Poll
Question:
Who would you vote for?
Option 1: US: Biden
votes: 25
Option 2: US: Trump
votes: 1
Option 3: US: Third party
votes: 2
Option 4: US: Null vote / won't vote
votes: 3
Option 5: ROTW: Biden
votes: 22
Option 6: ROTW: Trump
votes: 1
Option 7: ROTW: Third party
votes: 0
Option 8: ROTW: Null vote / won't vote
votes: 2
I guess we should have one of these now the candidates have been picked.
2016 results:
Donald Trump 7 (12.7%)
Hillary Clinton 35 (63.6%)
Third Party 6 (10.9%)
Will not vote 4 (7.3%)
Undecided 3 (5.5%)
I will never vote, though I hope Biden wins.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 18, 2020, 07:37:14 AM
I will never vote, though I hope Biden wins.
This message was brought to you by the central committee of the Chinese Communist Party.
:lol:
I'd have voted for someone else in the primaries, but I'd vote Dem nevertheless.
Ohhh tough choice, the living embodiment of all that is wrong with the modern world or a generic politician.
Quote from: Tyr on April 18, 2020, 02:16:03 PM
Ohhh tough choice, the living embodiment of all that is wrong with the modern world or a generic politician.
He's got two votes already.
Definitely Kodos.
Third party, I guess. I got my absentee primary ballot in the mail today. Trump is running unopposed in Ohio. Should I: null vote?
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2020, 06:16:59 PM
Third party, I guess. I got my absentee primary ballot in the mail today. Trump is running unopposed in Ohio. Should I: null vote?
Which is a vote against replacing him.
Spicey supporting Trump again?
Quote from: mongers on April 18, 2020, 08:33:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2020, 06:16:59 PM
Third party, I guess. I got my absentee primary ballot in the mail today. Trump is running unopposed in Ohio. Should I: null vote?
Which is a vote against replacing him.
No. It's still not a vote for Trump. I understand derspiess' reasoning. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Regardless, it's not a vote for Trump. In Ohio, that matters.
Quote from: merithyn on April 18, 2020, 09:22:29 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 18, 2020, 08:33:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 18, 2020, 06:16:59 PM
Third party, I guess. I got my absentee primary ballot in the mail today. Trump is running unopposed in Ohio. Should I: null vote?
Which is a vote against replacing him.
No. It's still not a vote for Trump. I understand derspiess' reasoning. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Regardless, it's not a vote for Trump. In Ohio, that matters.
It's the way you vote for Trump so you can pretend you didn't vote for Trump.
"If you're not with us, you're against us."
Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 19, 2020, 12:54:45 AM
"If you're not with us, you're against us."
Well yes. If you do something that helps keep Trump in power, you are quite literally against us...and yourself for thst matter.
Voting for anyone not named Donald Trump(or not voting at all) does literally nothing to help Trump get elected.
I've voted third party in every Presidential election I've been old enough to vote in as I live in New York State and know it will go blue. I am unsure if this is the year I change that though if only to express my extreme hate of the current occupant of the White House. I really don't like Biden, but I'll be damned if Trump staying won't be immensely worse for everyone.
At risk of restating the obvious tautological point, doing anything other than voting for Biden in November will make it incrementally more likely that Trump will win, as opposed to the alternative of voting for Biden. If one is OK with that, OK but them's the hard facts.
A quick disclaimer, after 23 years of living in the United States, I still have not become a citizen so I won't actually be voting. If I were however it would be Biden.
I liked Sanders, Warren and Yang to a lesser extent and hoped they would all do well in the primary. I don't care for Biden at all and there's some obvious problems with him as a candidate, but we have to get Trump out of the whitehouse as a matter of urgency and the Republicans as far away from government as we can wherever possible.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 19, 2020, 12:31:31 PM
At risk of restating the obvious tautological point, doing anything other than voting for Biden in November will make it incrementally more likely that Trump will win, as opposed to the alternative of voting for Biden. If one is OK with that, OK but them's the hard facts.
Sorry, the point may be tautological, but it's not contrarian enough, so it can't be right.
Attacking neutrals is a good way to create opponents.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 19, 2020, 02:51:07 PM
Attacking neutrals is a good way to create opponents.
Don't see how. They are already not voting for Biden. They are childish if pointing out the issues with that makes them spite vote for Trump.
