2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stumbled across this article. Reminds me of why I rarely debate with my Republican supporting friends. I recently became engaged in a hot political debate on my FB page. It got nasty with the red herring and other fallacious attacks from my opposition. Ultimately, I left the debate and for this person to have the "must have" last word. Ugh.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amira-young/the-bipartisan-marriage_b_1949190.html

The Bipartisan Marriage

Because I live in beautiful Southern California, there is often one thing about my ex that shocks people. No, it's not that he prefers Seattle weather, or that he's a preppy who listens to death metal. It's not even the fact that I married him (although my best friend thinks that did stun a lot of people). Nope, it's that he's a Republican and I'm not.

When I say Republican, I don't mean a "I'm conservative but I'm slightly centrist and willing to listen to other people's opinions" kind of guy. It's more of a "I'm going to worship at the temple of Fox News until I die a horrible death at the hands of Big Government and only listen to conservative talk radio and talk nasty about anyone who resembles anything near a hippie" Republican. So it was kind of scary.

People wondered about us: How could a nice liberal Jewish girl like me get with an uber-conservative? What did I see in him? How did we not kill each other?

Since he wasn't as involved in politics when we first got together, I felt our differences didn't matter. He wasn't dogmatic and seemed to enjoy healthy debate. After all, there were bipartisan couples in Washington, like Mary Matalin and James Carville. It was entirely possible for them to succeed. Relationships are more about common values and similar experiences.

But those couples in Washington are very different than the couple that I was a part of when I got married. As time went on, particularly as the 2008 election approached, my husband became more and more entranced by the Republican base. According to him, Barack Obama was the most horrible thing that happened to humankind and Sarah Palin was a gift from God and Alaska, and how dare anyone make fun of her.

As the years rolled on and we would talk about politics, the conversation became less of a civilized discourse and more of him becoming extremely angry and shouting the same talking points repeatedly as if he were Bill O'Reilly on a bender. I couldn't get a word in to argue the other side. If I did, I was attacked for buying into the "liberal bias." In his eyes, I was a brainwashed fool and didn't understand how reality worked. He enjoyed our political discussions, but every time we had them, I felt ashamed and berated.

My goal was to create a civilized home, and to that end, it became extremely important that I not engage him about politics, because that would cause me pain and make our lives more difficult. So I tuned out. For someone who's educated and loves debating and exploring issues, it was a hard thing to do. But I wanted to keep my marriage strong, so I made the sacrifice and watched "The Daily Show" on my computer as if I were a 13-year-old boy with his first copy of Playboy.

As the 2010 elections approached, there was almost nothing playing in our home except for Fox News; I had surrendered the television to him. He barely talked to me and spent all his disposable income on conservative books from his favorite radio hosts. Anytime we talked -- even just about the cost of groceries -- he brought up politics. I felt like I was witnessing a didactic cult of one person.

He would often use sweeping statements about a woman's place and how my beloved feminism was destroying families. I was an elitist for wanting an education higher than my bachelor's degree and feeling that academia is crucial to modern thought. And the idea of taxes for the rich, despite the fact we were flirting with the poverty line throughout our marriage? Well, I might as well have been draped in the flag of communist Russia.

Shortly before I left the marriage, my ex and I decided to take a trip to San Francisco, despite his grumblings about how it was a city of liberal decay. I was excited to be there and he seemed to be too as we drove out to Fisherman's Wharf. But then I saw it -- there were tents across the Embarcadero for the Occupy movement. I was a huge supporter and believed in what they were standing for, but to him they were evil. I knew the trouble that would occur if he noticed, so I played a game of, "Hey, look over there! There's a guy dressed like a fish!"

It was around this time that I realized I was done avoiding political landmines. There was nothing keeping us together anymore except bills and some shared floorspace. He was more into Sean Hannity than he was his own wife, and would rather spend time with him than making love to me. Needless to say, the marriage was over.

