Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10617
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 12:00 |
^ Re Prof Panglos: I agree with your assessment that trump is not a true conservative. More accurately he is an authoritarian demagogue with personal views that don't always match any previous labels. Personally I would prefer an intelligent conservative such as William Weld over trump any day. I consider trump to be a wannabe dictator with no respect for rules and laws. I consider him dangerous to our democratic republic and would love to see some republican like Adam Kinzinger to take him on in 2024. Kinzinger would bury him in a debate.
Edited by Easy Money - October 13 2021 at 12:11
|
|
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10617
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 12:03 |
^ What trump is lacking that makes him different from true conservatives is he doesn't get the idea of small limited government, trump is all about a very intrusive big government with no sense of frugality or borders.
|
|
JD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 07 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 18446
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 12:35 |
ProfPanglos wrote:
[EDIT]a) Don't really consider Trump a "conservative." b) Don't consider myself a "conservative" or "Republican" either. My views about politics are probably closer related to Libertarian ideas, or probably more accurately, Anarchist to some degree. I dislike government in general, and think there should be a lot less of it. I think the US Constitution has served the country well, generally speaking, but I don't think the Constitution is the "end all, be all" and am not certain it is sufficient to serve the country as it currently exists. c) Think our government is rife with corruption on both sides of the aisle, and in the last couple of decades at least exists only to perpetuate a broken system for the sole purpose of amassing profit and power. d) Think that the American people (myself included) find it easy to blame government for the ills of society, when in fact the American people (myself included) are really not that... governable, and are also plenty responsible for perpetuating these various "ills."
Anyway, I'm up for discussion. I think your language about "treason" and "a movement of totalitarians" is a bit overblown, as is some of the language I've seen in the news about the so-called "insurrection." I don't see this as much different than what I've witnessed at leftist "protests" - as soon as a protest turns violent, and people get shot, or buildings are set on fire, or private property is looted, the leftist protesters say it was the doing of "bad actors" and not the real, peace-loving protesters. And yes, Democrat politicians have sometimes "encouraged" it and participated in it. It's never malicious or treasonous or reprehensible when leftists do it, but when probably the majority of the media outlets bend left (and hate Trump), and when Democrats (who also hate Trump) are in power, Trump is portrayed as the evil of evils and a wannabe Hitler. |
I'd like to point out a few things if I may... On your items 'a' thru 'd', I accept the honesty with which you present your position. For the most part, I feel the same way about our government here in Canada, (whoever is in power) but lean decidedly left of centre and in some cases hard left. But here is where I think you are missing a point in your argument. You're concerned about the terms "treason and totalitarian" being used and use the term "so-called insurrection" but they are completely appropriate terms for what took place. You can't compare it to any "protest" from the left because those were not directed specifically at a government building/institution during an event that was specifically tied to election outcomes as was the Jan. 6 event. It was treasonous because it was against a government process. I would also say this whole comparison to Hitler stuff is a right wing smoke screen. I have certainly heard plenty of prominent 'D's" use the term Authoritarian or even Dictator, but I have NEVER heard one of them invoke Hitler's name. Perhaps some minor outlier may have said it, but they don't count for 5hit in my book.
Edited by JD - October 13 2021 at 12:36
|
Thank you for supporting independently produced music
|
|
ProfPanglos
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 25 2017
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 624
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 12:35 |
Easy Money wrote:
^ What trump is lacking that makes him different from true conservatives is he doesn't get the idea of small limited government, trump is all about a very intrusive big government with no sense of frugality or borders. |
Well, he did slash a lot of government regulations, didn't he? In that regard, he was undoing (or trying to, anyway) a more "intrusive big government" than his predecessors.
