2020 US Election (Part One)

[Commodore]

that do not serve their best interests

I hear this a lot and it always comes of as an arrogant statement to make. What qualifies you to speak for anyone on what is or is not in their best interests? People vote the way they vote for an infinite number of reasons and there is no way you or anyone else can even hope to accurately guess at what is in the best interests of anyone other than yourself. This is because people value things and issues differently. What you might see as a critical issue, someone else may not see as something worth worrying about.

And since this type of statement is usually made towards those who vote against what the person making the statement wants, I really interpret it as the person making the statement demanding that others vote for what is in their best interests.

My point being: stop telling people how to vote. It comes off as arrogant and condescending and really ensures those who you preach to are going to vote against you and what you want simply because they don't like you, even if they agree with you.

 

[Patine]

I hear this a lot and it always comes of as an arrogant statement to make. What qualifies you to speak for anyone on what is or is not in their best interests? People vote the way they vote for an infinite number of reasons and there is no way you or anyone else can even hope to accurately guess at what is in the best interests of anyone other than yourself. This is because people value things and issues differently. What you might see as a critical issue, someone else may not see as something worth worrying about.

And since this type of statement is usually made towards those who vote against what the person making the statement wants, I really interpret it as the person making the statement demanding that others vote for what is in their best interests.

My point being: stop telling people how to vote. It comes off as arrogant and condescending and really ensures those who you preach to are going to vote against you and what you want simply because they don't like you, even if they agree with you.

Alright, then. How do massive tax cuts for the ultra-rich and deregulating big corporations to walk all over their employees, cheat their consumers with shoddy goods and services, and freely outsource jobs abroad (planks supported by a significant number of Republicans and a notable, but surprising minority of Democrats) serve 99% of the American population?. How do these planks and the candidates that push them get so many votes from outside the ultra-wealthy without some hoodwink?

 

[Zardnaar]

Alright, then. How do massive tax cuts for the ultra-rich and deregulating big corporations to walk all over their employees, cheat their consumers with shoddy goods and services, and freely outsource jobs abroad (planks supported by a significant number of Republicans and a notable, but surprising minority of Democrats) serve 99% of the American population?. How do these planks and the candidates that push them get so many votes from outside the ultra-wealthy without some hoodwink?

You're assuming wealth is the main value of GoP voters.

It's not for a decent chunk of them, and the stereotype of GoP voters being poor and stupid isn't that right.
. They get a large amount of support from the top 30%, with the stereotypical voter being a smaller %.

For the religious types the early church looked down on wealth, they'll get their reward in heaven.

I don't agree with it but I understand why. They used to get fed to lions rather than change their beliefs.

 

[Patine]

s

You're assuming wealth is the main value of GoP voters.

It's not for a decent chunk of them, and the stereotype of GoP voters being poor and stupid isn't that right.
. They get a large amount of support from the top 30%, with the stereotypical voter being a smaller %.

For the religious types the early church looked down on wealth, they'll get their reward in heaven.

I don't agree with it but I understand why. They used to get fed to lions rather than change their beliefs.

You're correct. I concede. I assumed wealth and capitalism were the priorities of all GOP voters, just like, in fact, @Lexicus and @Cloud_Strife all but claimed White supremacism and nationalism are the priorities of all GOP voters, and that ALL of them must be "held to account for their vote," (which is one of MANY scary, dystopian, Fascistic, Orwellian statements they and others, like @MaryKB, @Gorbles, @Dekker, and others say that make me think me firmly believe they're proposed "solutions" and the ideologies behind them are just as bad, if allowed to come into fruition, as the Right-Wing Extremists they oppose. The fact that questions about clarification as to what checks on these exceptional proposed arbitrary powers and censorship and political targeting of wholesale, broadly-defined political groups would exist, who would judge the use and limits of these powers from a rational, neutral standpoint, how an appeal of someone wrongfully targeted by this policy, and whether or not militant hate groups that were not White would be targeted - very pivotal, vital, and EXTREMELY important questions - got no actual answer, but got had @MaryKB accuse me of "whataboutism" and "that it was telling that I would even ask" - had, as the result of her response, though probably not her intention, was the final nail in the coffin of any possible support for such an extreme and terrifying proposed "solution" and that it was very much just as insidious, Fascistic, and evil in ultimate nature - especially given the precedent of history and human nature - I firmly feel it's not just a "hypothetical fear to be dismissed and cast aside" - as what they oppose).