Well, I was making a broader point, but even in this particular case that's hardly a refutation. People ARE childish.
I think the broader point Eddie was making is that shaming is often not the most effective means of persuasion.
At this point, what would be the best means of persuasion?
Maths?
Biden = 2 votes against Trump
Other = 1 vote against Trump
If someone is not persuaded to vote against Trump (not just abstaining, but against) at this point, there isn't much that will convince them.
Quote from: Tyr on April 19, 2020, 05:16:48 PM
Maths?
Biden = 2 votes against Trump
Other = 1 vote against Trump
Exactly.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 19, 2020, 05:10:53 PM
At this point, what would be the best means of persuasion?
Something that appeals to their core values I would say.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 19, 2020, 12:31:31 PM
At risk of restating the obvious tautological point, doing anything other than voting for Biden in November will make it incrementally more likely that Trump will win, as opposed to the alternative of voting for Biden. If one is OK with that, OK but them's the hard facts.
It really isn't that difficult is it, JR.
Not everyone lives in a swing state. A lot of votes for President are more or less wasted/unnecessary due to the way the system is set up. Appealing to the need for down ballot voting in non-swing states I think is a much better usage of time and effort than making blanket statements condemning anyone who doesn't vote Biden.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2020, 06:01:27 PM
Something that appeals to their core values I would say.
What would those be? I mean - that would convince them in voting Democrat/against Trump.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on April 19, 2020, 06:38:56 PM
Not everyone lives in a swing state. A lot of votes for President are more or less wasted/unnecessary due to the way the system is set up. Appealing to the need for down ballot voting in non-swing states I think is a much better usage of time and effort than making blanket statements condemning anyone who doesn't vote Biden.
I agree as far as down ballot voting is concerned, or for populations for whom voting already comes with significant investment of resources. However, results are being, and will be, very much part of the political rhetoric in the upcoming election. There is a not insignificant possibility that Trump will undermine the very legitimacy of the election, and the legitimacy of the results. In these circumstances, there is a great symbolic value in sending numbers that overwhelmingly demonstrate a rejection of the GOP, and a greater symbolic value for conservatives to actually make that decision.
It will also piss off Trump a great deal if he wins the electoral college and loses the popular vote again. And honestly, that about as good as we are going to get.
Trump will lose, and we'll trade one crazy geezer for another.
You don't see a difference between the two?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2020, 07:16:53 PM
It will also piss off Trump a great deal if he wins the electoral college and loses the popular vote again. And honestly, that about as good as we are going to get.
I think the voters will be pissed, not Trump ;)
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 19, 2020, 08:33:02 PM
You don't see a difference between the two?
They're both crazy geezers, at least.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 19, 2020, 07:13:59 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on April 19, 2020, 06:38:56 PM
Not everyone lives in a swing state. A lot of votes for President are more or less wasted/unnecessary due to the way the system is set up. Appealing to the need for down ballot voting in non-swing states I think is a much better usage of time and effort than making blanket statements condemning anyone who doesn't vote Biden.
I agree as far as down ballot voting is concerned, or for populations for whom voting already comes with significant investment of resources. However, results are being, and will be, very much part of the political rhetoric in the upcoming election. There is a not insignificant possibility that Trump will undermine the very legitimacy of the election, and the legitimacy of the results. In these circumstances, there is a great symbolic value in sending numbers that overwhelmingly demonstrate a rejection of the GOP, and a greater symbolic value for conservatives to actually make that decision.
What if you're a right-of-centre voter who wants to demonstrate a rejection of Trump, but not necessarily the GOP?
If I was in a non-swing state (and if I was an American) I would vote for some kind of third-party or write-in candidate in order to send some kind of signal about my preferences.
If I was in a swing state I would vote for Biden.
Quote from: derspiess on April 19, 2020, 08:28:59 PM
Trump will lose, and we'll trade one crazy geezer for another.
Well here is hoping. Biden is a different kind of crazy at least.
Quote from: Valmy on April 19, 2020, 11:03:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 19, 2020, 08:28:59 PM
Trump will lose, and we'll trade one crazy geezer for another.
Well here is hoping. Biden is a different kind of crazy at least.
What kind of crazy is Biden?
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2020, 11:14:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 19, 2020, 11:03:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 19, 2020, 08:28:59 PM
Trump will lose, and we'll trade one crazy geezer for another.