|
DIGNITAS - FIRMITAS - GRAVITAS - COMITAS - LIBERTAS
|
|
ProfPanglos
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 25 2017
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 624
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 12:53 |
JD wrote:
ProfPanglos wrote:
[EDIT]a) Don't really consider Trump a "conservative." b) Don't consider myself a "conservative" or "Republican" either. My views about politics are probably closer related to Libertarian ideas, or probably more accurately, Anarchist to some degree. I dislike government in general, and think there should be a lot less of it. I think the US Constitution has served the country well, generally speaking, but I don't think the Constitution is the "end all, be all" and am not certain it is sufficient to serve the country as it currently exists. c) Think our government is rife with corruption on both sides of the aisle, and in the last couple of decades at least exists only to perpetuate a broken system for the sole purpose of amassing profit and power. d) Think that the American people (myself included) find it easy to blame government for the ills of society, when in fact the American people (myself included) are really not that... governable, and are also plenty responsible for perpetuating these various "ills."
Anyway, I'm up for discussion. I think your language about "treason" and "a movement of totalitarians" is a bit overblown, as is some of the language I've seen in the news about the so-called "insurrection." I don't see this as much different than what I've witnessed at leftist "protests" - as soon as a protest turns violent, and people get shot, or buildings are set on fire, or private property is looted, the leftist protesters say it was the doing of "bad actors" and not the real, peace-loving protesters. And yes, Democrat politicians have sometimes "encouraged" it and participated in it. It's never malicious or treasonous or reprehensible when leftists do it, but when probably the majority of the media outlets bend left (and hate Trump), and when Democrats (who also hate Trump) are in power, Trump is portrayed as the evil of evils and a wannabe Hitler. | I'd like to point out a few things if I may...On your items 'a' thru 'd', I accept the honesty with which you present your position. For the most part, I feel the same way about our government here in Canada, (whoever is in power) but lean decidedly left of centre and in some cases hard left. But here is where I think you are missing a point in your argument. You're concerned about the terms "treason and totalitarian" being used and use the term "so-called insurrection" but they are completely appropriate terms for what took place. You can't compare it to any "protest" from the left because those were not directed specifically at a government building/institution during an event that was specifically tied to election outcomes as was the Jan. 6 event. It was treasonous because it was against a government process. I would also say this whole comparison to Hitler stuff is a right wing smoke screen. I have certainly heard plenty of prominent 'D's" use the term Authoritarian or even Dictator, but I have NEVER heard one of them invoke Hitler's name. Perhaps some minor outlier may have said it, but they don't count for 5hit in my book.
|
I understand you, and see your point, but the word "insurrection" means "a usually violent attempt to take control of a government." I don't think the people who broke into and "stormed" the building were "attempting to take control of the government." Rather, I think they were protesting the election results, and got caught-up in the moment (much like the "bad actors" who apparently do all the looting and etc. in other protests) to the point that they broke the law and did something entirely stupid.
How much Trump himself, or his loyals in government, aided, abetted, and encouraged the actual break-in - I do not know.
I wasn't trying to smoke-screen anything by using the term "Hitler." Here's one from CNN, but CNN does indeed also "count for 5hit in my book" - both Clyburn & Nadler are cited in the article - so there's that, and even if they did not use the actual word "Hitler," the comparison is obvious. But CNN as an organization, hates Trump and supports the left over the right, so such nonsense is to be expected from them, and from people like Nadler.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/politics/james-clyburn-trump-hitler-comparison/index.html
Edited by ProfPanglos - October 13 2021 at 13:02
|
DIGNITAS - FIRMITAS - GRAVITAS - COMITAS - LIBERTAS
|
|
JD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 07 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 18446
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 13:42 |
ProfPanglos wrote:
JD wrote:
ProfPanglos wrote:
[EDIT]a) Don't really consider Trump a "conservative." b) Don't consider myself a "conservative" or "Republican" either. My views about politics are probably closer related to Libertarian ideas, or probably more accurately, Anarchist to some degree. I dislike government in general, and think there should be a lot less of it. I think the US Constitution has served the country well, generally speaking, but I don't think the Constitution is the "end all, be all" and am not certain it is sufficient to serve the country as it currently exists. c) Think our government is rife with corruption on both sides of the aisle, and in the last couple of decades at least exists only to perpetuate a broken system for the sole purpose of amassing profit and power. d) Think that the American people (myself included) find it easy to blame government for the ills of society, when in fact the American people (myself included) are really not that... governable, and are also plenty responsible for perpetuating these various "ills."