 

[Zardnaar]

s

You're correct. I concede. I assumed wealth and capitalism were the priorities of all GOP voters, just like, in fact, @Lexicus and @Cloud_Strife all but claimed White supremacism and nationalism are the priorities of all GOP voters, and that ALL of them must be "held to account for their vote," (which is one of MANY scary, dystopian, Fascistic, Orwellian statements they and others, like @MaryKB, @Gorbles, @Dekker, and others say that make me think me firmly believe they're proposed "solutions" and the ideologies behind them are just as bad, if allowed to come into fruition, as the Right-Wing Extremists they oppose. The fact that questions about clarification as to what checks on these exceptional proposed arbitrary powers and censorship and political targeting of wholesale, broadly-defined political groups would exist, who would judge the use and limits of these powers from a rational, neutral standpoint, how an appeal of someone wrongfully targeted by this policy, and whether or not militant hate groups that were not White would be targeted - very pivotal, vital, and EXTREMELY important questions - got no actual answer, but got had @MaryKB accuse me of "whataboutism" and "that it was telling that I would even ask" - had, as the result of her response, though probably not her intention, was the final nail in the coffin of any possible support for such an extreme and terrifying proposed "solution" and that it was very much just as insidious, Fascistic, and evil in ultimate nature - especially given the precedent of history and human nature - I firmly feel it's not just a "hypothetical fear to be dismissed and cast aside" - as what they oppose).

Well Trump's probably destroying the GoP.

The actual number if fascists is a tiny % of the US electorate. Trump's primarily the troll in Chief. He likes triggering the left and they're dumb enough to go along with it. Free publicity and all that.

60 million voted for GoP, population of USA 320 million, Democrats got a few more but 80k decided the election in 3 states.

The far left underperformed in 2018 midterms, center left won that cycle.

Bill Clinton's quote it's the economy stupid. As much as people like jumping up and down bleating about whatever it's the economy that matters, not just in terms of official stats.

Beating the GoP should be dead easy. Put up a candidate whose not more if the same, or a screaming lefty. Hell nominate a white male they haven't done that since 2004 assuming you don't want a repeat of the tea party.

Assuming they can win in 2020.

Do something vaguely sane about immigration and you should win easily. By vaguely sane not granting citizenship to all the illegals and punish the corporations vs the immigrant. Surplus labour, less jobs wages will stay stagnant.

Don't over promise either. Obama's hope and change let people project whatever they liked on him but expectations couldn't match reality.

 

[Gorbles]

s

You're correct. I concede. I assumed wealth and capitalism were the priorities of all GOP voters, just like, in fact, @Lexicus and @Cloud_Strife all but claimed White supremacism and nationalism are the priorities of all GOP voters, and that ALL of them must be "held to account for their vote," (which is one of MANY scary, dystopian, Fascistic, Orwellian statements they and others, like @MaryKB, @Gorbles, @Dekker, and others say that make me think me firmly believe they're proposed "solutions" and the ideologies behind them are just as bad, if allowed to come into fruition, as the Right-Wing Extremists they oppose. The fact that questions about clarification as to what checks on these exceptional proposed arbitrary powers and censorship and political targeting of wholesale, broadly-defined political groups would exist, who would judge the use and limits of these powers from a rational, neutral standpoint, how an appeal of someone wrongfully targeted by this policy, and whether or not militant hate groups that were not White would be targeted - very pivotal, vital, and EXTREMELY important questions - got no actual answer, but got had @MaryKB accuse me of "whataboutism" and "that it was telling that I would even ask" - had, as the result of her response, though probably not her intention, was the final nail in the coffin of any possible support for such an extreme and terrifying proposed "solution" and that it was very much just as insidious, Fascistic, and evil in ultimate nature - especially given the precedent of history and human nature - I firmly feel it's not just a "hypothetical fear to be dismissed and cast aside" - as what they oppose).