Well here is hoping. Biden is a different kind of crazy at least.
What kind of crazy is Biden?
He says weird shit and Bidens about but when it comes to actual policy and running the government he seems to know his stuff. The people who know him personally seem to like him and respect him, more than I can say for Donald.
I am way more concerned about him leading the party through an election than I am him leading an administration. I think he will do fine and basically be Obama's 3rd term.
Quote from: Valmy on April 19, 2020, 11:20:20 PM
He says weird shit and Bidens about but when it comes to actual policy and running the government he seems to know his stuff. The people who know him personally seem to like him and respect him, more than I can say for Donald.
I am way more concerned about him leading the party through an election than I am him leading an administration. I think he will do fine and basically be Obama's 3rd term.
Saying weird shit makes you crazy now?
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2020, 11:28:49 PM
Saying weird shit makes you crazy now?
Makes you sound crazy. Him going off about his hairy legs turning blond in the sun.
But crazy in a folksy "ol Uncle Joe" kind of way.
What this sounds like to me is an over-eagerness to accept false balance narratives.
Quote from: DGuller on April 20, 2020, 12:15:00 AM
What this sounds like to me is an over-eagerness to accept false balance narratives.
Whatever.
The only really crazy people are those who will not vote for him in these circumstances.
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2020, 09:07:25 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 19, 2020, 07:13:59 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on April 19, 2020, 06:38:56 PM
Not everyone lives in a swing state. A lot of votes for President are more or less wasted/unnecessary due to the way the system is set up. Appealing to the need for down ballot voting in non-swing states I think is a much better usage of time and effort than making blanket statements condemning anyone who doesn't vote Biden.
I agree as far as down ballot voting is concerned, or for populations for whom voting already comes with significant investment of resources. However, results are being, and will be, very much part of the political rhetoric in the upcoming election. There is a not insignificant possibility that Trump will undermine the very legitimacy of the election, and the legitimacy of the results. In these circumstances, there is a great symbolic value in sending numbers that overwhelmingly demonstrate a rejection of the GOP, and a greater symbolic value for conservatives to actually make that decision.
What if you're a right-of-centre voter who wants to demonstrate a rejection of Trump, but not necessarily the GOP?
If I was in a non-swing state (and if I was an American) I would vote for some kind of third-party or write-in candidate in order to send some kind of signal about my preferences.
If I was in a swing state I would vote for Biden.
On a national level, it doesn't appear that Trumpism and the Republican party are separable. Republican leaders will betray most values that Republicans hold dear.
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2020, 09:07:25 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 19, 2020, 07:13:59 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on April 19, 2020, 06:38:56 PM
Not everyone lives in a swing state. A lot of votes for President are more or less wasted/unnecessary due to the way the system is set up. Appealing to the need for down ballot voting in non-swing states I think is a much better usage of time and effort than making blanket statements condemning anyone who doesn't vote Biden.
I agree as far as down ballot voting is concerned, or for populations for whom voting already comes with significant investment of resources. However, results are being, and will be, very much part of the political rhetoric in the upcoming election. There is a not insignificant possibility that Trump will undermine the very legitimacy of the election, and the legitimacy of the results. In these circumstances, there is a great symbolic value in sending numbers that overwhelmingly demonstrate a rejection of the GOP, and a greater symbolic value for conservatives to actually make that decision.
What if you're a right-of-centre voter who wants to demonstrate a rejection of Trump, but not necessarily the GOP?
Then you're insane.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2020, 01:15:50 AM
On a national level, it doesn't appear that Trumpism and the Republican party are separable. Republican leaders will betray most values that Republicans hold dear.
I think, by this point, it's reasonable to query what values Republicans hold dear. Even if they do run a "but Gorsuch" write-in campaign.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 19, 2020, 07:06:53 PM
What would those be? I mean - that would convince them in voting Democrat/against Trump.
Salesmanship is an art, not a science. There are no 100% methods.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2020, 07:58:50 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 19, 2020, 07:06:53 PM
What would those be? I mean - that would convince them in voting Democrat/against Trump.
Salesmanship is an art, not a science. There are no 100% methods.
Give me a sample.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 20, 2020, 10:12:24 AM
Give me a sample.
Me pitching Fredo not to rock climbing in North Jesus, Georgia.