Anyway, I'm up for discussion. I think your language about "treason" and "a movement of totalitarians" is a bit overblown, as is some of the language I've seen in the news about the so-called "insurrection." I don't see this as much different than what I've witnessed at leftist "protests" - as soon as a protest turns violent, and people get shot, or buildings are set on fire, or private property is looted, the leftist protesters say it was the doing of "bad actors" and not the real, peace-loving protesters. And yes, Democrat politicians have sometimes "encouraged" it and participated in it. It's never malicious or treasonous or reprehensible when leftists do it, but when probably the majority of the media outlets bend left (and hate Trump), and when Democrats (who also hate Trump) are in power, Trump is portrayed as the evil of evils and a wannabe Hitler. | I'd like to point out a few things if I may...On your items 'a' thru 'd', I accept the honesty with which you present your position. For the most part, I feel the same way about our government here in Canada, (whoever is in power) but lean decidedly left of centre and in some cases hard left. But here is where I think you are missing a point in your argument. You're concerned about the terms "treason and totalitarian" being used and use the term "so-called insurrection" but they are completely appropriate terms for what took place. You can't compare it to any "protest" from the left because those were not directed specifically at a government building/institution during an event that was specifically tied to election outcomes as was the Jan. 6 event. It was treasonous because it was against a government process. I would also say this whole comparison to Hitler stuff is a right wing smoke screen. I have certainly heard plenty of prominent 'D's" use the term Authoritarian or even Dictator, but I have NEVER heard one of them invoke Hitler's name. Perhaps some minor outlier may have said it, but they don't count for 5hit in my book.
|
I understand you, and see your point, but the word "insurrection" means "a usually violent attempt to take control of a government." I don't think the people who broke into and "stormed" the building were "attempting to take control of the government." Rather, I think they were protesting the election results, and got caught-up in the moment (much like the "bad actors" who apparently do all the looting and etc. in other protests) to the point that they broke the law and did something entirely stupid.
How much Trump himself, or his loyals in government, aided, abetted, and encouraged the actual break-in - I do not know.
I wasn't trying to smoke-screen anything by using the term "Hitler." Here's one from CNN, but CNN does indeed also "count for 5hit in my book" - both Clyburn & Nadler are cited in the article - so there's that, and even if they did not use the actual word "Hitler," the comparison is obvious. But CNN as an organization, hates Trump and supports the left over the right, so such nonsense is to be expected from them, and from people like Nadler.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/politics/james-clyburn-trump-hitler-comparison/index.html
| "a usually violent attempt to take control of a government" This is exactly what they were trying to do.
"Rather, I think they were protesting the election results, and got
caught-up in the moment (much like the "bad actors" who apparently do
all the looting and etc. in other protests) to the point that they broke
the law and did something entirely stupid."
Right...they BROKE THE LAW, that law is the one that allows for insurrection charges (18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection...Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or
insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws
thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.). So again...completely appropriate. Being caught up in the moment is a moot point.
|
Thank you for supporting independently produced music
|
|
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10617
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 13:44 |
ProfPanglos wrote:
Easy Money wrote:
^ What trump is lacking that makes him different from true conservatives is he doesn't get the idea of small limited government, trump is all about a very intrusive big government with no sense of frugality or borders. |
Well, he did slash a lot of government regulations, didn't he? In that regard, he was undoing (or trying to, anyway) a more "intrusive big government" than his predecessors. |
Unfortunately his way of limiting government tends to be in areas in which I think the government can be helpful, such as protecting clean air and clean water for future generations. His tendency towards big government comes out in his lack of frugal spending limits, and attempts to control free trade and something that may seem like a small thing but is indicative of a bigger problem; that is his attempt to coerce people to stand for the flag. His admiration for dictators also shows a lack of understanding limited government.
