that represent "us." However, they are representing our identity, not our interests. The vast majority of Americans have got no idea how to craft policy that balances individual liberty with improving the common good. Nor do they have the capability of seeing value through the lens of other people, so they can't negotiate. By electing those who represent their identity, they put people into power who are as clueless and stubborn as them.

Edited November 11, 2020 by ndawg

[Horn Dog 10156]

39 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

@Foosters @Serak The PreparerHere are some links for you that show this is not fiction:

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-27/presidential-immigration-debate-fact-check-and-who-built-the-cages

Are you suggesting that we should not prosecute people for crossing the border illegally? Or are you suggesting we jail children while the parents await trial etc? 

From the fact check link that you posted:

In defending its “zero tolerance” border policy that has caused the separation of families, the Trump administration has argued that the Obama and Bush administrations did this too. That’s misleading. Experts say there were some separations under previous administrations, but no blanket policy to prosecute parents and, therefore, separate them from their children.

“Previous administrations used family detention facilities, allowing the whole family to stay together while awaiting their deportation case in immigration court, or alternatives to detention, which required families to be tracked but released from custody to await their court date,” Brown and her co-author, Tim O’Shea, wrote in an explainer piece for the Bipartisan Policy Center’s website. “Some children may have been separated from the adults they entered with, in cases where the family relationship could not be established, child trafficking was suspected, or there were not sufficient family detention facilities available. … However, the zero-tolerance policy is the first time that a policy resulting in separation is being applied across the board.”

Jeh Johnson, DHS secretary under the Obama administration, told NPR earlier this month that he couldn’t say that family separations “never happened” during his tenure. “There may have been some exigent situation, some emergency. There may have been some doubt about whether the adult accompanying the child was in fact the parent of the child. I can’t say it never happened but not as a matter of policy or practice. It’s not something that I could ask our Border Patrol or our immigration enforcement personnel to do,” Johnson said. 

 

So in summary, did it ever happen under Obama?  Yes, under rare circumstances where there was no other viable options.  Is this the same as what the Trump administration was doing?  No,  and to imply otherwise is dishonest.