Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Archbob, Aug 21, 2018.
Flush again, recipe for success!
So how do you reconcile the fact that the gop and by extension its loyal supporters have embraced trump and trumpism?
I'm not changing the topic for you to pose against whatever bull you want to pose against. I'm criticizing dissolution of the union by a capitalist numbrod that doesn't like his "low class" peers and would rather eject them than deal with the issues that make them. A talking point that, conditionally, changes it's supporters and detractors. But the ones that change their opinions are jackasses and fools regardless of whether or not other, unrelated to this point, people they like to disagree and snap at are also jackasses and fools.
I have sympathy with the conned but there comes a point where they must make the conscious decision to pull the wool from their eyes and whilst they aren't able to do this it is causing damage to society as a whole.
I would agree that attempting to convince people that voting for Assclown is bad is a laudable goal.
Post #4575 is unaffected by reiteration of this point!
And if you try to explain to them why they are essentially harming themselves and the response is to essentially ignore the advice and continue to enable that which is harming them how do you expect the conversation to go?
The moral imperative exists regardless of the expectation of efficacy, though efficacy remains a primary goal.
Post #4575 is unaffected by reiteration of this point.
Moderator Action: If you have nothing left to post, don't post. Spam is infractible at CFC. ~ Arakhor
The enthusiastic positive support from Trump supporters is mostly gone
While It wont stop them re-electing Trump. It will take I suspect personal pain from the trade wars, healthcare, economic collapse to jolt them awake that they have elected a con-man once again.
Trump currently is enjoying very high support with Republican base, I think its 70-80% currently. They seems oblivious to the damage Trump is wrecking.
Most Trump supporters enjoy the discomfort he is causing the Democrats and that is sufficient to re-elect him.
Someone remind Trump where hes third wife came from.
As I posted in the other thread, if he wants them to fix the crime infested places from which they came then I suppose he's admitting the US is a crime-infested place with a bad, corrupt and inept catastrophe for a government.
Is there someone willing to swing back on that particular take?
That's not exactly an inaccurate description.
Can we put that in the book?
I suspect Republicans and you have different bases for making risk assessment, one that vastly diverges on what the Republican base has left to lose. They may be wrong. They're willing to (redacted) find out.
They knew sinking the Garland nomination wasn't going to be a broadly admired decision. (The Senate checking the Executive is abnormal, too)
It is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong!
Ostensibly some registered Republicans like Tom Nichols will be voting for the Democratic candidate.
Republicans just running counter messaging against Trump will be closer to Dan Crenshaw.
Trump supporters will be debating the unifying/splitting impacts of those tweets on Dem leadership. Taunt or Misdirect, to use an analogy.
Libertarians and other independents who secretly vote despite publicly decrying that shameful practice probably won't like Trump suggesting Bitcoin and other "crypto assets" need more regulation.
Crenshaw? The same Crenshaw who was part of a Tea Party Facebook page that was openly bigoted and advocated conspiracy theories, Islamaphobia and white supremacy?
He has more in common with Trump then you could know and if you think he is free of the same taint think again.
Also i gotta say I'm shocked that the guy who spent 8 years claiming the first black president wasn't born in the U.S. now claims that other minority members of Congress weren't born here either and that the Republican party's response is to keep stuhm, how strange, why it's almost as if...
Most of what I see about that are strained insinuations that since he was an admin (handed out like candy in some places) he engaged with or the endorsed the particular content on display. That assumes a moderation culture that hasn't been established yet. Free range twitch chat went all over the place too.
In your defense, he did dissociate, quietly.
If you run a facebook page that is infested with bigots and you turn a blind eye (until confronted) that is a reflection on you and your own belief system.
You don't get to then disavow and act like you had nothing to do with enabling or allowing the culture of bile to fester, that would require me to break my own spine whilst i bend over backwards.
Establishing that Crenshaw lied about his involvement would be gold here, wouldn't it?
(This is apart from how admins of that page moderated vs admins of other facebook pages.)
There are some people who think Jack Dorsey is a right winger because he's not killing rw meme clones with extreme enough prejudice yet.
I mean he removed himself from the page, how could he have done that if he had no involvement?
He was embarrassed by the association and had no intention of publicly defending those ideas.
Sharing his own stuff isn't the same as engaging with everyone else. Try to imagine, for just a moment, that the group is not super homogeneous by the decree of Moddom.
Separate names with a comma.