Me pitching the stockistas to buy this dip.
Me pitching you to try friendly persuasion instead of scolding to move Speesh away from third party. :P
Yes. That is about you making points on social distancing, market advice, and internet conversation. I want to know how one can effectively convince Trump voters and Trump enablers not to vote for him. What sort of things that are important for them would you use to enact that conversion?
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 20, 2020, 10:26:37 AM
Yes. That is about you making points on social distancing, market advice, and internet conversation. I want to know how one can effectively convince Trump voters and Trump enablers not to vote for him. What sort of things that are important for them would you use to enact that conversion?
I think the first step is to build some moral credibility. To establish that you don't view them as the retarded enemy but as a misinformed person who is capable of making a better choice.
Man, it's really like pulling teeth.
What form of misinformation would you emphasize with a Trump supporter, or with Derspeiss?
Tell me Biden will appoint conservative USSC justices. Or at least that we'll get more Corn Pop stories :D
Quote from: derspiess on April 20, 2020, 11:17:22 AM
Tell me Biden will appoint conservative USSC justices. Or at least that we'll get more Corn Pop stories :D
So that is the acceptable price for a Trump government? It's all about Conservative justices?
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 20, 2020, 11:20:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 20, 2020, 11:17:22 AM
Tell me Biden will appoint conservative USSC justices. Or at least that we'll get more Corn Pop stories :D
So that is the acceptable price for a Trump government? It's all about Conservative justices?
I'd like to understand beyond wanting conservative justices for the sake of having them, what are the policies prevented or rolled back that every-day Republicans (aka the voters) would like to see that they see justices as sure fire protection for.
I thought judges were suppose to be impartial.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 20, 2020, 11:15:41 AM
Man, it's really like pulling teeth.
What form of misinformation would you emphasize with a Trump supporter, or with Derspeiss?
Only if you insisst on pulling. ;)
What kind of misinformation would *you* emphasize? Surely you have as much insight on psychology, party loyalty, political issues, group identity, and ideology as I do.
There is no magic formula. I merely said the success rate from persuasion might be higher than the success rate from shaming.
I feel like you two are putting more thought into it than the Democratic Party has in the last four years :(
My theory in general: I think "us" works bettern than "them", negativity instill dejection and apathy (this is partly why I think Trump won) and you need a theory of change (why now and why you).
For someone like DS I've no idea. But my pitch would be we want politics where he can vote for the party he supports and get the policies he wants and the left can do the same, but this time that means backing Biden because that's the only way Republicans will ever get close to learning their lesson. And once they do he can vote for a conservative party doing conservative things and the left can vote for a left-wing party that doesn't have to pander to him :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2020, 12:35:17 PM
What kind of misinformation would *you* emphasize? Surely you have as much insight on psychology, party loyalty, political issues, group identity, and ideology as I do.
You first :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2020, 12:57:17 PMvthat's the only way Republicans will ever get close to learning their lesson. And once they do he can vote for a conservative party doing conservative things and the left can vote for a left-wing party that doesn't have to pander to him :P
But people like DS don't want the GOP to learn their lesson. Or the lesson they want it to learn is, "don't nominate a clown". The damage done to the Republic, or to democracy doesn't register at all. A similarly ruthless, but competent, President would gain their support.
There is a fundamental difference between people who have vague feelings about politics, and for whom a discussion is possible; people for whom party identification is personal identity; and people who are well informed and will still make the decision to vote Trump. For the first, you can have a pleasant conversation at a bar. The second, you have to fight the might of Fox-State propaganda on your own, and for the third, I just can't figure out what common ground there even could be. If you fundamentally disagree with the diagnosis that the current way of doing politics represents a fundamental danger to the Republic - indeed, if these words even mean anything to you - I just can't see where to begin.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2020, 01:04:39 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 20, 2020, 12:59:33 PM
You first :)
This is a seminar, not a lecture.
No, it's not a lecture. It's also not a face-to-face conversation. :) But your MO is that you leave other people to make long, developed post, and then you snipe a laconic sentence here and there. This creates an imbalance in the conversation and you place your interlocutor in the position of justifying themselves all the time, while you limit yourself to commenting on their points.