Looking back, it was not the Republican values that tore our marriage apart, as some of my closest friends are conservative and we have wonderful friendships. It was him -- his anger, his brainwashed attitude and his lack of respect for my opinions. It doesn't bode well for relationships, and we shouldn't be acting this way on either side of the aisle.

Would I date a Republican again? I'm not so sure, but I never say never. All I know is that I want a man who is educated in his beliefs and can stand up for them properly rather than a brainwashed boy who thinks that getting angry, calling names and repeating the same talking points is political discourse. And I'd like to have my television back so I can laugh at Jon Stewart openly.

The problem with this guy, hubby, was the guy himself and not that he's a Republican. If he really did watch FOX 24/7, would rather watch Sean Hannity than make love to his wife and freak out over tents along the Embarcadero and then he's just a fukked up human being. (If you have been to San Francisco yet, spend the money and check this place out. Best urban environment, by far, in the US. And then go to Yosemite, which is only about 3-4 hours away, but the only way to get there is by car.)

One simply can't generalize about liberals or conservatives as being tolerant, intolerant, wonderful or shitty people. There are some liberals who are wonderful human beings and some who are shitty human beings. You can same thing about blacks, whites, gays, heteros, Americans, Mexicans, Arsenal supporters, United supporters, lawyers, doctors, politicians, dog catchers and pretty much any other grouping of people.

One can have great debates with Democrats AND with Republicans and one can have really shitty debates with Dems and Reps. It just depends on who they are as human beings.

I feel badly for this woman, but anyone who reads into this that her former husband's political views fully or partially explain his personal behavior are just grinding a partisan axe.
 
The problem with this guy, hubby, was the guy himself and not that he's a Republican. If he really did watch FOX 24/7, would rather watch Sean Hannity than make love to his wife and freak out over tents along the Embarcadero and then he's just a fukked up human being. (If you have been to San Francisco yet, spend the money and check this place out. Best urban environment, by far, in the US. And then go to Yosemite, which is only about 3-4 hours away, but the only way to get there is by car.)

One simply can't generalize about liberals or conservatives as being tolerant, intolerant, wonderful or shitty people. There are some liberals who are wonderful human beings and some who are shitty human beings. You can same thing about blacks, whites, gays, heteros, Americans, Mexicans, Arsenal supporters, United supporters, lawyers, doctors, politicians, dog catchers and pretty much any other grouping of people.

One can have great debates with Democrats AND with Republicans and one can have really shitty debates with Dems and Reps. It just depends on who they are as human beings.



I feel badly for this woman, but anyone who reads into this that her former husband's political views fully or partially explain his personal behavior are just grinding a partisan axe.

But see it is a problem. Of course not all, but Republicans do tend toward the douchebag. We can generalize; lack of empathy, macho alpha male bollocks, anti-intellectual, anti environment, money over spirituality, square, greedy, lack of conscious toward the common good (anti-christian), are given to war and violence over diplomacy, prefer incarceration and police expenditure and a massive military spending over social investment, not funny people, tend toward racist, don´t smoke pot . . . I mean, I could go on and on. Just look at leaders such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, and we won´t even get in to the Tea party or their secret treasonous displays of Nixon and Reagan in foreign policy. Today´s Republicans are in huge part a result of the infamous, racist, Southern Strategy.

So yes, the logical outcome of the problem of the guy would be he is a Republican. It´s a personality thing. I´m not bigging up liberals or the left wing, just some halfway decency. If you don´t get this or typically choose to mince words and aim towards the disingenuous, it may be because you are indeed a . . . Republican. It´s a personality thing. Republicans such as my mom and dad were, are a dying breed.
 
Last edited:
But see it is a problem. Of course not all, but Republicans do tend toward the douchebag. We can generalize; lack of empathy, macho alpha male bollocks, anti-intellectual, anti environment, money over spirituality, square, greedy, lack of conscious toward the common good (anti-christian), are given to war and violence over diplomacy, prefer incarceration and police expenditure and a massive military spending over social investment, not funny people, tend toward racist, don´t smoke pot . . . I mean, I could go on and on. Just look at leaders such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, and we won´t even get in to the Tea party or their secret treasonous displays of Nixon and Reagan in foreign policy. Today´s Republicans are in huge part a result of the infamous, racist, Southern Strategy.