Edited by Easy Money - October 13 2021 at 13:48
|
|
ProfPanglos
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 25 2017
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 624
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 14:04 |
JD wrote:
"a usually violent attempt to take control of a government" This is exactly what they were trying to do. |
We'll have to agree to disagree then, because I don't think any of those people were prepared to, or intended to, "take control of a government." What were they going to do? Don their Armani suits and start legislating? Haha, I don't think so. They were out to cause trouble, did so, and now they're in trouble for doing so.
But I still think "insurrection" is an inaccurate term for what happened. I mean, I just honestly don't think those knuckleheads were trying to "take control of a government." The media sure likes that word, "insurrection," but words have specific meanings and I just don't agree. Yes, it was stupid; yes, it was illegal, but no, I don't think it was some kind of attempted coup d'etat.
Edited to add, just so there is no confusion: I'm not at all condoning what they did. I'm just disagreeing with you on their intentions, and on the use of loose definitions of the word "insurrection."
Edited by ProfPanglos - October 13 2021 at 14:06
|
DIGNITAS - FIRMITAS - GRAVITAS - COMITAS - LIBERTAS
|
|
ProfPanglos
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 25 2017
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 624
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 14:30 |
Easy Money wrote:
Unfortunately his way of limiting government tends to be in areas in which I think the government can be helpful, such as protecting clean air and clean water for future generations. |
I agree with you, to a degree. I think in terms of environmental areas, there has to be some equilibrium somewhere, but I think the different factions in our government can't seem to find it. Enacting limitations and restrictions on ourselves to make our air and water cleaner by outsourcing production to other countries only accomplishes three things, from what I can see:
a) Our air and water becomes cleaner b) The air and water of the countries that supply our outsourced needs becomes more polluted, but since it's not us, we don't care c) We become dependent upon other nations instead of being more self-sufficient
But in general terms, I'm all for slashing government regulations with reckless abandon.
Easy Money wrote:
His tendency towards big government comes out in his lack of frugal spending limits, and attempts to control free trade and something that may seem like a small thing but is indicative of a bigger problem; that is his attempt to coerce people to stand for the flag. His admiration for dictators also shows a lack of understanding limited government. |
Agree, mostly. My only point of disagreement is that trade agreements should be mutually beneficial, and if they are one-sided (and not in our favor), then they should indeed be re-negotiated - which I think Trump was trying to do. I honestly don't know how successful he was at it, or if he was successful at all - but I approve of the theory.
And while I do agree with you about coercing people to stand for the flag being wrong, that seems far less onerous to me than coercing people to get a vaccine that they don't want. Coercion, in any form, I'm against. And it's entirely laughable to me that I see news articles that say things like "Mandates work - just look at the numbers of the vaccinated going up!" Of course threats, punishments, and coercion works. It's just not a very good method in a so-called "free" society.
Edited by ProfPanglos - October 13 2021 at 14:34
|
DIGNITAS - FIRMITAS - GRAVITAS - COMITAS - LIBERTAS
|
|
JD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 07 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 18446
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 14:38 |
ProfPanglos wrote:
JD wrote:
"a usually violent attempt to take control of a government" This is exactly what they were trying to do. |
We'll have to agree to disagree then, because I don't think any of those people were prepared to, or intended to, "take control of a government." What were they going to do? Don their Armani suits and start legislating? Haha, I don't think so. They were out to cause trouble, did so, and now they're in trouble for doing so. |
Seriously ?? Not Prepared ??
How is this not prepared? Did they just happen to find their military wear on the street and decide to put it on??
And what's with RoboCop in the lower right corner? Did he get lost on his way to Comic-Con?? I'm sorry, your statements just don't seem to hold up.
|
Thank you for supporting independently produced music
|
|
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10617
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 14:48 |
Just look at what other conservatives who have tried to work with trump have to say about him, for instance a short list would include: General Mattis General Bolton Rex Tillerson Mitch McConnell Stephanie Grisham If you want I can google a much longer list of conservatives who have dealt with him directly who know he is a danger to this country, both by design and/or incompetence.
