Author Topic: The Shampeachement Follies  (Read 108796 times)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #700 on: May 14, 2020, 05:24:43 PM »
Okay, that's fine. I see what you're saying. To me it doesn't matter much if the FBI relied on a third party agent to provide information that they requested, or if they examined the raw data. But I concede that to some it might matter if they start with the assumption that Crowdstrike was deliberately fabricating the forensic data.

It matter a lot if you don't trust Crowdstryke.

Quote
Of course, if you're going to buy into the idea that the FBI is crooked, then it hardly matters if they had the servers or not.

I think the much more plausible argument is that Crowdstryke is crooked and were basically cooking up whatever their employers were asking for. I'm not 100% sure this was happening, but multiple instances of shenanigans make it sounds awfully plausible. Why the FBI would believe them and not outright demand compliance is a separate (political) question.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #701 on: May 14, 2020, 09:17:57 PM »
...
Quote
Of course, if you're going to buy into the idea that the FBI is crooked, then it hardly matters if they had the servers or not.

I think the much more plausible argument is that Crowdstryke is crooked and were basically cooking up whatever their employers were asking for. I'm not 100% sure this was happening, but multiple instances of shenanigans make it sounds awfully plausible. Why the FBI would believe them and not outright demand compliance is a separate (political) question.

The disclosures are coming quickly, and nobody is saying the FBI is crooked - but that several of the top officers there have been proved to be crooked. Everyone endorses the rank and file FBI, but those like Comey, Strzok, and Page definitely did wrong. Don't defend them by saying everyone is attacking the FBI. The rank and file said Flynn was innocent. It was Obama at that meeting of Swamp monsters who countermanded those FBI agents and restarted the entrapment operation Crossfire Razor against him.

This is bigger than Party politics. We can not let losing politicians game the system in a coup attempt.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #702 on: May 15, 2020, 03:13:09 AM »
Don't defend them by saying everyone is attacking the FBI.

?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #703 on: May 15, 2020, 10:25:03 AM »
The bottom line is that we now know, based on legal testimony released last week, there was never any evidence of collusion with Russia. None. Schiff, Comey, Clapper, et al all went on TV and lied. They did it repeatedly with a willing media acting as an accomplice to spread and amplify those lies.

There was a core group within the FBI leadership that conducted this operation in coordination with the Obama Whitehouse and National Intelligence.

These are facts. This happened.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #704 on: May 15, 2020, 11:13:07 AM »
Crunch, you are the nearest thing to a human far rightwing talking points concentrator and conspiracy theory generating machine I can imagine. Drudge got nothing on you!  You're never more than a couple of hours behind FOX, Limbaugh, Levin, Jones and a number of others who preach from the same hymnbook, sometimes even ahead of them, suggesting you're closer to the generator than the megaphone!  If you don't mind my asking, do you do this as pro bono thing or are you paid for your efforts?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #705 on: May 15, 2020, 12:21:39 PM »
Seriously, have you ever made a post that was not purely logical fallacy? I honestly think you may not have, certainly not recently. It's like having a precocious toddler running around.  smh
« Last Edit: May 15, 2020, 12:23:42 PM by Crunch »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #706 on: May 15, 2020, 12:35:41 PM »
Seriously, have you ever made a post that was not purely logical fallacy? I honestly think you may not have, certainly not recently. It's like having a precocious toddler running around.  smh

:D :D. This is what separates you from the crowd (except from wmLambert).  How can the post of mine that you take exception to possibly be considered a "logical fallacy"? I made no "logical" argument, only expressed an opinion.  Consider that every comment that you don't like you misconstrue as if it is bad data, fake news. You're in over your head as you so often are and as you so often do confuse flailing with swimming.  TWS, sm*

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #707 on: May 15, 2020, 12:38:28 PM »
The bottom line is that we now know, based on legal testimony released last week, there was never any evidence of collusion with Russia. None. Schiff, Comey, Clapper, et al all went on TV and lied. They did it repeatedly with a willing media acting as an accomplice to spread and amplify those lies.

There was a core group within the FBI leadership that conducted this operation in coordination with the Obama Whitehouse and National Intelligence.

These are facts. This happened.

Name somebody who doesn't go on TV and lie, including members of the current administration.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #708 on: May 15, 2020, 01:11:56 PM »
Seriously, have you ever made a post that was not purely logical fallacy? I honestly think you may not have, certainly not recently. It's like having a precocious toddler running around.  smh

:D :D. This is what separates you from the crowd (except from wmLambert).  How can the post of mine that you take exception to possibly be considered a "logical fallacy"? I made no "logical" argument, only expressed an opinion.  Consider that every comment that you don't like you misconstrue as if it is bad data, fake news. You're in over your head as you so often are and as you so often do confuse flailing with swimming.  TWS, sm*

smh

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #709 on: May 15, 2020, 01:12:22 PM »
The bottom line is that we now know, based on legal testimony released last week, there was never any evidence of collusion with Russia. None. Schiff, Comey, Clapper, et al all went on TV and lied. They did it repeatedly with a willing media acting as an accomplice to spread and amplify those lies.

There was a core group within the FBI leadership that conducted this operation in coordination with the Obama Whitehouse and National Intelligence.

These are facts. This happened.

Name somebody who doesn't go on TV and lie, including members of the current administration.

And your point in saying this?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #710 on: May 15, 2020, 01:18:47 PM »
Seriously, have you ever made a post that was not purely logical fallacy? I honestly think you may not have, certainly not recently. It's like having a precocious toddler running around.  smh

:D :D. This is what separates you from the crowd (except from wmLambert).  How can the post of mine that you take exception to possibly be considered a "logical fallacy"? I made no "logical" argument, only expressed an opinion.  Consider that every comment that you don't like you misconstrue as if it is bad data, fake news. You're in over your head as you so often are and as you so often do confuse flailing with swimming.  TWS, sm*

smh

A normal person would admit they were wrong, not throw another spoonful of dirt.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #711 on: May 15, 2020, 02:06:56 PM »
Quote
It seems to be an increasingly common problem for people who identify as being "on the left" they don't bother to listen anymore.

If you're against them on something, they're immediately placing you "in a box" which they have pre-defined for you, and any protestation on your part about being mis-categorized is to be met with derision, and disdain, if it receives any attention at all.

I could just as easily have written that this way:

Quote
It seems to be an increasingly common problem for people who identify as being "on the right" they don't bother to listen anymore.

If you're against them on something, they're immediately placing you "in a box" which they have pre-defined for you, and any protestation on your part about being mis-categorized is to be met with derision, and disdain, if it receives any attention at all.

Would you agree with that characterization or not?

The "snowflake" posters are legion(and by that, I mean the ones calling others "snowflake"), so yes, I'll agree with that characterization being valid enough for a substantial portion of the population.

But nobody on Ornery runs around calling others snowflake. I'd agree there are two posters in here that are pushing the frontier of that line however.