So yes, the logical outcome of the problem of the guy would be he is a Republican. It´s a personality thing. I´m not bigging up liberals or the left wing, just some halfway decency. If you don´t get this or typically choose to mince words and aim towards the disingenuous, it may be because you are indeed a . . . Republican. It´s a personality thing. Republicans such as my mom and dad were, are a dying breed.

I work with Democrats and with Republicans in their capacity as Dems and Reps every day. I personally know some of the individuals who get mentioned here. I've met Rush Limbaugh and Bill Press.

Let me assure you that Rush Limbaugh is a vile, disgusting human being. Bill Press is a very, very nice guy. There are indeed pompous twats in the tea party movement. I know elected officials Berkeley and every one of them is a very nice person with whom a civilized conversation is possible, with the sole exception of Barbara Lee.

But I also know San Francisco Democrats who are complete assholes. And several who are the nicest people you'll ever meet. Kevin McCarthy, a pretty conservative guy from Bakersfield, but not quite tea party right-wing, is also a really, really good guy.

I've only met Hillary Clinton once but she comes off as cold and impersonal in person as she does on TV. I haven't met Marco Rubio yet but my friends who have tell me he's a great guy. I've met Nancy Pelosi on several occasions and she's warm and charming in person, though I admit she does come off as a clueless bitch on TV.

If what you're really saying, Nobby, is that you can know a man's character by his partisan politics I would say you're very wrong. Men and women of good character can either be Dems or Reps. There is nothing inherently evil about Democrats or about Republicans...or, I suppose, Labor or Tory members.

It comes down who you are as a person and how you handle the internal contradictions within any political party's ideology. No party has a monopoly on virtue and every politician has to accept to some degree parts of his party's dogma that he knows is wrong or at least he personally disagree with.

But to say that Dems are good people and Reps are bad people, with perhaps one or two exceptions, is a swing and a miss.
 
REPUBLICAN congressman Ken Buck and Trey Gowdy happily holding an AR 15 assault rifle for a photo op. Of course the same type of AR 15 assault rifle used in the Sandy Hook massacre of children. Yes, these are the leaders of today´s Republican party. Is your douche radar going crazy yet?

TreyGowdy.png
 
Last edited:
I don't know Trey Gowdy. Maybe he's a shitbag, maybe he's not.

I know Steve Knight and I knew his dad, Pete Knight. Steve is a conservative Republican congressman from Southern California. Steve is one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet. He's in the news today due to a confrontation between him and tea party activists in his district who are upset with him for voting for the Homeland Security funding bill even though it did not include language to defund Obama's executive order on undocumented workers. (Disclaimer, my parents came from Mexico.)

Here's the article and a smartphone video that captured the incident yesterday:

http://95percent.blogs.vcstar.com/?_ga=1.106096387.1043906882.1428350944

Politicians get harassed by the crazies in their districts all the time. They get pushed to the edge. Right now we're having an insane debate in California as to whether parents should be allowed to opt out for non medical reasons of having their children vaccinated for such diseases as polio and measles. It shouldn't even be a debate, right? Wrong, it is a debate and the folks who are leading the opposition to the bill to remove the "personal belief" exemption are left-wing Democrats from Santa Monica, Malibu and Marin, three hard core Dem bastions. They've threatened legislators who have stated support for the bill and our state Capitol is in heightened-security mode right now. Today another vote will be taken on the bill.

The highest child vaccination rates in California are in Republican districts, which tend to be poorer than Democratic districts, with a few exceptions. (The Kevin McCarthy seat in Bakersfield is much poorer than the Nancy Pelosi seat in San Francisco.) Incredibly, we've recently come to learn, vaccination rates actually drop as family income rises.