Quote from: derspiess on April 20, 2020, 11:17:22 AM
Or at least that we'll get more Corn Pop stories :D
More of those or something even better I can guarantee.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2020, 11:50:05 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 20, 2020, 11:20:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 20, 2020, 11:17:22 AM
Tell me Biden will appoint conservative USSC justices. Or at least that we'll get more Corn Pop stories :D
So that is the acceptable price for a Trump government? It's all about Conservative justices?
I'd like to understand beyond wanting conservative justices for the sake of having them, what are the policies prevented or rolled back that every-day Republicans (aka the voters) would like to see that they see justices as sure fire protection for.
For derspiess, I'd guess abortion rights would be a big one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2020, 06:01:27 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 19, 2020, 05:10:53 PM
At this point, what would be the best means of persuasion?
Something that appeals to their core values I would say.
Not possible if their core values are basically to be the exact opposite of what the Democrats are, regardless of their policy. And unfortunately, 40% of voters are of that mindset. The only thing I can think of that might work is to manoeuvre Trump into another government shutdown, that was the only time he was in danger of being unpopular with his core vote.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2020, 11:50:05 AM
I'd like to understand beyond wanting conservative justices for the sake of having them, what are the policies prevented or rolled back that every-day Republicans (aka the voters) would like to see that they see justices as sure fire protection for.
I'd think the strongest argument to make with a traditional Republican is that the judges that the current Republican leadership (heavily influenced by the Federalist Society) wants to install are terrible justices from the standpoint of what traditional Republicans wanted. They are not "small government" advocates, they are Imperial Presidency advocates. That may seem okay to traditional Republicans if the presidency stays in the hands of the Republicans, but will bite traditional Republicans in the ass when Democrats get that power. Merrick Garland would have been a much better Associate Justice from the standpoint of traditional Republicanism than is Brett Kavanaugh.
There are some Bulwarks and Lincoln Projects and Mitt Romney if you are feeling charitable, but it's a mistake to assume that the majority of Republicans think there's a problem with Trump. I mean a lot of them do, you know, think he's a bit uncouth but in terms of policy they are pretty happy. Taxes cut, judiciary packed, Lib tears, Lib media punished for it's Libness. What's not to like? Trump won the Republican primary fair and square and then about 63 million Republicans voted for him in the election. I realize that Trump isn't a true conservative idealogically, but I don't think that's important at all to most republican voters.
Republicans aren't wringing their hands in anguish worrying about finding a true conservative to vote for who loves the Republic and democracy and so on, they'll turn out absolutely reliably in November.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2020, 02:04:23 PM
They are not "small government" advocates, they are Imperial Presidency advocates. That may seem okay to traditional Republicans if the presidency stays in the hands of the Republicans, but will bite traditional Republicans in the ass when Democrats get that power.
They are GOP. If they have any principles at all they change with changes in the White House.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2020, 02:04:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2020, 11:50:05 AM
I'd like to understand beyond wanting conservative justices for the sake of having them, what are the policies prevented or rolled back that every-day Republicans (aka the voters) would like to see that they see justices as sure fire protection for.
I'd think the strongest argument to make with a traditional Republican is that the judges that the current Republican leadership (heavily influenced by the Federalist Society) wants to install are terrible justices from the standpoint of what traditional Republicans wanted. They are not "small government" advocates, they are Imperial Presidency advocates. That may seem okay to traditional Republicans if the presidency stays in the hands of the Republicans, but will bite traditional Republicans in the ass when Democrats get that power. Merrick Garland would have been a much better Associate Justice from the standpoint of traditional Republicanism than is Brett Kavanaugh.
Counterpoint: they're also highly partisan justices who see no problem with immediately reversing themselves if it helps the GOP and hurts the Dems.
Quote from: merithyn on April 20, 2020, 01:58:56 PM
For derspiess, I'd guess abortion rights would be a big one.
Yep. That's why traditional Republicans have lost control of the Republican party. The idea that the government should be given the power to determine that sex should be punished by the possibility of pregnancy is a puritan one, not a Republican one, and puritans vote more reliably than Republicans.
Quote from: merithyn on April 20, 2020, 01:58:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2020, 11:50:05 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 20, 2020, 11:20:29 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 20, 2020, 11:17:22 AM
Tell me Biden will appoint conservative USSC justices. Or at least that we'll get more Corn Pop stories :D
So that is the acceptable price for a Trump government? It's all about Conservative justices?