It's really weird that you tag people who didn't ask to be tagged for whatever counts as these attempts at bait, but when the situation is reversed you demand people stop replying to you, or stop tagging you.

Just thought I'd point that out, and note the strawman at the same time (ascribing a set of views to a group of people who have difference perspectives on various issues and their ideal solutions). I'll try and remember this post the next time you claim something about fallacies

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Ah yes, the evil ideology of not wanting to be physically assaulted or killed by a right-wing extremist who views me as a threat to their society and as an abomination.

It's funny, you talk about how people can be wrongly targetted, but you're absolutely silent on people that have been targetted by said extremists, what is your solution to that pray tell? Or is it just more centrist, bloviating? Actual people have died but yet you cannot seem to muster even a fraction of concern over that.

 

[Patine]

Ah yes, the evil ideology of not wanting to be physically assaulted or killed by a right-wing extremist who views me as a threat to their society and as an abomination.

It's funny, you talk about how people can be wrongly targetted, but you're absolutely silent on people that have been targetted by said extremists, what is your solution to that pray tell? Or is it just more centrist, bloviating? Actual people have died but yet you cannot seem to muster even a fraction of concern over that.

Actually, I haven't been silent on the issues you claim I have. I've brought it up quite a bit. In fact, you've read and liked a number of them. How quickly you CONVENINETLY forget (and how disingenuously, moreso to slander me more easily), when your "solutions" (I use quotation marks advisedly) are too extreme and far too prone to rampant abuse for my, or any rational or consciensious person, to support and, by the precedent of human nature and history, a turnaround, no doubt, until you are the oppressors, and Middle-Class Whites are being targeted horribly to "be held accountable for their votes," or not giving unquestioning, unreserved support to your cause, but are not, themselves, Nazis or White supremacists. I can easily see this happening from my studies of history and sociology. Something does indeed need to be done, but your "solution" is not a solution at all - it would make you a monster just to fight monsters - and I cannot get behind that.

 

[Gorbles]

How quickly you CONVENINETLY forget (and how disingenuously, moreso to slander me more easily)

You literally just tagged everyone to slander them

 

[Patine]

You literally just tagged everyone to slander them

Not at all. Slander is based on misinformation and lies. Everything I'd said about everyone that I tagged is based on actual posts you have all made. So, unless you all were just trolling everything I was talking you saying about for fun, there was no slander, by definition.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Bless your heart Patine, I hope you and yours never have to deal with any of the same kind of abuse that I and other minorities have to deal with, from those on the right-wing, but if you do, try not to complain, scream, struggle or defend yourself as the boot stamps on you from above or if you get jumped by people who consider you a degenerate, after all a wise man once said:

it would make you a monster just to fight monsters

And you only offer passivity, as the moral response to such an attack and violation of your health and safety.

 

[Patine]

Bless your heart Patine, I hope you and yours never have to deal with any of the same kind of abuse that I and other minorities have to deal with, from those on the right-wing, but if you do, try not to complain, scream, struggle or defend yourself as the boot stamps on you from above, after all a wise once said:

I also notice another thing, that is very worrisome. You tend to portray the terms "marginalized" or "victimized" vs. "privileged," by solid, unbroken, undifferentiated, demographic blocs, with no consideration or acknowledgement, and even vociferous refusal to accept, factors like location, context, individual communities and people, differences in interactions between demographics in different areas, and different achievements and movements forward against societal prejudice by different demographics, or sub-groups within. You instead insist on using the terms as immutable absolutes. Do you realize that that basic mentality is the same roots, taken in a different direction, that produces all forms of bigotry?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I also notice another thing, that is very worrisome. You tend to portray the terms "marginalized" or "victimized" vs. "privileged," by solid, unbroken, undifferentiated, demographic blocs, with no consideration or acknowledgement, and even vociferous refusal to accept, factors like location, context, individual communities and people, differences in interactions between demographics in different areas, and different achievements and movements forward against societal prejudice by different demographics, or sub-groups within. You instead insist on using the terms as immutable absolutes. Do you realize that that basic mentality is the same roots, taken in a different direction, that produces all forms of bigotry?