You'll find shitbags on the right and on the left. For every Trey Gowdy, assuming he really is a shitbag, I can name you a Barbara Lee.

But if your objection to Trey Gowdy is just that you disagree with his political views, fair play.
 
Meeting a politician is not the best way to figure out if they are nice or not. The reason they are in office is because they are experts at pressing the flesh and being all things to everyone.
 
Meeting a politician is not the best way to figure out if they are nice or not. The reason they are in office is because they are experts at pressing the flesh and being all things to everyone.

Perhaps, but surely you must agree that you cannot judge a man's personal character by his political views. It can't just be that a Dem is an inherently a good person and a Rep is an inherently bad person.

The best way to know someone is to know her personally, as best one can, is it not?
 
With politicians you look at what they do rather than listen to what they tell you. Same with serial killers. The Krays were lovely blokes by all accounts, Ted Bundy was very personable.
 
I don't know Trey Gowdy. Maybe he's a shitbag, maybe he's not.

I know Steve Knight and I knew his dad, Pete Knight. Steve is a conservative Republican congressman from Southern California. Steve is one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet. He's in the news today due to a confrontation between him and tea party activists in his district who are upset with him for voting for the Homeland Security funding bill even though it did not include language to defund Obama's executive order on undocumented workers. (Disclaimer, my parents came from Mexico.)

Here's the article and a smartphone video that captured the incident yesterday:

http://95percent.blogs.vcstar.com/?_ga=1.106096387.1043906882.1428350944

Politicians get harassed by the crazies in their districts all the time. They get pushed to the edge. Right now we're having an insane debate in California as to whether parents should be allowed to opt out for non medical reasons of having their children vaccinated for such diseases as polio and measles. It shouldn't even be a debate, right? Wrong, it is a debate and the folks who are leading the opposition to the bill to remove the "personal belief" exemption are left-wing Democrats from Santa Monica, Malibu and Marin, three hard core Dem bastions. They've threatened legislators who have stated support for the bill and our state Capitol is in heightened-security mode right now. Today another vote will be taken on the bill.

The highest child vaccination rates in California are in Republican districts, which tend to be poorer than Democratic districts, with a few exceptions. (The Kevin McCarthy seat in Bakersfield is much poorer than the Nancy Pelosi seat in San Francisco.) Incredibly, we've recently come to learn, vaccination rates actually drop as family income rises.

You'll find shitbags on the right and on the left. For every Trey Gowdy, assuming he really is a shitbag, I can name you a Barbara Lee.

But if your objection to Trey Gowdy is just that you disagree with his political views, fair play.

You really think you can find the douchey equivalent in the dems of the tea party, or this entire southern strategy tinged Republican party? Really? If you really believe this you are probably a Republican. Show me any dem who would happily and proudly do a photo op with the type of gun from Sandy Hook, or even such a massively douchey equivalent. I could probably show you the the whole Rep congress who would fall over themselves to do a photo op with an AR 15 and spout their guns-for-everyone fascism. You have to wonder why a majority of Europeans and South Americans look at this in disbelief. You probably think it´s cool, but what can I say?

Either way, I don´t want to argue this point with you. It´s useless. These guys don´t consider themselves monsters either.
 
You really think you can find the douchey equivalent in the dems of the tea party, or this entire southern strategy tinged Republican party? Really? If you really believe this you are probably a Republican. Show me any dem who would happily and proudly do a photo op with the type of gun from Sandy Hook, or even such a massively douchey equivalent. I could probably show you the the whole Rep congress who would fall over themselves to do a photo op with an AR 15 and spout their guns-for-everyone fascism. You have to wonder why a majority of Europeans and South Americans look at this in disbelief. You probably think it´s cool, but what can I say?

Either way, I don´t want to argue this point with you. It´s useless. These guys don´t consider themselves monsters either.

You're arguing the douchiness of the policies of the tea party's policies, an argument I don't quarrel with. They're fecking anarchists who would whine to mommy if the government ever proposed taking away THEIR benefits, such as Social Security and disability. They want to to have it both ways...cutting government spending but only if the cuts hurt someone else, not them. Heaven forbid that they accept their fair share of the pain we all have to accept to deal with excessive federal debt obligations.