I'd like to understand beyond wanting conservative justices for the sake of having them, what are the policies prevented or rolled back that every-day Republicans (aka the voters) would like to see that they see justices as sure fire protection for.
For derspiess, I'd guess abortion rights would be a big one.
Derspeiss doesn't actually strike me as a guy too worried about abortion. I think he brings it up just to troll you.
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2020, 02:09:54 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 20, 2020, 01:58:56 PM
For derspiess, I'd guess abortion rights would be a big one.
Derspeiss doesn't actually strike me as a guy too worried about abortion. I think he brings it up just to troll you.
That doesn't appear the case based on his comments when it comes up, but sure. It's possible.
Spicy might, indeed, be a feminist who just refers to birth control as "whore pills" because he doesn't mind sounding like a puritan, but I'm of the "walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" persuasion.
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2020, 02:58:18 PM
Spicy might, indeed, be a feminist who just refers to birth control as "whore pills" because he doesn't mind sounding like a puritan, but I'm of the "walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" persuasion.
:yes:
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2020, 02:58:18 PM
Spicy might, indeed, be a feminist who just refers to birth control as "whore pills" because he doesn't mind sounding like a puritan, but I'm of the "walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" persuasion.
I didn't say Spicey was a feminist - I just suspect that while he's probably sincere that he's pro-life, it's not an important issue to him (other than for trolling Meri).
One would think that the best argument to convince a Trump voter to not vote for him and vote Biden instead would be the economic self-harm argument, that Trump just favours the top earners and any benefit to middle class voters is just residuals, while Biden would benefit them more, particulary if some kind of healthcare reform is implemented.
Sadly, for many people voting is an emotional decision, rather than intelectual one, and the US being a two party system the mentality has become too adversarial, and they'd vote for a pile of crap as long as it has the appropriate letter ahead of their name on the ballot.
attempts to engage Republicans and encourage them to try to think about governance and policy differently must take into account that there exists a booming Republican angertainment media industry that is profoundly influential and impressively unified in messaging. Why should you expect someone to listen to you? Tucker says different.
Obviously everyone shapes their views according to the media they consume, to a greater or lesser extent, but the Republican media is counter factual and based deeply on mythology and emotion.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 20, 2020, 01:11:21 PM
No, it's not a lecture. It's also not a face-to-face conversation. :) But your MO is that you leave other people to make long, developed post, and then you snipe a laconic sentence here and there. This creates an imbalance in the conversation and you place your interlocutor in the position of justifying themselves all the time, while you limit yourself to commenting on their points.
If that's the MO then we're playing out of character. I've offered up points about establishing credibility (rapport) and addressing core values. You have not found neither of those a reasonable starting point for collegial discussion. Those you have deemed insufficient, because you want a telemarketing script that you can that you can use to "disprove" my claim that persuasion is better than shaming. This is not a conversation, it's a cross examination. It's a Razgavory style conversation. I never claimed to have the magic bullet that would cure Speesh of his wrong thinking and yet you insist on my producing the magic bullet and claiming I'm ducking the issue when I remind you I don't have one.
Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2020, 04:06:35 PM
I didn't say Spicey was a feminist - I just suspect that while he's probably sincere that he's pro-life, it's not an important issue to him (other than for trolling Meri).
I'm with you here. Derspeiss is 95% motivated by what pisses the right people off. He reliably opposes abortion because that reliably pisses of the right people. I doubt he cares about it beyond that.
The problem with the US Right right now is just that - for many, it is impossible to tell the difference between trolling and what they actually believe. Pissing of the liberals has become what stands for policy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 20, 2020, 04:41:33 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 20, 2020, 01:11:21 PM
No, it's not a lecture. It's also not a face-to-face conversation. :) But your MO is that you leave other people to make long, developed post, and then you snipe a laconic sentence here and there. This creates an imbalance in the conversation and you place your interlocutor in the position of justifying themselves all the time, while you limit yourself to commenting on their points.
If that's the MO then we're playing out of character. I've offered up points about establishing credibility (rapport) and addressing core values. You have not found neither of those a reasonable starting point for collegial discussion. Those you have deemed insufficient, because you want a telemarketing script that you can that you can use to "disprove" my claim that persuasion is better than shaming. This is not a conversation, it's a cross examination. It's a Razgavory style conversation. I never claimed to have the magic bullet that would cure Speesh of his wrong thinking and yet you insist on my producing the magic bullet and claiming I'm ducking the issue when I remind you I don't have one.