But in your attempt to characterize myself or Fenring as being in that category, you're off base. Fenring doesn't post in that manner, and for myself, I don't place people in pre-defined boxes. I try to interact with them enough to let them define their "box" themselves, as I know one size does not fit all, as we're all individuals.

Something the left-wits don't seem to want to recognize. And it appears to be a trap that you've fallen into for whatever reason.

Edit: Going to add, I don't think you're going to be able to find a post by Fenring where he tells someone what they believe.

You should be able to find posts where I speak about vaguely defined groups, but not individuals.

However, we can find plenty of posts from you where you very strongly insinuate motives and beliefs on the rest of us, and even telling us what our beliefs are. Much like what I was speaking about
« Last Edit: May 15, 2020, 02:10:26 PM by TheDeamon »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #712 on: May 15, 2020, 02:37:11 PM »
Quote
But nobody on Ornery runs around calling others snowflake. I'd agree there are two posters in here that are pushing the frontier of that line however.

But in your attempt to characterize myself or Fenring as being in that category, you're off base. Fenring doesn't post in that manner, and for myself, I don't place people in pre-defined boxes. I try to interact with them enough to let them define their "box" themselves, as I know one size does not fit all, as we're all individuals.

Something the left-wits don't seem to want to recognize. And it appears to be a trap that you've fallen into for whatever reason.

Whenever someone chooses to demonize "left-wits" or whatever other epithet that comes hissing out of their mouths, it makes me almost reflexively do what I just did that you responded to.  Read that part I highlighted back to yourself, assuming I had written it, and replace "left" with right and tell me what you think about it.

Quote
Edit: Going to add, I don't think you're going to be able to find a post by Fenring where he tells someone what they believe.

That's amusing, since that's a big reason why I *do* push back on him.  I won't bother, but if you want to see that you're wrong about that, take a spin through his posts to see some examples.  Take a spin through mine to see where I've called him out.  He never admits it, of course.

Quote
However, we can find plenty of posts from you where you very strongly insinuate motives and beliefs on the rest of us, and even telling us what our beliefs are. Much like what I was speaking about

So, here we get to the nut of it: me good, you bad.  I admit that I do that when it seems apparent to me.  It would be dishonest for me to see something and not say something.  I do it for different reasons with different posters that I won't go into here, but suffice it to say I pick on your misuse of language and rightward tilt a tad and on Fenring (who you have decided to defend here) because of his tendency to pontificate without committing himself.  FWIW, I wouldn't refuse to share a pitcher or two of beer with either of you and would hope to enjoy the conversation, especially as we became more imbibliated.  There are a few others here where I would take the pitcher to a table and drink alone.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #713 on: May 15, 2020, 02:46:43 PM »
Quote
Edit: Going to add, I don't think you're going to be able to find a post by Fenring where he tells someone what they believe.

That's amusing, since that's a big reason why I *do* push back on him.

His point was that in the times when you push back against my points, you are invariably voicing an objection to something I never said and arguing against points I never made. When I say that, you claim I'm just denying what I wrote; when I explain again you answer with something like "I'm even more confused now." I have always tried to answer clearly, and to try again when you are "confused", but it is extremely difficult to interpret these interactions other than as you deliberately trolling me. I've felt for quite a while that this is exactly what you're doing, but I've never said so outright as I've chosen to just engage on the topics instead. But since you are now accusing me of telling others (or you? I noticed you kept this conspicuously general) what they think, I will answer directly because you have done nothing *but* tell me what I think and what I've said even when I directly deny it and tell you what in fact I did say and think. And when I engage in some other way, by asking questions for instance, you accuse me of purposefully refusing to state a position. So near as I can tell you will find any reason at all to object to my posts, and of course denial of these points serves only as fuel to prove (to yourself) that you were right. It's usually in the form of a soft kafkatrap.

There, I said it.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #714 on: May 15, 2020, 03:10:43 PM »
Quote
But nobody on Ornery runs around calling others snowflake. I'd agree there are two posters in here that are pushing the frontier of that line however.

But in your attempt to characterize myself or Fenring as being in that category, you're off base. Fenring doesn't post in that manner, and for myself, I don't place people in pre-defined boxes. I try to interact with them enough to let them define their "box" themselves, as I know one size does not fit all, as we're all individuals.

Something the left-wits don't seem to want to recognize. And it appears to be a trap that you've fallen into for whatever reason.

Whenever someone chooses to demonize "left-wits" or whatever other epithet that comes hissing out of their mouths, it makes me almost reflexively do what I just did that you responded to.  Read that part I highlighted back to yourself, assuming I had written it, and replace "left" with right and tell me what you think about it.

"Left-wit" has previously been defined and discussed in here before. That you continue to ignore what was said in those discussions--and you did participate, is your own failing.

It is not a proxy for "snowflake" as you seem to want to make it out to be. It is a descriptor of people who have fully bought into left-wing propaganda and can't be bothered to critically analyze their own side.

Further, going by:
Quote
It seems to be an increasingly common problem for people who identify as being "on the left" they don't bother to listen anymore.

If you're against them on something, they're immediately placing you "in a box" which they have pre-defined for you, and any protestation on your part about being mis-categorized is to be met with derision, and disdain, if it receives any attention at all.

I could just as easily have written that this way:

Quote
It seems to be an increasingly common problem for people who identify as being "on the right" they don't bother to listen anymore.

If you're against them on something, they're immediately placing you "in a box" which they have pre-defined for you, and any protestation on your part about being mis-categorized is to be met with derision, and disdain, if it receives any attention at all.

Would you agree with that characterization or not?

The "snowflake" posters are legion(and by that, I mean the ones calling others "snowflake"), so yes, I'll agree with that characterization being valid enough for a substantial portion of the population.

But nobody on Ornery runs around calling others snowflake. I'd agree there are two posters in here that are pushing the frontier of that line however.

Would strongly suggest (and I'll confirm it now) that I do believe there is a "right-wing version of left-wits" out there. But the only group they have any real credibility with are the left-wits... Who do have plenty of traction among the Main Stream Media outlets.

Quote
Edit: Going to add, I don't think you're going to be able to find a post by Fenring where he tells someone what they believe.

That's amusing, since that's a big reason why I *do* push back on him.  I won't bother, but if you want to see that you're wrong about that, take a spin through his posts to see some examples.  Take a spin through mine to see where I've called him out.  He never admits it, of course.

I've watched it real time, you do a LOT of insertion and insinuation on his posts. Often calling attention to things her never said or even implicated. However does play well to the "left-wit playbook" of going "You have stated position ___. ____ also shares views like that, so I'm now going to accuse you of holding the same positions as ____. Even though I have no evidence to support the claim."

Do note, I'm not calling you a left-wit, I'm stating that you're falling into the same of logical traps and rabbit holes as the left-wits happily occupy. You are not treating individual positions as individual positions, you're treating them as group positions where individuals are not allowed to deviate.

And that is probably one of the biggest distinguishers between a "true conservative" (on the US Spectrum) vs a right winger, or a left-winger. The "true Conservative" always recognizes there is an individual involved in what's going on, and that every situation is going to be unique, so "one size fits all" does not work. Although there are plenty of "religious conservatives" who'd like to think differently.