But there are insane fecks on the left as well, who would be more than happy to raise taxes and spend the proceeds on their favored corporations, enact speech codes, order businesses to shut down for any number of stupid reasons, reinstate racial hiring and admissions quotas, enact an open border policy, raise welfare benefits and ban any oil production and importation whatsoever.

The left demands that we raise taxes but that we can't touch benefits such as Social Security and Medicare. That's madness. The top 10% of federal income tax filers already pay 68% of total income tax revenues collected by the federal government. I'm good with slightly raising the already progressive tax rates for the top earners but we have to include cuts in benefits as part of any grand bargain to get our fiscal house in order. Just as the far right are insane by insisting that new or higher taxes are off the table, the far left is just as insane by insisting that all spending cuts are off the table.

There are racial pimps on the left as Al Sharpton, an honored member of the Democratic establishment. There is no universe where it can be said that Sharpton is anything other than, as a bright young 12 year old African American recently said, "a waste of human flesh". Sharpton's mission is not to promote racial unity, but to promote racial division to enrich himself. And speaking of self-enrichment, Sharpton owes the federal government $4 million in back taxes, which he refuses to pay. This, according to the New York Times, not Sean Hannity, a bone fide shitbag of the right.

Virtue is not a monopoly of the left; vice is not a monopoly of the right.
 
You're arguing the douchiness of the policies of the tea party's policies, an argument I don't quarrel with. They're fecking anarchists who would whine to mommy if the government ever proposed taking away THEIR benefits, such as Social Security and disability. They want to to have it both ways...cutting government spending but only if the cuts hurt someone else, not them. Heaven forbid that they accept their fair share of the pain we all have to accept to deal with excessive federal debt obligations.

But there are insane fecks on the left as well, who would be more than happy to raise taxes and spend the proceeds on their favored corporations, enact speech codes, order businesses to shut down for any number of stupid reasons
, reinstate racial hiring and admissions quotas, enact an open border policy, raise welfare benefits and ban any oil production and importation whatsoever.

The left demands that we raise taxes but that we can't touch benefits such as Social Security and Medicare. That's madness. The top 10% of federal income tax filers already pay 68% of total income tax revenues collected by the federal government. I'm good with slightly raising the already progressive tax rates for the top earners but we have to include cuts in benefits as part of any grand bargain to get our fiscal house in order. Just as the far right are insane by insisting that new or higher taxes are off the table, the far left is just as insane by insisting that all spending cuts are off the table.

There are racial pimps on the left as Al Sharpton, an honored member of the Democratic establishment. There is no universe where it can be said that Sharpton is anything other than, as a bright young 12 year old African American recently said, "a waste of human flesh"
. Sharpton's mission is not to promote racial unity, but to promote racial division to enrich himself. And speaking of self-enrichment, Sharpton owes the federal government $4 million in back taxes, which he refuses to pay. This, according to the New York Times, not Sean Hannity, a bone fide shitbag of the right.

Virtue is not a monopoly of the left; vice is not a monopoly of the right.

Jesus, get a job for Fox News. Show me the anarchists in the US congress. They must be in their with all those communists and socialists and muslims.

Since when is trying to get businesses to pair their fair share of taxes on business they do in America considered douchey? They are hoarding their profits in tax shelters and falsely claiming they are foreign businesses. There is nothing douchey about being fair, nor trying to fight for our planet with environmental regulations. Maybe like, life and fairness over profits. Funny how when your boy Mitt Romney had the opportunity to show how over taxed he and the wealthy are, he refused to show his tax returns. Gee, I wonder why. Remember some of the wealthiest in the world like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Richard Branson are hardly douchebag republicans.