You advocate for passivity in the face of existential harm from the far-right, you offer no hope, no comfort for those that must endure their attacks and instead condemn them for taking even the most basic, rational attempts to defend themselves, as well as poo-pooing any notion of prevention of harm.

 

[Gorbles]

Not at all. Slander is based on misinformation and lies. Everything I'd said about everyone that I tagged is based on actual posts you have all made. So, unless you all were just trolling everything I was talking you saying about for fun, there was no slander, by definition.

"it's not slander when i do it, because i consider myself completely accurate" is what I expected, I just didn't expect you to say it out loud.

By your own logic, Cloud didn't slander you either. They're just going off of what you've said and continue to say. You can't claim that they're interpreting you incorrectly, because that same argument would apply to your reading of all of our posts. There is no reason why it wouldn't, unless you consider yourself absolutely perfect and incapable of misreading other peoples' points. Which we all know is false, because even I've managed to get you to take things back before. Infrequently, but it has been done.

 

[Patine]

And you only offer passivity, as the moral response to such an attack and violation of your health and safety.

And, no, I do not only offer passivity. Not at all. In fact, I deal with this sort of thing a lot at work. But, it seems that, because I do not support your "solution," which is very drastic, highly abusive of power, with no checks or neutral arbitration, or even seemingly appeal for those wrongfully targeted, summary and arbitrary, contemptful of due process, rights, and the rule of law as far as the accused go, and favouring absolute and wide-definition censorship of certain groups, but never others, even if they commit or advocate certain of the same problems, because of their demographic, and such frightening and Orwellian statements as "holding everyone accountable for their vote," you disingenuously accuse me of passivity because I am not as rash, impetuous, viglilante, kangaroo court-ish, Orwellian, and, even Fascistic yourself, as you are. But I assure you, I am not passive on the issue - I am however, more in a grasp of how reality works, and of my rational thinking and conscience.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

And there it slips out; if you dare to respond to fascism with any sort of violence, defensive or otherwise, that makes you a fascist in the eyes of Patine.

You must sit down and accept your repression, harrassment and bigotry, your beatings and your eventual death at the hands of bigots, fascists and right-wingers lest Patine, with his immense logic, deems you fascist for retaliating.

You offer no hope Patine, you offer nothing and ask the most vulnerable to take what they must, so that you aren't left feeling uncomfortable and that is disgusting to me.

 

[Gorbles]

even Fascistic yourself

Calling people "fascistic" but insisting you don't slander folks is also a fun thing I just want to point out.

 

[Patine]

And there it slips out; if you dare to respond to fascism with any sort of violence, defensive or otherwise, that makes you a fascist in the eyes of Patine.

You must sit down and accept your repression, harrassment and bigotry, your beatings and your eventual death at the hands of bigots, fascists and right-wingers lest Patine, with his immense logic, deems you fascist for retaliating

Actually, no. You misread that horribly. Even a Fox News smear of a quote can be more convincing than that. I actually didn't say, "If you dare respond to FASCISM." It's just that your "solution" has something in Joseph McCarthy and HUAC. A lot of nasty ignoring of civil rights, due process, any legal or defined limits, or any rule of law was part of a massive campaign to target "Communists" en masse in the United States. "Blacklisting," (which, funny enough - in a grim, gallows humour sort of "funny", in actual process and effect, was identical as a phenomenon to modern "Cancel Culture,") destroyed livelihoods, reputations, and lives. But, in retrospect, it seems very few few real, died-in-the wool Communists were actually found and targeted compared to the vast numbers targeted unjustly, with no appeal or recourse. This is the thing. I believe, also, your "solution" will be the same for actual, real Fascists versus "collateral damage," as McCarthy and HUAC's Red Scare was to actual Communists vs. "collateral damage." So, it's not the Fascists I'm "protecting" or "defending," - it's the far, far greater number of non-Fascists will suffer unjustly and unnecessarily.

 

[Gorbles]

I think the problem is I just don't care what you believe anymore, @Patine. You consistently believe in the worst case scenarios when it comes to fighting fascists.