Quote
Quote
However, we can find plenty of posts from you where you very strongly insinuate motives and beliefs on the rest of us, and even telling us what our beliefs are. Much like what I was speaking about

So, here we get to the nut of it: me good, you bad.  I admit that I do that when it seems apparent to me.  It would be dishonest for me to see something and not say something.  I do it for different reasons with different posters that I won't go into here, but suffice it to say I pick on your misuse of language and rightward tilt a tad and on Fenring (who you have decided to defend here) because of his tendency to pontificate without committing himself.  FWIW, I wouldn't refuse to share a pitcher or two of beer with either of you and would hope to enjoy the conversation, especially as we became more imbibliated.  There are a few others here where I would take the pitcher to a table and drink alone.

Oh I freely acknowledge I have a rightward tilt, I always have. I'm also no saint. But Fenring has been one of the more centrist posters all along. That he's even capable of being accused of being "right wing" these days just points to how far the Democratic Party has lurched to the left over the years.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #715 on: May 15, 2020, 04:29:52 PM »
Anybody who uses terms like "left-wits", "right-wads" or other insults to demonize groups (and, almost invariably, to make associations to posters here) go high up on my (and many others') list of people who have given up on being taken seriously, and who want to be taken for partisan hacks.

Yes, we've discussed this before.  I'm not sure why the people who use those terms want to continue being obnoxious, but there you go...

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #716 on: May 15, 2020, 05:17:20 PM »
Anybody who uses terms like "left-wits", "right-wads" or other insults to demonize groups (and, almost invariably, to make associations to posters here) go high up on my (and many others') list of people who have given up on being taken seriously, and who want to be taken for partisan hacks.

Just to be clear, there is always a use and a misuse of language, no matter which terms are used or how polite. To the extent that "left-wit" is meant to be insulting, it's extremely important to be clear about who it's referring to. While I somewhat agree that insulting terms are not ideal to include in any case, you should also be wary of double standards in it being 'obvious' to make mock of certain extremism on one side but to decry its use in regard to the other side. I've never seen anyone here (on the left-leaning persuasion) object to insulting monikers used for the "right-wing crazies" and FOX pundits who of course are going to take predictably right-wing interpretations of events. Now, the idea of a 'left-wit' (a term I heard first from Pete, years ago) is supposed to be someone who by all rights a typical liberal person should consider to be an embarrassment to their side, as as extremist right-wingers (perverse examples of which can be the Bestboro Baptist Church, along with various right-wing radical pundits) should be to the right. When hearing such persons speak, those on that same side should properly be the ones objecting to them for spoiling the party. But the way things are now, and maybe TheDeamon was alluding to this, the partisan need to win the social battle at all costs has become so pervasive that people will endorse or at least accept the crazies on their side just because it's more foot soldiers on the right side. This, despite the fact that the crazies do more damage than the opposition ever could. But the sense that "we" need to beat the bad guys seems to make it extremely difficult to divorce oneself from others who on paper make the same arguments but in real time are unreasonable.

Now I can see how the use of a term like 'left-wit' could slide dangerously close to being a catchall insult to 'those stupid liberals', but certainly in the sense TheDeamon is using it I think we can trust that's not what he means by it here. He means people that are so beyond argumentation that speaking to them can only function as a game for them to play in how to defeat you. Even if 'left-wit' is disagreeable to you there is obviously a linguistic need word a word of some sort to cover this sort of person; it seems absurd to refuse to name a thing that exists. Since Pete coined (afaik) 'left-wit' it seems an acceptable way to call it, so long as it retains its boundaries; like all things if you start to include things that don't belong there it gets insulting fast.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #717 on: May 15, 2020, 05:31:56 PM »
Quote
To the extent that "left-wit" is meant to be insulting, it's extremely important to be clear about who it's referring to.

Let's go off the rails again, shall we?  What does "to the extent that.." mean?  Is it ever the case that it is not meant to be insulting?  And since it is a generic term describing a group of people that one is opposed to, what does it mean for a single person to be one?

Quote
But the way things are now, and maybe TheDeamon was alluding to this, the partisan need to win the social battle at all costs has become so pervasive that people will endorse or at least accept the crazies on their side just because it's more foot soldiers on the right side.

Since this is a veiled discussion about my challenging you in ways you find too aggressive, are you saying that I "endorse or at least accept the crazies on [my] side"?  Feel free to provide one or two examples of that.

This is why things so often go wrong between me and you.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #718 on: May 15, 2020, 05:48:22 PM »
Quote
Do note, I'm not calling you a left-wit, I'm stating that you're falling into the same of logical traps and rabbit holes as the left-wits happily occupy. You are not treating individual positions as individual positions, you're treating them as group positions where individuals are not allowed to deviate.

And that is probably one of the biggest distinguishers between a "true conservative" (on the US Spectrum) vs a right winger, or a left-winger. The "true Conservative" always recognizes there is an individual involved in what's going on, and that every situation is going to be unique, so "one size fits all" does not work. Although there are plenty of "religious conservatives" who'd like to think differently.

Incredible hypocrisy or self-deceiving congratulatory logic, I'm not sure which.  Do you know that most racists insist that they're not racists, they're just being reasonable and those who resist them are fighting against nature?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #719 on: May 15, 2020, 05:48:34 PM »
Just to be clear, there is always a use and a misuse of language, no matter which terms are used or how polite. To the extent that "left-wit" is meant to be insulting, it's extremely important to be clear about who it's referring to.
And I will point out that using the derogatory term is not in any way useful, nor does it advance discussion.  If you are using the term to refer to a group, you are being at best lazy, but almost certainly also gratuitously insulting. There is no usage of the term that would not, in this forum, be better replaced by explicitly describing who you are talking about.

The only exception would be in posts debating the value of the term itself, and then it would be used in quotation marks.
Quote
But the way things are now, and maybe TheDeamon was alluding to this, the partisan need to win the social battle at all costs has become so pervasive that people will endorse or at least accept the crazies on their side just because it's more foot soldiers on the right side.
This cuts both ways - and in this particular context, you see partisans use labels like 'left-wit' to tar stereotypical groups of people and then to implicitly or even explicitly link those groups to people posting on the forum.  In fact, I would say this is the most frequent usage of the term.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #720 on: May 15, 2020, 05:50:33 PM »
Fenring, for the record, you didn't hear that from me this time ;).

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #721 on: May 15, 2020, 06:33:11 PM »
Now I can see how the use of a term like 'left-wit' could slide dangerously close to being a catchall insult to 'those stupid liberals', but certainly in the sense TheDeamon is using it I think we can trust that's not what he means by it here. He means people that are so beyond argumentation that speaking to them can only function as a game for them to play in how to defeat you. Even if 'left-wit' is disagreeable to you there is obviously a linguistic need word a word of some sort to cover this sort of person; it seems absurd to refuse to name a thing that exists. Since Pete coined (afaik) 'left-wit' it seems an acceptable way to call it, so long as it retains its boundaries; like all things if you start to include things that don't belong there it gets insulting fast.