Edited by Easy Money - October 13 2021 at 14:51
|
|
ProfPanglos
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 25 2017
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 624
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 15:05 |
JD wrote:
ProfPanglos wrote:
JD wrote:
"a usually violent attempt to take control of a government" This is exactly what they were trying to do. |
We'll have to agree to disagree then, because I don't think any of those people were prepared to, or intended to, "take control of a government." What were they going to do? Don their Armani suits and start legislating? Haha, I don't think so. They were out to cause trouble, did so, and now they're in trouble for doing so. | Seriously ?? Not Prepared ??
How is this not prepared? Did they just happen to find their military wear on the street and decide to put it on??
And what's with RoboCop in the lower right corner? Did he get lost on his way to Comic-Con?? I'm sorry, your statements just don't seem to hold up.
|
You're posting a couple of pictures of what - 4 people, or 9 people, wearing camo (Oh No!) maybe a couple wearing a hard-shell helmet - and Mr. Robocop... and *that* is your definition of an active attempt of a coup d'etat of the United States of America? Please. If you have any evidence of these people carrying automatic weapons, portable rocket launchers, bombs, and such other weapons - I'll gladly concede that it was an "insurrection" attempt. Until then, your picture actually proves my point that these were simply troublemakers who had zero intention of actually "overthrowing" the government.
Maybe a select few of these people were indeed *wanting* to overthrow the government; maybe some even wanted to cause bodily harm (or even kill) certain politicians - and those people would indeed be insurrectionists deserving of the stiffest penalties of law. But to classify the entire incident, or day, or protest as an insurrection makes no sense to me.
|
DIGNITAS - FIRMITAS - GRAVITAS - COMITAS - LIBERTAS
|
|
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10617
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 15:28 |
The number one problem with trump is that he does not see himself as part of an orderly democratic republic following the rules established by our founding fathers, rather he sees himself as an autocrat, the CEO of the country who is the lone person in charge. His speech at the 2016 repub convention made this very clear.
What policies do the repubs stand for now, no one knows, they just follow the orders of their Caligula styled autocratic demagogue. Did the repubs even have a platform in 2020?
|
|
ProfPanglos
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 25 2017
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 624
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 15:44 |
Easy Money wrote:
The number one problem with trump is that he does not see himself as part of an orderly democratic republic following the rules established by our founding fathers, rather he sees himself as an autocrat, the CEO of the country who is the lone person in charge. His speech at the 2016 repub convention made this very clear.
What policies do the repubs stand for now, no one knows, they just follow the orders of their Caligula styled autocratic demagogue. Did the repubs even have a platform in 2020? |
I agree. But for the record, it goes both ways. What is it exactly that the Democrats stand for? Limited government? Ahahahahaha!
Just my opinion, and probably an oversimplification, but the real #1 problem with Trump is the blindness of his supporters, and the manufactured hate they have for Biden - and the real #1 problem with Biden is... the blindness of his supporters, and the manufactured hate they have for Trump.
Again, as stated earlier, I don't think the country is really very governable. It's a problem with *us* - not just the knuckleheads running the show. But if they can keep us all at each other's throats, their throats (and fame, and fortune) are safe.
|
DIGNITAS - FIRMITAS - GRAVITAS - COMITAS - LIBERTAS
|
|
ProfPanglos
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 25 2017
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 624
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 15:46 |
Often, the impression I get is that Democrats think Republicans are stupid. And Republicans think Democrats are stupid.
And the Republicans and Democrats in government think all of us are stupid.
I mean, how many times has Trump lied to us? How many times has Biden lied to us? Or McConnell? Or Pelosi?
It's not a contest... my point is, *we* just sit here and are somehow okay with being lied-to by all of them and argue amongst ourselves about which "leader" is less-compromised. And we keep voting them in, thereby giving them our consent to be governed by them.
