Jump to content
270soft Forum

Recommended Posts

I don't want to make this long, but I do want to send out an apology to @Reagan04 and @Patine and @vcczar for some nasty unbecoming things I've said lately. I have removed almost everyone from my ignore list and am prepared to make a fresh start amongst you.

I will put it simply: I argue very fiercely and very vehemently, in part only because it's very clear that particularly on issues involving conservative issues and the Trump Presidency, this forum is like being in a debate where it's 10-to-1 against you on the stage. I am also hoping that it's fairly obvious when I'm stating fact, when I'm giving opinion, and when I'm joking. I think most people are smart enough to make that distinction. When I know I'm factually right, I will state it.

From this point forward I will ask myself a very simple question: "Is this person arguing against my point or is he arguing against me?" There's a very fine line between, "Yeah I disagree with your points because of X,Y,Z" and "You just think that because you're some dinosaur who is anti-science and obedient to your lord and master Donald Trump." The former I will gladly debate anyone peacefully. If the latter happens, I will not act back, I will not debate or even reply, I will simply add that person to my ignore list and that will be the end of it. I do such things not to "punish" in any way shape or form. I do them when it appears that furthering the conversation will only lead to unnecessary stress on my end or I believe that civil conversation is no longer possible on this topic.  One of my criticisms of Trump (yes I do actually have them) is that he Tweets too much and gets too distracted by insignificant topics and gets goaded into unnecessary and unproductive Twitter battles. I thought it's time I take some of my own advice.

So I will say nothing further on the matter. I love being a part of the vibrant debate here, but I will not let it affect my sanity or psychological well being either.

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Honestly, this is more hostile than anything they said, but you don't see me crying to the admin. Grow up.

I appreciate the apology. I apologize for instances wherein I've cross the line.  Like others, I think politics is a combat sport, even if we don't want it to be. Politics is more personal than e

I don't want to make this long, but I do want to send out an apology to @Reagan04 and @Patine and @vcczar for some nasty unbecoming things I've said lately. I have removed almost everyone from my igno

I appreciate the apology servo. As you know, I am a libertarian conservative, maybe even more conservative than you on some issues. I think we just have vastly different worldviews in how to enact that. 

I will not back down in believing that every patriotic American, no matter their politics (As long, of course, as we're talking about a mainstream ideology), should stomach him in order to get rid of Trump's politics and his influence in this country. 

We've got some very real stylistic differences as well as different outlooks on life and the world. But politically, I doubt we're all that different if you're as libertarian as you claim to be. We haven't had much discussion in the way of politics as far as you being libertarian. The only political assertions I've seen are your pro-Trump ones. So I doubt we'd on different sides of most policy debates.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, servo75 said:

I don't want to make this long, but I do want to send out an apology to @Reagan04 and @Patine and @vcczar for some nasty unbecoming things I've said lately. I have removed almost everyone from my ignore list and am prepared to make a fresh start amongst you.

I will put it simply: I argue very fiercely and very vehemently, in part only because it's very clear that particularly on issues involving conservative issues and the Trump Presidency, this forum is like being in a debate where it's 10-to-1 against you on the stage. I am also hoping that it's fairly obvious when I'm stating fact, when I'm giving opinion, and when I'm joking. I think most people are smart enough to make that distinction. When I know I'm factually right, I will state it.

From this point forward I will ask myself a very simple question: "Is this person arguing against my point or is he arguing against me?" There's a very fine line between, "Yeah I disagree with your points because of X,Y,Z" and "You just think that because you're some dinosaur who is anti-science and obedient to your lord and master Donald Trump." The former I will gladly debate anyone peacefully. If the latter happens, I will not act back, I will not debate or even reply, I will simply add that person to my ignore list and that will be the end of it. I do such things not to "punish" in any way shape or form. I do them when it appears that furthering the conversation will only lead to unnecessary stress on my end or I believe that civil conversation is no longer possible on this topic.  One of my criticisms of Trump (yes I do actually have them) is that he Tweets too much and gets too distracted by insignificant topics and gets goaded into unnecessary and unproductive Twitter battles. I thought it's time I take some of my own advice.

So I will say nothing further on the matter. I love being a part of the vibrant debate here, but I will not let it affect my sanity or psychological well being either.

 

I appreciate the apology. I apologize for instances wherein I've cross the line. 