That's pretty much exactly how I intend it to be read. Although I'll sometimes extend it to include those who uncritically evaluate information given to them "by their own side" where that "side" happens to be "the left."

Which is part of why I like that term, because they're behaving as though they're half-wits because they're not bothering to think about what they're being told, they're just happily parroting whatever "the correct people" tell them to say when it comes left-wing political issues.

The Religious Right is FULL of people like that -- their favored religious leader told them it is that way, so that's that. The Bigots and other a##hats on the more extreme right are further demonstrations of that. I don't really object to "right-wad" being used to address them, for a number of them it fits rather well. It is the overly broad application of those terms that becomes problematic.

When everyone who disagrees with you is "a right-wad" you need to re-evaluate what your criteria is for the term. Likewise if you think everyone who disagrees with you is a "left-wit."

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #722 on: May 15, 2020, 06:39:48 PM »
Since this is a veiled discussion about my challenging you in ways you find too aggressive, are you saying that I "endorse or at least accept the crazies on [my] side"?  Feel free to provide one or two examples of that.

I don't think you agree with them on everything, there obviously is some overlap, but that is unavoidable. (Much like you and others love to point out how some white supremacy groups have views that overlap conservative ones) How much overlap there is, that's open to interpretation, but only you have any means to truly know that as it applies to you.

All I know is the posting style I've been watching you employ over the past few weeks is right out of their playbook, and hasn't really been adding much to the discussion other than people effectively talking to a wall. Which is disappointing.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #723 on: May 15, 2020, 06:47:53 PM »
Quote
Do note, I'm not calling you a left-wit, I'm stating that you're falling into the same (kind) of logical traps and rabbit holes as the left-wits happily occupy. You are not treating individual positions as individual positions, you're treating them as group positions where individuals are not allowed to deviate.

And that is probably one of the biggest distinguishers between a "true conservative" (on the US Spectrum) vs a right winger, or a left-winger. The "true Conservative" always recognizes there is an individual involved in what's going on, and that every situation is going to be unique, so "one size fits all" does not work. Although there are plenty of "religious conservatives" who'd like to think differently.

Incredible hypocrisy or self-deceiving congratulatory logic, I'm not sure which.  Do you know that most racists insist that they're not racists, they're just being reasonable and those who resist them are fighting against nature?

So are you saying I'm a racist and just refuse to acknowledge it? This is what I meant about you "placing people in a box" and telling them what they truly believe.

And yes, I do know that a great many racists feel that way, thank you very much. I've had the distinct displeasure of interacting with more than a few of them over the years. I know what "hard racism" is, I've seen it. I know what "soft racism" is, I've been guilty of it(the person who says they haven't is a liar), and I've also been on the receiving end of it. I've even listened to (minority) friends of mine casually talk about how they've engaged in it like it's no big deal.

And no, I don't feel the need to further "virtue signal" on the topic of who those friends are.

But hey, you've already placed me in a box, you know what I believe better than I do, so you go right on ahead and keep on being you.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #724 on: May 15, 2020, 07:53:56 PM »
...the posting style I've been watching you employ over the past few weeks is right out of their playbook, and hasn't really been adding much to the discussion other than people effectively talking to a wall. Which is disappointing.

Why is it okay for Democrat apologists to put anyone they wish to into a box to build straw men to attack, but if anyone points out history that person is wrong? What are the operative attacks used against any opposing candidates? Racism and bigotry is a Democrat fall-back position. Non-Democrats are called minions of the Rich, even though more millionaires and billionaires are Democrats, than GOP. Trump is evil because he's racist. Even though he was given the same Civil Rights award as Rosa Parks beside her at the same ceremony. Wasn't it Robert Byrd who was sponsored by the KKK to run for office, after he was unanimously elected as the chief KKK recruiter in his tri-state region? Y'know the guy who was Hillary and Bill's mentor? Y'know, the guy who said joining the KKK was the biggest mistake in his life, but never gave up any of the KKK who attacked and killed Civil Rights workers? During his career in office, it was the GOP who the Democrats said were racists and bigots. They admitted the Democrat Party was the party of slave owners and racists, and fought against all the Civil Rights Bills, but then claimed all the racists went over to the GOP, when they hadn't.

When a person does something wrong, continues doing that wrong, but then says it is someone else who is REALLY doing it, it must be called projection. That is not a conspiracy word - it is just an historically accurate descriptor. All the Democrats were urging Trump to run for office as a Democrat. He ran as a Republican, and all of a sudden, they say they never wanted him - even though it was them that changed. Eisenhower was idolized by both parties, but he chose to run GOP. Same deal, he sponsored all the old Lincoln Civil Rights bills whic the Democrats fought against, but when JFK and LBJ got into office, they called themselves the Civil Rights champions, even though it was Everitt Dirksen, the GOP Minority Leader, who pushed the Civil Rights bills through, again against the Dems. Yet the Dems, who fought against them, claimed they were the ones who owned them.

To say those things gets one branded as a Conspiracy whacko and liar. The ghettos, barrios, and urban plantations are owned by the Democrat Party, and as LBJ said, are kept down to have their votes owned by the Dem nanny state. I just wish both sides would stop pejorative attacks based on disinformation.


Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #725 on: May 15, 2020, 08:21:30 PM »
Quote
So are you saying I'm a racist and just refuse to acknowledge it? This is what I meant about you "placing people in a box" and telling them what they truly believe.

No, that was an inelegant way to reinforce my point that you see the other as wrong, but not yourself.  I don't often apologize, but I'll give you one for that.  Go back to what I highlighted and see that my point is still valid.  Just do the ol' flip trick:

Quote
And that is probably one of the biggest distinguishers between a "true liberal" (on the US Spectrum) vs a right winger, or a left-winger. The "true Liberal" always recognizes there is an individual involved in what's going on, and that every situation is going to be unique, so "one size fits all" does not work.

Do you disagree with my statement?  Note this is the third time in this thread I made it clear that your point shows bias by simply changing the target.


Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #726 on: May 15, 2020, 08:23:49 PM »
Quote
I just wish both sides would stop pejorative attacks based on disinformation.

Then why in that post, as you do in nearly every post, only attack Democrats?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #727 on: May 15, 2020, 08:33:56 PM »
Just do the ol' flip trick:

Quote
And that is probably one of the biggest distinguishers between a "true liberal" (on the US Spectrum) vs a right winger, or a left-winger. The "true Liberal" always recognizes there is an individual involved in what's going on, and that every situation is going to be unique, so "one size fits all" does not work.

Do you disagree with my statement?  Note this is the third time in this thread I made it clear that your point shows bias by simply changing the target.

This becomes a fun game of definition. Please define "Liberal" in this context?

Given that the United States was established and built around the ideals of classical liberalism (not to be confused with it's 21st century counterpart), the "true conservative" position is the "true liberal" position, only it would need to be defined as the word would have been understood it circa 1870, 1792, or 1776.