The left is hardly demanding a huge raise in taxes. We do have to pay for these two ongoing wars, the social/economic protections for those left with nothing after the economic collapse of Bush´s ending term. We have to pay for the biggest prison institution the world has ever seen. We have to pay for this massive, massive industrial military complex. We do have to pay for the massive, costly, invasive Homeland Security beaucracy the Bush admin created. Remember, it´s not the 10% who will fight those wars and do the shit work of this country. Why should be cut benefits that are for everybody, and not go after these fraudulent "foreign businesses," immoral tax shelters (pay your fecking share!), and massive military, NSA, prison industrial complex et al. Why do you guys only see it as benefits for our aging citizens and minority freeloaders. Douchebags, that´s why.

And I love it, once again the right wingers whining like little bitches about Sharpton. You have the total 24/7 for profit race card of Fox news and talk radio, a Republican party shaped on the souther strategy race card, 100s of active whiteish superior organizations, yet that one huckster Al Sharpton makes you guys the biggest victim in the world. Al Sharpton is worse than Fox New and talk radio and the republican party put together. Listening to you guys, you would think so.

And please stop with the "Virtue is not a monopoly of the left; vice is not a monopoly of the right." Nobody is saying that. But I think there is generally more virtue in those fighting for fairness in taxes, fighting for a healthy environment, fighting for the aged and traditionally blocked minority class, fighting for diplomacy over war (will you guys ever get over Chamberlain´s appeasement), fighting against discrimination and intolerance, fighting against income inequality etc. I think in general the democrats and liberals are fighting the good fight, while republicans seem to be ossessed with profit at all cost, military and police, discrimination whether it be against gays, women, minorities, etc. Worshiping at the douchebag trough of Any Rand.

What would Jesus think, for fecks sake.

I do think in very general terms, that democrats do tend toward fighting for a more moral, pacific, fair, balanced, help-the-downtrodden type of world. Obviously there are phonies and those misguided, but in general dems look in a more virtuous direction.

Douchebag politics (especially when money is god), attracts douchebag personalities. Get over it.
 
Last edited:
Meeting a politician is not the best way to figure out if they are nice or not. The reason they are in office is because they are experts at pressing the flesh and being all things to everyone.

Exactly. The guy in high-school/university who is friendly to everyone, usually helpful in superficial stuff, participates in every activity, but then doesn't really seem to have that many close friends, as they treat everyone in a default similar way.
 
This is a silly discussion.

No one has a problem with anyone who despises right-wingers or despises left-wingers. Beliefs are what they are and we're all ok with a diversity of beliefs. I think.

But to suggest that one group of people who hold a certain political belief (short of ISIS and the like) attracts all the douchebags is flat out idiocy. Douchies can be found everywhere. To extend the point a bit further, you can find douchebags who are white, black, Latino, American, British, Aussie, Christian, Jewish, atheist, United supporters, Millwall supporters, marathon runners, footballers, those who enjoy a glass of wine at night, those who wipe their ass with their right hand and anything else you can think of.

But suggesting that right-wingers, or left-wingers, are by definition douchebags tells you more about the person offering this idiotics analysis than right-wingers or left-wingers.
 
Or more like it´s very revealing about those who sympathise, defend and vote for right wing Republicans.

But then one could say the exact the same thing about left-wing Democrats, that only douchebags would be attracted to the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Problem is, that would be a ridiculous analysis.

We know for a fact that there are douchebags all across the ideological spectrum. Let me give you an example: The writers and editors of Rolling Stone magazine, a fairly left-of-center magazine run by Democrats. Recently Rolling Stone ran a lengthy investigative article that alleged a gang rape by the residents of fraternity at the University of Virginia. Devastating stuff that attacked at it roots the conservative culture of fraternities in the US, and suggesting by extension that the rape culture is endemic in frat houses at such places at UVA.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a big fan frat houses for what I hope are obvious reasons and successfully discouraged my daughters from joining sororities. I did not attend UVA and generally discourage high school students from going to massive universities like UVA or UCLA and instead go to a small liberal arts college, unless you're a scholarship athlete of have some highly specialized academic interest that can only be pursued at places like UCSD or Ohio State. Short of it all is that I have no vested interest in protecting the reputation of frat houses or UVA.)