Like others, I think politics is a combat sport, even if we don't want it to be. Politics is more personal than ever in an era of identity and polarization. We have our own ideas of what America is, what it should be, what it was, and what it was meant to be. As with all histories and theories, there isn't really an answer--or correct answer--to this. There's only our answer or our opinions. We drop the term "anti-American" or "not American" when we get angry. I do it. You do it. I think many of us have done this. The fact that our idea of what is "not American" or "anti-American" are often in such total opposition probably means that what we think is "anti-American" or "not American" is, in fact, "American." We just don't want it to be. As such, supporting undocumented immigrants and supporting nativism are both "American". Supporting "socialistic" policies and supporting paleo-libertarians government shrinking policies are both "American." Calling Trump a traitor to the US and supporting Trump, including his desire to post-pone the election are both "American." As long as we vote, as long as we care about US politics, US Citizens, and the US future, etc., our opinions cannot be "anti-American" or "not American," whether we support an idealized version of 1776 or an idealized future of a Progressive Utopia saturated in Social Democratic ideals. Both dreams are American. We are large. We contain multitudes. We are contradictory. 

My one beef with you or with many people is when they appear to toe a party line or a dogma. You said one thing recently that made me feel better about you, and hinted to me that my impression regarding you might be a little wrong. You stated support for givng $600 to US citizens during this pandemic, while stating a puritan Libertarian would not even do that. This showed an independence of thought, which showed a sense of political self-reliance, political non-conformity, political individuality that I think is important to all people. If one thinks independently and with good intentions, then I should have no complaints, even if I disagree with those opinions. 

Someone else brought up the fact that we want the same things, but we disagree with how to get there. I think this is mostly true. I think better is, while we inevitably wish for the best for all Americans and the county, we both disagree on how to get there and we also have a different priority list on where we need to focus. This is probably coupled by how we are influenced by our own up-bringing, experiences, what we've read, who we personally are, etc. What would make us more tolerant of other ideologies, is if we step outside of ourselves. We should explain to ourselves why the opinion of the other person is valid. This country has enough conservatives, liberals, progressives, traditionalists, moderates, populists, and other ideologies to warrant some sort of validity to all stances. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

supporting Trump, including his desire to post-pone the election are both "American."

As far as I know, I never clarified why I am open to postponing the election, while not actively encouraging it. I am concerned, due to the current numbers of daily cases, that a viable election might not be possible and I would not be willing to risk even more cases in the US.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

As far as I know, I never clarified why I am open to postponing the election, while not actively encouraging it. I am concerned, due to the current numbers of daily cases, that a viable election might not be possible and I would not be willing to risk even more cases in the US.

I think it will probably be better than it is right now by November. I think Covid will still be out there. Delaying the election is complex. From what I read the following occurs:

  • Trump, Pence, their cabinet, the entire US House, the class of Senators up for election, all have their terms expired at the date set in the Constitution. 
  • The President Pro Temp would be presidents. However, Democrats would have the majority at this point since the terms of more GOP Senators will have expired.  35 Dems to 30 Rep would remain with on-going terms. This would make Pat Leahy President (he's too the left of Elizabeth Warren). There's some debate on whether or not the US Senate would pick the president while Leahy is acting president. If so, the Senate could just pick Biden. 

Basically, Trump loses if he delays the election beyond Jan 20th. I think what Trump thinks happens is that a delay of the election extends his term in office. That is not the case.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

As far as I know, I never clarified why I am open to postponing the election, while not actively encouraging it. I am concerned, due to the current numbers of daily cases, that a viable election might not be possible and I would not be willing to risk even more cases in the US.

If Trump were arguing that COVID is so dangerous that everything must be shut down, I would at least understand the argument.

Instead, Trump's argument is that COVID is so minor that everything should be open -- except for elections.  That's not a logical argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Instead, Trump's argument is that COVID is so minor that everything should be open -- except for elections.  That's not a logical argument.

That's true. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Instead, Trump's argument is that COVID is so minor that everything should be open -- except for elections.  That's not a logical argument.

Definitely some internal tension in Trump's statements on these things. 'Schools and churches need to be open!' but 'Maybe we should delay the election.' Eh???!?!?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Definitely some internal tension in Trump's statements on these things. 'Schools and churches need to be open!' but 'Maybe we should delay the election.' Eh???!?!?

He's got dementia as much as Biden does

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

I appreciate the apology servo. As you know, I am a libertarian conservative, maybe even more conservative than you on some issues. I think we just have vastly different worldviews in how to enact that. 

I will not back down in believing that every patriotic American, no matter their politics (As long, of course, as we're talking about a mainstream ideology), should stomach him in order to get rid of Trump's politics and his influence in this country. 