The problem is, modern "Liberal groups" don't operate that way. You're not an individual, you're part of a (racial/educational) collective. They'll categorize you and treat you according to your demographic data grouping. If you don't conform to their demographic data, you don't exist. If you object to their categorizations, you're a threat to be taken down, brought back in line, or ostracized until such time that you "see the light" and return.

There is no room for individuals in the Democratic Party of today, until or unless you can manage to find your way into their more elite ranks.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #728 on: May 15, 2020, 08:55:45 PM »
...Please define "Liberal" in this context?

The broad use of "Liberal" is misused. We should talk about Classic Liberals, like Thomas Jefferson or Ron Paul, as a true Liberal. The term is misused to describe a Woodrow Wilson Progressive as one. It was labeled so consistently by Democrats as their own preferred name, it became a pejorative, and they started reusing the term "Progressive." They consider this term as starting with Teddy Roosevelt, but he was not than kind of Progressive. Wilson was the anti-Constitutionalist who believed the Constitution was a living document that changed with the times and could be interpreted however he wanted. Wilson was a racist who brought back the KKK after it had been virtually wiped away. He sponsored "Birth of a Nation" at the White House, which restarted the KKK.

Most Classic Liberals I know still resent the appropriation of their term by the Left.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #729 on: May 15, 2020, 09:16:21 PM »
We should talk about Classic Liberals, like Thomas Jefferson or Ron Paul, as a true Liberal.

Ron Paul is not a Classical Liberal. A Libertarian he may be, but a "Classical Liberal" in the vein of Jefferson? Not quite. Ron Paul is a little too anti-Federalist even from a Jeffersonian perspective. Paul, and his son, almost seem to want to revert back to the Articles of Confederation in a lot of ways.

Although as I think about it, I have to appreciate the irony of "The party of Jefferson" was started by an anti-Federalist, now taking positions that makes the Federalist, John Adams, seems downright conservative by current standards. That our politics are nearly as screwed up now as they were when Jefferson and Adams were fighting each other on the political battlefield also speaks volumes. It's even richer given the Democrats want to perform a repeat of what the Federalists did in regards to suppressing opposition rhetoric, and are having better success at it, just not through federal acts, they're getting Google, Facebook, and Twitter to do the dirty work for them voluntarily.

Keeping my fingers crossed for November, I don't think they're going to like the reckonings that will likely come after that. I'd say their immunity to prosecution for content on their sites needs a thorough review, as the basis for that legal protection was "they had no way to screen content" provided by their users. Well, they certainly seem to have that ability now, and Republican voices seem to frequently be on the receiving end.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #730 on: May 15, 2020, 10:37:57 PM »
Fenring, for the record, you didn't hear that from me this time ;).

Your reading comprehension is at its usual level of "find any way to make any text demonstrate the Fenring is offensive." That is especially impressive on this particular occasion since I do not believe DonaldD was talking about me...  ::)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #731 on: May 16, 2020, 12:04:11 AM »
Fenring, for the record, you didn't hear that from me this time ;).

Your reading comprehension is at its usual level of "find any way to make any text demonstrate the Fenring is offensive." That is especially impressive on this particular occasion since I do not believe DonaldD was talking about me...  ::)

Considering I'd just used both the phrase DonaldD was talking about, and linking it back to Kasandra in a roundabout way, it's a safe bet it was a reference/warning towards me. With a couple others that should take note as well, but agreed. He was not talking about you.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #732 on: May 16, 2020, 02:41:05 AM »
Considering I'd just used both the phrase DonaldD was talking about, and linking it back to Kasandra in a roundabout way, it's a safe bet it was a reference/warning towards me. With a couple others that should take note as well, but agreed. He was not talking about you.

Yes, I think DonaldD might have been quoting me but referring to you (or anyone else who has used the term before). But it appeared that Kasandra had a different takeaway. I'll explain:

I suppose I could be wrong, but Kasandra was directly replying after DonaldD addressed me alone, winking at me that since the criticism was coming from someone else that maybe there's something to what Kasandra has been saying. Assuming this is correct (and there is no reasonable way I can see that Kas was not referencing DonaldD's post, which was directed to me) then the only inference that makes any sense was that Kasandra just assumed that DonaldD was chastising me for categorizing people, which is the very thing Kasandra accused me of. Except for one thing: the content DonaldD was referencing (use of the term "left-wit" in regards to lumping far-left liberals together) has never been used by me on this forum other than in this very thread! And my mentioning of it here was only to try to make sense of your post where you used it.

Conclusion: Kasandra assumed DonaldD was referring to me in his post, and winked at me as if this confirmed his accusations that I repeatedly attribute beliefs to Kas that are false. Do you see? The kafkatrap continues, and I have a hard time at this point believing it's an accident.

Kasandra: for the record, you should know something. I had a couple of IRL friends who used to come here years ago, and who left because they felt chased away by trollish posters hounding them. Your current account wasn't active at that time (it was during your previous one) but the tactics and tone used by a couple of people here at that time made them feel like it was too toxic for them. What you have been doing is almost precisely the same type of thing, so I'll just ask for the good of the forum to try to be more focused on engaging people to learn from them than to make them rue the day they were ever born. Also for the record I have no intention of leaving, and overall feel like the tone here is more congenial than ever, but I just wanted to relate to you that this sort of thing *has* made people leave in the past.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #733 on: May 16, 2020, 06:20:37 AM »
Just do the ol' flip trick:

Quote
And that is probably one of the biggest distinguishers between a "true liberal" (on the US Spectrum) vs a right winger, or a left-winger. The "true Liberal" always recognizes there is an individual involved in what's going on, and that every situation is going to be unique, so "one size fits all" does not work.

Do you disagree with my statement?  Note this is the third time in this thread I made it clear that your point shows bias by simply changing the target.

This becomes a fun game of definition. Please define "Liberal" in this context?

Given that the United States was established and built around the ideals of classical liberalism (not to be confused with it's 21st century counterpart), the "true conservative" position is the "true liberal" position, only it would need to be defined as the word would have been understood it circa 1870, 1792, or 1776.

You first.  What is a "Conservative"?  What is a "true Conservative"?

Quote
The problem is, modern "Liberal groups" don't operate that way. You're not an individual, you're part of a (racial/educational) collective. They'll categorize you and treat you according to your demographic data grouping. If you don't conform to their demographic data, you don't exist. If you object to their categorizations, you're a threat to be taken down, brought back in line, or ostracized until such time that you "see the light" and return.

There is no room for individuals in the Democratic Party of today, until or unless you can manage to find your way into their more elite ranks.

It seems that every time I point out your penchant for bias against Democrats and liberals, you respond by doubling down with yet another hyperpartisan mischaracterization.  That's why I say,

Quote
There is no room for individuals in the Republican Party of today, until or unless you can manage to find your way into their more elite ranks.