It just illustrates the amount of compromise we allow in our own lives.
Edited by ProfPanglos - October 13 2021 at 15:53
|
DIGNITAS - FIRMITAS - GRAVITAS - COMITAS - LIBERTAS
|
|
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10617
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 16:00 |
^ Well this is why I don't belong to a party nor welcome any easy labels or watch network news. BUT, given the options, I do think trump is the bigger danger to the country, I would gladly support a republican who will stand up to him, or person of any party.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 65248
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 17:22 |
ProfPanglos wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
Where are our conservative members who had been joining this conversation? No longer interested in discussing the treason of your leaders? Stopped wanting to chat about the criminals the Republican party continues to not only support but gleefully endorse? The appalling actions of what has revealed itself to be a movement of totalitarians who'd like to see Trump and his endorsees stay in office for life?
Is there anybody out there ... ? | I'm here, and happy to talk politics as long as it remains civil... sometimes political conversations devolve into insults and/or personal attacks, and I'd lose interest if that happened. Plus, I don't like labels. While I did vote for Trump in 2020, I didn't vote for him in 2016, and I:
a) Don't really consider Trump a "conservative." b) Don't consider myself a "conservative" or "Republican" either. My views about politics are probably closer related to Libertarian ideas, or probably more accurately, Anarchist to some degree. I dislike government in general, and think there should be a lot less of it. I think the US Constitution has served the country well, generally speaking, but I don't think the Constitution is the "end all, be all" and am not certain it is sufficient to serve the country as it currently exists. c) Think our government is rife with corruption on both sides of the aisle, and in the last couple of decades at least exists only to perpetuate a broken system for the sole purpose of amassing profit and power. d) Think that the American people (myself included) find it easy to blame government for the ills of society, when in fact the American people (myself included) are really not that... governable, and are also plenty responsible for perpetuating these various "ills."
Anyway, I'm up for discussion. I think your language about "treason" and "a movement of totalitarians" is a bit overblown, as is some of the language I've seen in the news about the so-called "insurrection." I don't see this as much different than what I've witnessed at leftist "protests" - as soon as a protest turns violent, and people get shot, or buildings are set on fire, or private property is looted, the leftist protesters say it was the doing of "bad actors" and not the real, peace-loving protesters. And yes, Democrat politicians have sometimes "encouraged" it and participated in it. It's never malicious or treasonous or reprehensible when leftists do it, but when probably the majority of the media outlets bend left (and hate Trump), and when Democrats (who also hate Trump) are in power, Trump is portrayed as the evil of evils and a wannabe Hitler.
There are plenty of things about Trump that I dislike - but I voted for him in 2020 because (as stated earlier) there were plenty of his policies and quirks that I approved of (and still do).
In my perfect and imaginary world, there would be a 2024 election boycott, and no one would vote for anyone. Can you imagine how scared the fops and corrupt politicians (Republican and Democrat) would then be? All their efforts to keep the greater society divided and at each other's throats would've failed, and they'd realize they no longer have the consent of the people to govern them, and maybe they'd get their collective sh*t together and make some decisions which actually helped people instead of decisions made to line their own pockets and keep themselves in power.
But I'm not holding my breath for that one.
Edited to add: Also, while I enjoy talking politics, it's certainly not why I come to this forum, and I'm not an "activist" about anything. I'm an "inactivist" LOL. The typical "hot button" issues that people like to argue about don't interest me much. Abortion, racism, immigration, etc. - blah blah blah (to quote that climate-change advocate kid Greta). Just doesn't interest me.