We've got some very real stylistic differences as well as different outlooks on life and the world. But politically, I doubt we're all that different if you're as libertarian as you claim to be. We haven't had much discussion in the way of politics as far as you being libertarian. The only political assertions I've seen are your pro-Trump ones. So I doubt we'd on different sides of most policy debates.

Thank you. I do think we are a lot alike on most topics, just differ in the application of those policies when it comes to Biden and Trump. I'd be more inclined to agree with you if the nominee were Tulsi Gabbard, or this were the Joe Biden of 20 years ago. I think our main differences come down to this:

1. While you and I both have concerns about Donald Trump's administration, yours are a lot deeper rooted.
2. I've seen nothing to indicate that Joe Biden of 2020 is even remotely moderate. You are more confident than I that he will govern from the center. Though I think Biden himself may be technically mainstream, he's a shell of his former self; his decaying faculties and recent tack to the hard left (even if it is just a ploy to win the primaries), combined with the fact I'm not convinced he'll be in charge of his own administration give me great pause. When Biden puts out a "unity plan" with Bernie Sanders, yeah that even by itself would be a deal-breaker right there for me.  I get why he felt he had to do it. It was smart politics and Biden for all his foibles is a smart and savvy politician (or at least used to be). I saw a survey during the primaries where 20% of Bernie supporters were going to stay home or vote for Trump. So Biden needed to something desperate. However, the general election (which we are for all intents and purposes in) is where candidates tack more toward the middle and Biden seems to be going further and further left, so I'm not convinced that he is for all intents and purposes mainstream. The question is, is all this just an act, a ploy to win over the Bernie Sanders voters, or is he really serious? I don't plan on finding out.

My libertarianism has come across a lot in other topic threads, mainly older ones. Donald Trump is not a libertarian in most respects, so when I talk about Trump that's not going to come up. However, if you read my more general posts, you will find a more Randian point of view on many things. Also, my pro-Trump assertions, such as they are, are not political or ideological in nature, for the most part. 

Curious, what are your thoughts on the Bushes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Definitely some internal tension in Trump's statements on these things. 'Schools and churches need to be open!' but 'Maybe we should delay the election.' Eh???!?!?

If I may... I think the whole "delay the election" thing is just Trump talk. It's much ado about nothing, just another way to live rent-free in the medias' heads. He cannot delay the election. I don't think he has any intent on doing so. So it's a nothing burger. As far as the rest, my personal opinion is that we've been in shutdown for too long. The deaths are decreasing, the unemployment and poor economy are becoming very serious. We can do that safely. I say, get everyone back to school, back to church, have the election on time. We CAN do this safely. It's a virus, and a bad one, but the death rates have been declining to a point consistent with seasonal flu. The "pro-shutdown" crowd lost whatever credibility was left with me when we saw thousands of people getting together to protest, even being joined by the very officials who are arresting people for opening their barber shops. as if the virus will leave you alone if you are protesting for a "good cause", but of course much smaller crowds wanting to open their business are "killing a million people." This isn't the Bubonic Plague, people! Be smart, social distance, wear a mask when you can't, but we can't cower in the corner until this thing goes away. Schools must open. Kids are falling behind, parents have to get back to work. This will result in a small spike in cases because we don't have the herd immunity yet, but most of the new cases are younger Americans and the death rate itself is falling. So we can do this safely.

Any death is too much but we can't bubble wrap our society. I think there are some who will not be satisfied until the death rate is zero, and that's unrealistic with or without a vaccine. Public health is important, and so is the economy. The two cannot be separated, they're a package deal. If you put too much into one and neglect the other, you will soon lose them both.

I found this meme quite on point - how wussified we've become, and so willing to give up our rights at the whims of governors and mayors.

GOVERNMENT & MEDIA RIDICULE – The Burning Platform

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, servo75 said:

The "pro-shutdown" crowd lost whatever credibility was left with me when we saw thousands of people getting together to protest,

You are stating this as if they were two completely overlapping groups. BLM is its own group composed primarily of pro-shutdown people, most likely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vcczar said:

You are stating this as if they were two completely overlapping groups. BLM is its own group composed primarily of pro-shutdown people, most likely. 

I actually wasn't referring to any specific groups. My criticism of BLM notwithstanding I don't think they are pro or anti-shutdown. When I said "pro shutdown crowd" I'm referring strictly to the media and politicians who insist on continuing shutdowns, not any particular protest group. But my only purpose was to compare the fact that protest crowds for George Floyd seem to operate under a different set of rules than the protest crowds petitioning for re-opening the economy. Either both are dangerous or both are fine. The media seems to want it both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, vcczar said:

I think it will probably be better than it is right now by November. I think Covid will still be out there. Delaying the election is complex. From what I read the following occurs:

  • Trump, Pence, their cabinet, the entire US House, the class of Senators up for election, all have their terms expired at the date set in the Constitution. 
  • The President Pro Temp would be presidents. However, Democrats would have the majority at this point since the terms of more GOP Senators will have expired.  35 Dems to 30 Rep would remain with on-going terms. This would make Pat Leahy President (he's too the left of Elizabeth Warren). There's some debate on whether or not the US Senate would pick the president while Leahy is acting president. If so, the Senate could just pick Biden. 