This is a game, only a game.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #734 on: May 16, 2020, 07:09:24 AM »
Quote
Kasandra: for the record, you should know something. I had a couple of IRL friends who used to come here years ago, and who left because they felt chased away by trollish posters hounding them. Your current account wasn't active at that time (it was during your previous one) but the tactics and tone used by a couple of people here at that time made them feel like it was too toxic for them. What you have been doing is almost precisely the same type of thing, so I'll just ask for the good of the forum to try to be more focused on engaging people to learn from them than to make them rue the day they were ever born. Also for the record I have no intention of leaving, and overall feel like the tone here is more congenial than ever, but I just wanted to relate to you that this sort of thing *has* made people leave in the past.

That's why I left.  When I first joined the forum there were more than 50 active posters and probably over 100 lurkers.  I joined because of the wide range of threads spanning politics, arts culture, and it just plain seemed like a cool place to hang out.  I learned a lot of things from the best posters among the group. It was also an undisciplined forum where it seemed that members were frquently being suspended.  At the time, suspension was something to be embarrassed by.

By the time I left there were probably fewer than half that number of posters and lurkers.  The range of topics had shrunk and threads were commonly started and aimed at throwing grenades at non-Christians, Democrats and liberals.  Threads became controversial for no reason, sometimes, other than there was disagreement with those dominant religious and political views.  Even the most rightwing, conservative and Republican posters felt proudly that they were upholding the principles of open and honest discussion, as long as posters fell in line with their views.  Ornery could have rebranded itself as Conformery.

When I poked my head back in recently, this place looked like a Sunday church service in a small community.  Very few posters, almost all of whom have been here forever.  Not much controversy, since people who don't fit the model have wandered off to big city forums where contentious discussions bore more interesting exchanges. I quickly learned that the key word here is "civility".

With a few notable exceptions, discussion here has pretty much "regressed to the mean".  It's impolite to call out hypocrisy and innate bias exhibited by some members on the right, just as it's unacceptable to raise your voice in church.

I picked the forum name "Kasandra" on purpose.  It looks like it was apt, as I knew it would be.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #735 on: May 16, 2020, 10:43:09 AM »
The problem is, modern "Liberal groups" don't operate that way. You're not an individual, you're part of a (racial/educational) collective. They'll categorize you and treat you according to your demographic data grouping. If you don't conform to their demographic data, you don't exist. If you object to their categorizations, you're a threat to be taken down, brought back in line, or ostracized until such time that you "see the light" and return.

Yes, "liberal groups" do sometimes have a problem with not always treating people like individuals -- there exist some people in them I've even called "racist anti-racists", given their attitudes.

On the other hand, with modern "conservative" groups, you can be told to "go back to your country" (even if you were born in America) as long as you're non-white, if you say anything that displeases the white supremacist in the presidency. They're not racist anti-racists, or even pretend-'colorblind' racists as used to be the fashion, they're just old-fashioned standard-issue racist racists.

Trump said that Judge Gonzalo Curiel could not be impartial and should recuse himself in judging a case relating to Trump's business interests, because he was "of Mexican heritage", and Trump was building a wall with Mexico. Was that treating him like an individual? Or, geez, he was judging him based on Curiel's heritage and race, though it was a very non-racist wall that Trump was supposedly building, for completely non-racist reasons, which would however simultaneoulsly somehow naturally aggravate Curiel as he was of Mexican heritage?

If "conservatives" want to pretend that they're treating people like individuals, and that they're colorblind or whatever, then they should actually stop bringing up other people's nationality and origins, but that has instead been Trump's entire shtick ever since he took up the banner of birtherism, and he's been consistent in emphasizing his various opponents' ethnicities ever since.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2020, 10:45:12 AM by Aris Katsaris »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #736 on: May 16, 2020, 10:58:59 AM »
The orange man sure is bad.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #737 on: May 16, 2020, 11:14:10 AM »
Trump wouldn't be any more or less racist if he wasn't orange.  Why do you insist on emphasizing and focussing on his skin colour, as if his being orange somehow excuses his actions?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #738 on: May 16, 2020, 01:20:16 PM »
Trump wouldn't be any more or less racist if he wasn't orange.  Why do you insist on emphasizing and focussing on his skin colour, as if his being orange somehow excuses his actions?
smh

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #739 on: May 16, 2020, 01:30:17 PM »
..."liberal groups" do sometimes have a problem with not always treating people like individuals -- there exist some people in them I've even called "racist anti-racists", given their attitudes.

The main difference is the M.O. - not just having collective interests.

Conservatives, and most GOP, share a pro-Constitutional bent, based on what the Founders wrote and philosophized over. The current Democrat Party is self-described as "Progressive" but are usually very tightly focused on one or two competing interests. What makes their party work is the commitment to sticking together even though they are often opposed to each others' positions. Since each individual position has little majority backing, it takes the collective strength of disparate elements to generate the strength to push their ideas through: "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." The Progressive movement gained it's defining meaning from Wilson. The difference of the Constitution being soft and non-binding (Living Constitution/living tree doctrine) differentiates greatly from the Originalism which stresses the intent of how and why the system was built.

Classic Liberalism is generally thought of as civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom as espoused by John Locke and Malthus. Progressivism is centered on environmentalism and social justice, accomplished by social engineering. Modern Progressivism is largely secular; however, historical Progressivism was largely religious. When the Democrat party accepted Progressivism and social engineering, it centered on maintaining a power base, more than just solving problems brought on by modernization. This is true, otherwise, why would the centers of Democrat leadership control the failed areas? When FDR started the New Deal, he exempted minorities from the uplift portions. They were given aid, but not solutions. Look at the Tennessee Valley projects, and who were acceptable and who weren't. It has been long enough now, that historians are beginning to report on it honestly.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #740 on: May 16, 2020, 02:02:09 PM »
Classic Liberalism is generally thought of as civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom as espoused by John Locke and Malthus.

Uh, not Malthus. Definitely not Malthus for anyone who claims a conservative bent. Although he would be in the right time frame.

Malthus is the guy the Democrats and the self-professed Liberals often fawn over. He's the guy that predicted exponential population growth, but linear growth in productivity... Which would therefor result in resource scarcity and even dire shortages. Malthusian thought is the basis and justification behind Planned Parenthood, the need for population controls, etc.

Now if you said Locke("Life, Liberty and the pursuit of propertyhappiness" is almost verbatim Locke except for the one substitution), Montesquieu(separation of powers), Rousseau("The Government that governs least, governs best" is a decent summary of his views), as well as Hobbes you'd be much closer to the reality of things.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2020, 02:09:55 PM by TheDeamon »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #741 on: May 16, 2020, 02:11:40 PM »
smh
You keep smacking your head... Maybe that's why you keep focussing on skin colour, instead of making other observations like "lying man bad" or "racist man bad" or "sexual assault man bad" or "infidelity/cheating husband man bad" or "incoherent man bad" or "science denying man bad" or "self dealing/cronyism man bad".... I guess focussing on his skin allows you to ignore his actual failings.  TDS, indeed.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #742 on: May 16, 2020, 02:49:35 PM »
On the other hand, with modern "conservative" groups, you can be told to "go back to your country" (even if you were born in America) as long as you're non-white, if you say anything that displeases the white supremacist in the presidency. They're not racist anti-racists, or even pretend-'colorblind' racists as used to be the fashion, they're just old-fashioned standard-issue racist racists.