But, weirdly, you don't when it comes to the status quo, to the emboldening to fascist groups and messaging. There's no slippery slope mentioned, no fears of yours mentioned. You offer no solutions, only warnings that any solutions can and will be misused against the greater society.

Anything can. Literally anything can. If you keep using this argument against any measure of any progress that could ever be made, people just aren't going to take you seriously when you profess you have peoples' best interests at heart. You prefer the status quo, and the blood of the minorities and marginalised seem to be an acceptable price to pay. Going strictly on your posts and what you've said, for the record.

 

[MaryKB]

Patine, you really need to step back and relax. And stop with insulting everyone and your ridiculous hyperboles, you are doing exactly what you're accusing everyone else of (as @Gorbles has pointed out)

Some things to consider:

- You make up peoples' arguments. What's this "solution" you keep talking about? You don't seem to understand at all. Maybe yell and scream less, and actually listen to people, and you might learn something. You seem to be arguing against something you've made up in your head.
- You sound a lot like a Trump blowhard in your style, in anything you don't like you basically declare as "FAKE NEWS!", "SLANDER!", and what have you ... you don't actually ever respond to peoples' points, you just throw a tantrum and denigrate people in an effort to avoid any real discussion.
- Your hypocrisy and double-standards are both sickening. Please treat others as you wish to be treated. Please stop with the yelling and silly, repetitive adjectives.
- You sound like a raving lunatic, mostly because of these above points. Any ideas you're trying to get across are being completely lost in your style, which seems to be an abusive form of arguing. I feel that if we were having this conversation in real life, we'd all be giving in to you because you're going by volume, tone, and verbal violence (and IRL probably exaggerated and threatening physical movements) to try to bully us into giving up.
- You keep calling yourself the only "rational" and "sane" person here, and as above your posts don't display any of this. If you feel a need to say it so much, that's typically because it isn't true.
- When discussing an issue, it's very disingenuous to try to say "Well what about ..." something else, no matter how closely you think it's related. This doesn't matter (it's like if you get pulled over by a police officer for speeding, do you think she's going to listen to you saying "You can't give me a ticket unless you give one to this other person I saw running a red light last week"?) If we're talking about Republicans trying to systematically destroy the lives of LGBTQ people in America, bringing up some other issue from some other place or time to try to trick people into some kind of "gotcha" is literally whataboutism. You say you hate people bringing this word up, well you keep seeing it because you keep doing it.
- Please stop using that "neo-manichean" label. No one here subscribes to Manichean philosophy, you honestly sound like you've just come out of some weird boot camp or something where you learned this word.

Some things to think about what other people are saying:

- No one's suggesting some "mass extermination of anyone labelled as fascist" that you seem to be arguing against (and you accuse others of putting words in your mouth)
- Cloud_Strife is saying she has a right to defend herself from organized threats against her life and wellbeing
- I am saying I'm willing to forgive oppressed people, who out of desperation and frustration act out when they're feeling afraid and trapped by our establishment, act out in a way I wouldn't normally approve of. I still don't like their methods, but I'm far more concerned that they feel they're down to no other choice. I consider the immediate and real threat people face from a growing and terrifying part of our society, who are methodically taking over our government and law enforcement, to be much more severe than any imagined threat from "What happens if these oppressed people start feeling safe, are they going to become the oppressors?"
- My last sentence above reminds me of something I read years ago, which was basically about how "Men don't want women getting into power, because they fear once women have power they're going to treat men as they've always treated women." This sort of thing goes for pretty much any group that white-Christian-heterosexual-cisgender men have abused and oppressed.
- When you argue against us, especially with how passionate you are, you really give us the impression you're one of two things: 1) someone who just doesn't give a [bleep] about anyone but yourself, so as long as you're safe and getting yours, everyone else can just deal, or 2) someone who actually wants these types of dangerous and hate-fueled regimes to take over. If you're neither of these, then I feel you really need to step back and listen (instead of yelling) to what you're really going against.

@Gorbles and @Cloud_Strife my suggestion is that if @Patine can't converse like a big boy, we all just give up on this and future conversations. You just can't have an intelligent discussion with someone like this.