Basically, Trump loses if he delays the election beyond Jan 20th. I think what Trump thinks happens is that a delay of the election extends his term in office. That is not the case.

Well there are two questions at hand here: Can Trump by himself delay the election? My instinct says no. COULD it be delayed at all? Technically yes, the election date is not set in the Constitution, I believe it's by Congressional statute. Up until the mid-19th century each state chose their own date, and elections took place over months. Congress could do it or maybe even the President through some emergency like natural disaster, though I don't see any scenario with that happening and so this is moot. The hard limit to any extension would have to be before the electors meet on December 14. The new Congress opens on January 3, so we're getting into Constitutional Crisis territory (in theory) if the election is delayed by much more than a few weeks. Again, I don't see any scenario under which anyone tries to postpone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, servo75 said:

I think the whole "delay the election" thing is just Trump talk. It's much ado about nothing, just another way to live rent-free in the medias' heads

I think this is probably correct. Trump has figured out how to drive media cycles. He does it for various reasons (and sometimes does it accidentally and shoots himself in the foot).

This is probably a calculated gambit. For what exactly? That's a good question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, vcczar said:

You are stating this as if they were two completely overlapping groups. BLM is its own group composed primarily of pro-shutdown people, most likely. 

Off topic but do you own one of the buttons that is your profile picture?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Off topic but do you own one of the buttons that is your profile picture?

No. But I should get one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, admin_270 said:

I think this is probably correct. Trump has figured out how to drive media cycles. He does it for various reasons (and sometimes does it accidentally and shoots himself in the foot).

This is probably a calculated gambit. For what exactly? That's a good question.

The only "benefit" that I can really see is that it makes other Republicans look like cool, rational anti-Trump defenders of the constitution for saying "No, Trump!  Bad boy!"  That's certainly helpful during an election cycle in which Trump may not be broadly loved by moderates or even certain groups of conservatives.  

But it certainly does Trump himself no favors, so it's hard to believe it's intentional on his part -- what does he gain?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Actinguy said:

But it certainly does Trump himself no favors, so it's hard to believe it's intentional on his part -- what does he gain?

Right, that's the question.

Take the 2015-6 primaries. Trump repeatedly wouldn't rule out running 3rd party. This garnered him a large amount of criticism among rank and file in the GOP. "Why is he saying this, it's just undermining support within the party for him!"

So why did he do it? It gave him leverage with the party, so they wouldn't try to screw him over. It also caused the party to draft a resolution for all candidates, saying they would support whoever the eventual nominee was. Since that turned out to be Trump, they all promised to support him, and reneging on that (Kasich, for example) made them look like hypocrites.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

So why did he do it? It gave him leverage with the party, so they wouldn't try to screw him over. It also caused the party to draft a resolution for all candidates, saying they would support whoever the eventual nominee was. Since that turned out to be Trump, they all promised to support him, and reneging on that (Kasich, for example) made them look like hypocrites.

I don't think Trump masterminded the situation. I think the cards just fell this way based off his natural independent demeanor. At that time, I expected Trump to lose the nomination but become a 3rd party that won like 25% of the vote. 

In regards to Kasich, I think a designation of "heroic integrity" or "hypocrite" would depend on one's opinion of Trump. Kasich probably raised is hand 100% certain Trump wouldn't be the nominee. For me, possibly because my opinion of Donald Trump is so low, I see John Kasich as a "Profiles in Courage" type politician, along with Jeff Flake, John McCain, Bob Corker, Mitt Romney and all the GOPers that risked and risk their political careers to oppose Trump. 

If we ever had a Democratic Trump, I'd think the same of those that opposed the Democratic Trump. That is, a narcissist that is seemingly incapable of empathy, scandalous in rhetoric and action, corrupt, and seemingly oblivious to politics and policy. I'd support interparty rebels, even if this Democratic Trump was pushing Bernie Sanders policies. As a progressive, I'd fear this Progressive Trump would potentially ruin progressive policy in the future since he'd stain it with his own words and actions. 