My biggest complaint about American socio-politics (and I suppose it isn't just an "American" issue, but an international one) is the demand for conformity of thought, and the various coercive, manipulative attempts by government, media, academia, and even just individual citizens to try to shape my thinking. The whole vaccine-mandate thing is a perfect example. I don't want the vaccine. That doesn't make me "anti-vax" (I've not just visited, but resided for multiple years in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe over the decades, and been vaccinated from here to eternity and never had any problem with it.) In my later years, I've developed a healthy skepticism for the medical and pharmaceutical industry. I never get flu shots. So now we have a new and more dangerous (but still relatively harmless) flu called covid-19. I'm not afraid of covid. Nor am I afraid of the vaccine, but I don't yet have any real level of trust in it (to not have as-yet-unknown adverse long-term side-effects), nor do I see it as a very effective vaccine overall. The fear-factor of this flu has been greatly overstated/promoted, and I see people wearing masks outside with no other human being around them for a radius of 200 feet. What are they so afraid of? Fresh air? That's not "science," nor is it even common sense. It's irrational fear, and it's the product of propaganda, not science.
| I think what those who support Trump (both in government and in the public) don't grasp is how much Americans like their peace & quiet. The vast majority of US citizens of all political spectrums want to live in an orderly, law-abiding country. In the long run, the people that put that at risk will suffer the most politically. You claim that you and most Americans are "not governable" ... bullsh*t. The question is: do most Americans want a government ? Unfortunately for your position, the answer is 'Yes'.
There is no "Demand for conformity of thought" and that misunderstands the big picture. For instance, recently some Trump supporters have claimed Dems want to abolish private property ownership. Really? Oh I don't think so. Liberals own at least as much property as conservatives, and it demonstrates the hysteria around who wants freedom vs. who wants regulation.
You voted for someone who is encouraging violence upon fellow citizens.
You
Voted
For
A
Sociopath.
Own it, don't toss it off as being a "Libertarian", and take responsibility for it.
Edited by Atavachron - October 13 2021 at 17:35
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
|
ProfPanglos
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 25 2017
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 624
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 18:25 |
Atavachron wrote:
I think what those who support Trump (both in government and in the public) don't grasp is how much Americans like their peace & quiet. The vast majority of US citizens of all political spectrums want to live in an orderly, law-abiding country. In the long run, the people that put that at risk will suffer the most politically. You claim that you and most Americans are "not governable" ... bullsh*t. The question is: do most Americans want a government ? Unfortunately for your position, the answer is 'Yes'.
There is no "Demand for conformity of thought" and that misunderstands the big picture. For instance, recently some Trump supporters have claimed Dems want to abolish private property ownership. Really? Oh I don't think so. Liberals own at least as much property as conservatives, and it demonstrates the hysteria around who wants freedom vs. who wants regulation.
You voted for someone who is encouraging violence upon fellow citizens.
You
Voted
For
A
Sociopath.
Own it, don't toss it off as being a "Libertarian", and take responsibility for it.
|
LMAO, in the same post you say there's no demand for conformity of thought, and then demand that I "own" your very biased perspective.
I'll call your bullsh*t and raise you 2.
See, it's your kind of "in your face" attack-post that makes political discussions boring for me. I already "owned" that I voted for Trump, with a several-point explanation for *why* I did so. If I was ashamed of it, I'd say so - but I'm not.
But yeah, I guess I shoulda voted for the new stable genius in office, whose "exit strategy" plan for Afghanistan included a viral video with Afghanis falling out of the sky from a USAF jet, the deaths of 12 US military members and over 100 Afghanis dead, and, oh yeah, that "righteous" drone strike that killed an aid worker and 9 members of his family. And all that in just 2 weeks!
You didn't vote for *that* sociopath, did you?
Edited by ProfPanglos - October 13 2021 at 18:25
|
DIGNITAS - FIRMITAS - GRAVITAS - COMITAS - LIBERTAS
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Online
Points: 65248
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 18:29 |
I don't demand anything-- you voted for Donald Trump, sir, a disturbed, racist hack who is on the wrong side of history.
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
|
ProfPanglos
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 25 2017
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 624
|
Posted: October 13 2021 at 18:39 |
Well, enjoy the comfort of your opinion.
|
DIGNITAS - FIRMITAS - GRAVITAS - COMITAS - LIBERTAS
|
|