Here's where I get to play a left-wit card in the opposite direction. Most "modern conservative groups" aren't "truly conservative" as it should be defined in an American context. Much like all those Countries with "socialist" in their name, and political parties with "socialist" in them aren't actually socialist, and ditto for "communist" parties and nations that used that word in their name.

What you have are partisan or religious organizations that when placed into a Venn diagram they have enough overlap with "conservative" that given nobody has bothered to develop another term for them(besides either "Republican" or "Religious") results in their being identified as such. We're dealing with the imprecise nature of language here. This is further complicated by what the root word "conservative" means in the first place == resistant to change.

You have Religious/Social Conservatives, who have typically have religious/"other" reasons to resist social change, and even sometimes try to enact laws to change things to their liking(not very conservative--they're making changes), but generally qualifies them as "conservative" (root meaning) if nothing else because they rarely gain enough power to be able to make changes. (Yes, there are racists and bigots to be found in this category, but most people in it are not)

Then you have the people who are simply happy enough with how things are and don't want somebody to screw it up -- they're "conservative" (root meaning) but for different reasons, they just prefer the status quo.

Then you have that "Classical Liberal" who would be that "True Conservative" on the American spectrum. They're not pursuing a social agenda in any typical sense, they're not pursuing a religious agenda either. They're simply trying to adhere to the founding principles as they understand them to relate to the present day. (Rand Paul openly is "a social conservative," so he doesn't qualify for this category)

Quote
Trump said that Judge Gonzalo Curiel could not be impartial and should recuse himself in judging a case relating to Trump's business interests, because he was "of Mexican heritage", and Trump was building a wall with Mexico. Was that treating him like an individual? Or, geez, he was judging him based on Curiel's heritage and race, though it was a very non-racist wall that Trump was supposedly building, for completely non-racist reasons, which would however simultaneoulsly somehow naturally aggravate Curiel as he was of Mexican heritage?

Trump is another category entirely, he's "a business Conservative" and this is further reflected by his past affiliation with the Democratic Party up through the Bush 43 presidency, and his social positions actually containing a number of very liberal positions in their mix. His "base" also is rather weird, and not particularly Republican at its core, although he's seemingly "won over" a lot of Republicans over the past few years. But I think a part of that has to do with people like Adam Schiff, AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren scaring the #$%& out of them.

Quote
If "conservatives" want to pretend that they're treating people like individuals, and that they're colorblind or whatever, then they should actually stop bringing up other people's nationality and origins, but that has instead been Trump's entire shtick ever since he took up the banner of birtherism, and he's been consistent in emphasizing his various opponents' ethnicities ever since.

Kanye West and the Kardashian family count him as a friend, a number of other high profile minorities also consider him to be a friend. Now I'm not going to rule out "reflected fame" being a motivation for Trump, as he loves any and all press attention he can get, even if it is negative(so he can complain about it and get even more). So it makes the "buy in" on him being a racist rather high, and its a bar that hasn't been cleared for me as of yet. He says a lot of stupid stuff, but words are one thing, actions are another. I'm more about judging people "by their works" rather than their words. And Trump's record in regards to minorities is pretty impressive in a very good way, which again raises the bar even higher on getting a "buy in" on him being a racist. He may "say the words" but he doesn't do any of the other stuff that would be expected to accompany it.

Unlike what can be said for a great many Democrats who "use the right words" all the freaking time, but still have yet to show much of anything to demonstrate they meant what they've been saying. If anything, their results(works) tend to be exact opposite of what they say. It's only when Republicans start stirring the pot that things tend to improve for those groups.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2020, 02:51:59 PM by TheDeamon »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #743 on: May 16, 2020, 06:53:40 PM »
...
Quote
Trump said that Judge Gonzalo Curiel could not be impartial and should recuse himself in judging a case relating to Trump's business interests, because he was "of Mexican heritage", and Trump was building a wall with Mexico. Was that treating him like an individual? Or, geez, he was judging him based on Curiel's heritage and race, though it was a very non-racist wall that Trump was supposedly building, for completely non-racist reasons, which would however simultaneoulsly somehow naturally aggravate Curiel as he was of Mexican heritage?

Trump is another category entirely, he's "a business Conservative" and this is further reflected by his past affiliation with the Democratic Party up through the Bush 43 presidency, and his social positions actually containing a number of very liberal positions in their mix. His "base" also is rather weird, and not particularly Republican at its core, although he's seemingly "won over" a lot of Republicans over the past few years. But I think a part of that has to do with people like Adam Schiff, AOC, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren scaring the #$%& out of them.

Artful disinformation. Trump had noticed that Judge Curiel was a participant, activist, and advocate in many areas that should have caused him to recuse himself from what he was doing. It was not about his ethnicity - it was about his personal objectives without the necessary impartiality. Another disingenuous attempt to build that straw-man. Curiel fought back and came up short of recusing himself, admiting that he was involved with all these organizations - but was able to keep his judiciary independence anyway.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #744 on: May 16, 2020, 08:08:13 PM »
Artful disinformation. Trump had noticed that Judge Curiel was a participant, activist, and advocate in many areas that should have caused him to recuse himself from what he was doing. It was not about his ethnicity - it was about his personal objectives without the necessary impartiality.

BULL*censored*.

https://eu.indystar.com/story/news/2016/06/11/what-trump-has-said-judge-curiel/85641242/
Quote
Donald Trump: “We have a very hostile judge because, to be honest with you, the judge should’ve thrown the case out on summary judgement. But because it was me and because there’s a hostility toward me by the judge, tremendous hostility, beyond belief. I believe he happens to be Spanish, which is fine. He is Hispanic, which is fine. And we haven't asked for recusal, which we may do. But we have a judge who is very hostile. Should’ve been thrown out. Wasn’t thrown out.”

Trump: It has nothing to do with his ethnicity, but I'll keep bringing it up, and not mention any other reason he might be hostile to me other than his ethnicity, which for some reason I consider relevant.

Quote
Donald Trump: “I think the judge has been extremely hostile to me. I think it has to do with perhaps the fact that I'm very, very strong on the border. Very, very strong on the border. And he has been extremely hostile to me. This is a case that in our opinion should have been won a long time ago. It's a case that we should have won on summary judgment….we have a very hostile judge. Now, he is Hispanic, I believe. He is a very hostile judge to me. I said it loud and clear.”

Yet another random mention of the judge's ethnicity. If he's just mentioning non-relevant characteristics of the judge, is it a coincidence that he doesn't  mention the judge's religion or hair color or sexual orientation?