I'm tough, but fair. -_-
I have never felt the need to convince other people how to vote.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 20, 2020, 05:28:00 PM
I have never felt the need to convince other people how to vote.
Well to be fair you have never felt the need to vote.
And to be less fair, he'd try to take our votes away if he could.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 20, 2020, 09:52:36 PM
And to be less fair, he'd try to take our votes away if he could.
Obviously you have not been paying attention. I support the status quo :contract:
Quote from: Monoriu on April 20, 2020, 10:16:42 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 20, 2020, 09:52:36 PM
And to be less fair, he'd try to take our votes away if he could.
Obviously you have not been paying attention. I support the status quo :contract:
However much that might change.
Why do we give a fuck about Mono's views on voting? Irrelevant, next topic.
Quote from: Malthus on April 20, 2020, 04:46:00 PM
The problem with the US Right right now is just that - for many, it is impossible to tell the difference between trolling and what they actually believe. Pissing of the liberals has become what stands for policy.
Yes. This does indeed increasingly seem to be their serious position. In the UK too it seems to be the case.
Except its not just progressives they want to piss off. They seem to have built this mental image of some kind of pink haired tumbler (that's where the left wing crazies are right? I just know it as a porn place) transgender (oh how obsessed they are with transgender people) radical leftist nutter who represents what the left believe (tm).
Quote from: merithyn on April 20, 2020, 01:58:56 PM
For derspiess, I'd guess abortion rights would be a big one.
Right to Life issues ;) are in the mix for sure, but they're not always at the top these days. I wouldn't necessarily even consider it a litmus test for a USSC justice like I used to.
Yeah, right to life just took a backseat to "right to get sick and die" in the last two weeks.
Quote from: derspiess on April 22, 2020, 02:06:08 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 20, 2020, 01:58:56 PM
For derspiess, I'd guess abortion rights would be a big one.
Right to Life issues ;) are in the mix for sure, but they're not always at the top these days. I wouldn't necessarily even consider it a litmus test for a USSC justice like I used to.
Yeah I would agree. We are having other Constitutional issues coming up these days.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2020, 02:11:13 PM
Yeah, right to life just took a backseat to "right to get sick and die" in the last two weeks.
Yeah, some of that has been excessive. Where do you currently stand on the abortion issue?
Quote from: derspiess on April 22, 2020, 02:22:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2020, 02:11:13 PM
Yeah, right to life just took a backseat to "right to get sick and die" in the last two weeks.
Yeah, some of that has been excessive. Where do you currently stand on the abortion issue?
Ambivalent. Church says "no", politics say "yes". I say I don't really care.
Quote from: derspiess on April 20, 2020, 11:17:22 AM
Tell me Biden will appoint conservative USSC justices.
Good chance he will, conservatives like Merrick Garland, not activist radicals like Gorsuch or loyal soldier frat boys like Kavanaugh.
But its not really judicial conservatives you are looking for, no?
Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2020, 02:04:23 PM
Merrick Garland would have been a much better Associate Justice from the standpoint of traditional Republicanism than is Brett Kavanaugh.
And ... got beat to the punch.
Sent in our absentee primary ballots. We null-voted for prez nomination.
UR WELCOME
:huh: Who gives a shit about the nomination at this point?
I hope that Null guy pulls out a surprise win at the convention.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 23, 2020, 09:00:35 PM
I hope that Null guy pulls out a surprise win at the convention.
Fucker is officially in the Trump camp
Quote from: derspiess on April 23, 2020, 05:58:43 PM
Sent in our absentee primary ballots. We null-voted for prez nomination.
UR WELCOME
Thanks Spicey :hug:
Shoulda voted Weld. <_<
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 24, 2020, 05:24:23 PM
Shoulda voted Weld. <_<
Totally would have if he were on my ballot. But he'll probably get my vote in the general.
Quote from: derspiess on April 24, 2020, 07:19:11 PM
Totally would have if he were on my ballot. But he'll probably get my vote in the general.
Hey Brother Speesh, have you given any thought to turning the Democrat all the way up to 11? :)
Since you asked me nicely, I will give it some serious thought 🙂