I can still understand why Republicans do vote for Trump, however, since the election is about more than just the president. It's about a platform, judges, foreign policy, etc. As such, I'd vote for Democrat Trump over Ted Cruz, but I'd be critical of Democratic Trump his entire presidency. That said, if it were Democratic Trump over Charlier Baker, Jon Huntsman, Larry Hogan or a moderate Republican with integrity, then I'd vote for the Republican, even if it would cost me reelection. 

I think in about 10 years, maybe less, that there will be books out about the heroic Never Trumpers during the Trump one-term presidency. I'm actually quite excited about what will be written in regards to this term. Often great things come out of terrible times. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Right, that's the question.

Take the 2015-6 primaries. Trump repeatedly wouldn't rule out running 3rd party. This garnered him a large amount of criticism among rank and file in the GOP. "Why is he saying this, it's just undermining support within the party for him!"

So why did he do it? It gave him leverage with the party, so they wouldn't try to screw him over. It also caused the party to draft a resolution for all candidates, saying they would support whoever the eventual nominee was. Since that turned out to be Trump, they all promised to support him, and reneging on that (Kasich, for example) made them look like hypocrites.

Why did he do it?  Because he's an egomaniac incapable of true strategic thought.  And sure, as you said in a much nicer way, it was also a threat to the rest of the Republican party:  stroke my ego, or else I'll help Hillary get elected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Kasich probably raised is hand 100% certain Trump wouldn't be the nominee

Your defense of Kasich amounts to "Kasich was so stupid he didn't understand the plain words he was agreeing to, at a moment when Trump was the *frontrunner* for the nomination."

It's about as clear-cut a case of hypocrisy as you can get.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Right, that's the question.

Take the 2015-6 primaries. Trump repeatedly wouldn't rule out running 3rd party. This garnered him a large amount of criticism among rank and file in the GOP. "Why is he saying this, it's just undermining support within the party for him!"

So why did he do it? It gave him leverage with the party, so they wouldn't try to screw him over. It also caused the party to draft a resolution for all candidates, saying they would support whoever the eventual nominee was. Since that turned out to be Trump, they all promised to support him, and reneging on that (Kasich, for example) made them look like hypocrites.

 

25 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I don't think Trump masterminded the situation. I think the cards just fell this way based off his natural independent demeanor. At that time, I expected Trump to lose the nomination but become a 3rd party that won like 25% of the vote. 

In regards to Kasich, I think a designation of "heroic integrity" or "hypocrite" would depend on one's opinion of Trump. Kasich probably raised is hand 100% certain Trump wouldn't be the nominee. For me, possibly because my opinion of Donald Trump is so low, I see John Kasich as a "Profiles in Courage" type politician, along with Jeff Flake, John McCain, Bob Corker, Mitt Romney and all the GOPers that risked and risk their political careers to oppose Trump. 

If we ever had a Democratic Trump, I'd think the same of those that opposed the Democratic Trump. That is, a narcissist that is seemingly incapable of empathy, scandalous in rhetoric and action, corrupt, and seemingly oblivious to politics and policy. I'd support interparty rebels, even if this Democratic Trump was pushing Bernie Sanders policies. As a progressive, I'd fear this Progressive Trump would potentially ruin progressive policy in the future since he'd stain it with his own words and actions. 

I can still understand why Republicans do vote for Trump, however, since the election is about more than just the president. It's about a platform, judges, foreign policy, etc. As such, I'd vote for Democrat Trump over Ted Cruz, but I'd be critical of Democratic Trump his entire presidency. That said, if it were Democratic Trump over Charlier Baker, Jon Huntsman, Larry Hogan or a moderate Republican with integrity, then I'd vote for the Republican, even if it would cost me reelection. 

I think in about 10 years, maybe less, that there will be books out about the heroic Never Trumpers during the Trump one-term presidency. I'm actually quite excited about what will be written in regards to this term. Often great things come out of terrible times. 

 

22 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Why did he do it?  Because he's an egomaniac incapable of true strategic thought.  And sure, as you said in a much nicer way, it was also a threat to the rest of the Republican party:  stroke my ego, or else I'll help Hillary get elected.

Of course, party loyalty was never a thing for Trump, anyways. He had been a card-holding member of Ross Perot's Reform Party from 1999 until only a few years before he declared his candidacy in 2015, and before he was a member of the Reform Party, he was a Democrat and a big supporter of Bill Clinton's two Presidential runs. His running in 2016 as a Republican was pure pragmatism, because he knew the Reform Party was so atrophied it was no longer relevant, and had no funding or infrastructure left, and the Democrats didn't suit the tenor of campaign he planned by the 2010's.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...