Quote
Donald Trump: “Everybody says it, but I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He's a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel and he is not doing the right thing….So what happens is the judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that's fine. You know what? I think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump when I give all these jobs, OK? I think they're going to end up… I think they're going to love me…..So I'll be seeing you in November either as president -- and I will say this….I think Judge Curiel should be ashamed of himself. I think it's a disgrace that he's doing this….

Man, yet a 3rd mention of the judge's ethnicity, strange the way it's completely not relevant to anything.

Quote
Trump: Look, he's proud of his heritage, OK? I'm building a wall. Now, I think I'm going to do very well with Hispanics...because I'm going to bring back jobs. And they are going to get jobs. I think I'm going to do very well with Hispanics. But we are building a wall. He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico.

The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings, rulings that people can't even believe. This case should have ended years ago on summary judgment. The best lawyers -- I have spoken to so many lawyers -- they said, `This is not a case. This is a case that should have ended.' This judge is giving us unfair rulings. Now, I say. `Why?' Well, I'm building a wall, OK? And it's a wall between Mexico. Not another country.

Tapper: But he's not from Mexico. He's from Indiana.

Trump: He's of Mexican heritage and he's very proud of it.

Gee, Trump himself says that it's explicitly about the guy being of Mexican heritage. That's Trump's answer as to why this guy is giving him "unfair rulings" - that he's a Mexican and Trump is building a wall with Mexico.

Nothing here about the judge being a "participant, activist, and advocate in many areas that should have caused him to recuse himself from what he was doing". Lots of things about him being a Mexican.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2020, 08:12:35 PM by Aris Katsaris »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #745 on: May 16, 2020, 09:51:50 PM »
...Trump himself says that it's explicitly about the guy being of Mexican heritage. That's Trump's answer as to why this guy is giving him "unfair rulings" - that he's a Mexican and Trump is building a wall with Mexico.

Totally untrue. See: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-at-all-possible-that-judge-Gonzalo-P-Curiel-could-be-biased-against-Trump-If-yes-why-blame-Trump-for-voicing-a-potentially-valid-concern

Stefan Molyneux used documented facts and contemporaneous quotes. Judge Curiel should have recused himself, and is the epitome of "appearance of impropriety." Look at about 15 min. in to understand.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #746 on: May 16, 2020, 10:10:42 PM »
...Trump himself says that it's explicitly about the guy being of Mexican heritage. That's Trump's answer as to why this guy is giving him "unfair rulings" - that he's a Mexican and Trump is building a wall with Mexico.

Totally untrue. See: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-at-all-possible-that-judge-Gonzalo-P-Curiel-could-be-biased-against-Trump-If-yes-why-blame-Trump-for-voicing-a-potentially-valid-concern

Stefan Molyneux used documented facts and contemporaneous quotes. Judge Curiel should have recused himself, and is the epitome of "appearance of impropriety." Look at about 12 min. in to understand.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #747 on: May 17, 2020, 07:05:40 AM »
Quote
Totally untrue. See: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-at-all-possible-that-judge-Gonzalo-P-Curiel-could-be-biased-against-Trump-If-yes-why-blame-Trump-for-voicing-a-potentially-valid-concern

Stefan Molyneux used documented facts and contemporaneous quotes. Judge Curiel should have recused himself, and is the epitome of "appearance of impropriety." Look at about 12 min. in to understand.

Whether Curiel is biased or unbiased, proper or improper, and whether he should have actually recused himself or not is besides the point. I don't give a *censored* if Curiel is the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan. I don't care if Curiel is a serial-killing demon-worshipping cannibal.

The point is the REASON that Trump repeatedly gave instead, which is Curiel's ethnicity. Not those reasons you would have wanted him to use, but Curiel's ethnicity, repeatedly. That he's a Mexican, a Mexican, a Mexican, and lastly a MEXICAN.

I GAVE YOU THE BLOODY QUOTES, and you won't gaslit me on this.

What you're saying is "Well, Trump could have hypothetically used a valid non-racist reason.". Yes, perhaps he could have, perhaps Curiel should have recused himself for those non-racist reasons. Perhaps Trump could have said instead "He's member of an organization that politically opposes me." and perhaps that's a valid reason for recusal without keep bringing up Curiel's ethnicity.

But my point is, that with Trump being a racist, Trump repeatedly argued for the racist reason instead, not for the non-racist reason.

And I saw the first 13 minutes of Molyneux video -- an utter waste of my time that says nothing relevant: except in the other direction, revealing that Trump first made his "He's Mexican" comments and only then did the Hispanic Bar Association speak against Trump's racism. So that actually shoots down your argument even more, if anything.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2020, 07:12:45 AM by Aris Katsaris »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #748 on: May 17, 2020, 01:25:37 PM »
...I saw the first 13 minutes of Molyneux video -- an utter waste of my time that says nothing relevant: except in the other direction, revealing that Trump first made his "He's Mexican" comments and only then did the Hispanic Bar Association speak against Trump's racism. So that actually shoots down your argument even more, if anything.

I should have realized you wouldn't even watch the total destruction of your claims that Judge Curiel was opposed because he was racially profiled. If you had started at the 12 minute mark and watched for that 15 minutes you claimed you did, you would be apologizing for your disinformation. Face it. Curiel was active in the San Diego La Rasa Lawyers Association and had a history of many activist actions centered on Mexican people in the USA. Trump was correct in his claim that Curiel was required to recuse himself (as Curiel had pledged to do), and Molyneux gave you chapter and verse. You didn't bother to see it, so don't hold yourself up as unbiased. The MSM at the time was totally involved in discrediting Trump, and almost anything that comes up first in Search Engines makes Trump look bad. You need to go farther and understand the truth, not just the spiel.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #749 on: May 17, 2020, 01:53:41 PM »
You didn't bother to see it, so don't hold yourself up as unbiased.

Bull*censored*. Should I be forced to watch anything you like, no matter the length? That's a well-known tactic. I'm not obliged to waste my time. I watched from the start all the way up to the point you said (the 12 min mark), and the disinformation expert Molyneux hadn't even bothered to quote the Trump's statements that I quoted, the ones that made it clear that the thing was about Curiel being Mexican, Mexican and more Mexican. Obviously he'll try to make fun of people who react to the statements, without even bothering to quote what the actual Trump statement was, exactly because the Trump statement was so *censored*ing damning that it couldn't possibly be defended, except by pretending it didn't happen.,l

As for the rest of your statement, you again pretend that if you can find some perhaps valid reason for Curiel to need be recused, you will somehow delete from our memories how Trump emphasized that Curiel is Mexican, Mexican, MEXICAN.

Yeah, keep ignoring that stuff, keep substituting our actual reality with your own, and perhaps in that parallel universe you've created in your mind Trump isn't a racist. In our actual universe he is.

Also did I ever "hold up myself" as unbiased?

I gave you the quotes. The quotes are real. You want me to keep watching something that defends Trump without even bothering to list the quote that is being defended. No, I wasted enough of my time, Molyneux had nothing of value to add to the discussion, and neither do you.