It was revealed soon after the publication of the gang rape story in Rolling Stone that it was a pure fabrication. Rolling Stone itself ultimately admitted it. The Columbia Journalism Review, the most highly esteemed academic journal of the journalism industry, wrote a scathing 13,000 word article that took Rolling Stone apart, root and branch for breaches of professional ethics and standards. There is no, ahem, rock Rolling Stone can hide behind. Rolling Stone acted in true douchebag fashion.

Should we conclude that left-wing Democrats are douchebags because left-wing Democrats at Rolling Stone acted douchily? Of course not. We have to blame the individuals who acted badly and not generalize from their behavior that therefore all left-wing Democrats are douches. It would be madness to make such a generalization.

Bob Menendez, a US Senate liberal Democrat from New Jersey, has been indicted by the federal government for corruption. Yes, innocent until proven guilty, but for the sake of argument let's assume he's guilty. Should we conclude that all Dems are corrupt? Of course not.

So, Nobby, when you write: "Or more like it´s very revealing about those who sympathise, defend and vote for right wing Republicans." that exact logic could be used against "left wing Republicans", but that's hardly any "logic" at all. The only thing that's revealed by such a statement is your state of mind, which is that you hate "right wing Republicans", not that any logically valid conclusions can be drawn relating to personal or moral character of "right wing Republicans" any moreso than a critic of "left wing Democrats" may have regarding their moral or personal character.

If this is the world you want to live in, wherein political opponents attack each other's moral or personal character solely on the basis of their political beliefs, you want to live in a shitty world.
 
Typical. The Rolling Stone is primarily a music magazine, not a political party. Jesus is that lame and really reaching. I would´t expect more from you though. This is why I can´t stand discussing issues with you. One of their writers made a massive mistake. Ok. And then this Menendez, idiot. Well you got me there.

Now should we start with basically the entire tea party. Tehran Tom? Mitchell McConnell and John Boehner? The majority whip attending white supremist conventions. The guy who shouted "liar" at Obama in the state of the Union. Those guys fund raising with AR 15s? Fox news, the republican party voice, along with Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. Dick Cheney? St Ronnie sell-missls-to-Iran-illegally? Rush Limbaugh? Ted Yoho? Louis Gohmert? Darrell Issa? Steve King? Ted Cruz? Shutting down the gov? How many votes to kill Obamacare, like 50? Misleading the US into 2 trillion dollar wars and crashing the economy (meanwhile giving tax cuts to the wealthy) . . .

Where does the douchery end?

I could go on all day, but you really got me with the Rolling Stone and Melendez. I´m speechless
 
Last edited:
What are you even talking about? Left wing Republicans? Jesus!

Ah, crouching into obtuse mode now. Yes, an obvious typo.

Was the point lost on you or should I retype the post in its entirety so that the point is clear in your mind? In fact, I'll go ahead and fix the typo.

So, Nobby, when you write: "Or more like it´s very revealing about those who sympathise, defend and vote for right wing Republicans." that exact same logic could be used against "right wing Republicans", but that's hardly any "logic" at all.

(Added the word "same" for clarity.)

You may now proceed.
 
Typical. The Rolling Stone is primarily a music magazine, not a political party. Jesus is that lame and really reaching. I would´t expect more from you though. This is why I can´t stand discussing issues with you. One of their writers made a massive mistake. Ok. And then this Menendez, idiot. Well you got me there.

Now should we start with basically the entire tea party. Tehran Tom? Mitchell McConnell and John Boehner? The majority whip attending white supremist conventions. The guy who shouted "liar" at Obama in the state of the Union. Those guys fund raising with AR 15s? Fox news, the republican party voice, along with Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. Dick Cheney? St Ronnie sell-missls-to-Iran-illegally? Rush Limbaugh? Ted Yoho? Louis Gohmert? Darrell Issa? Steve King? Ted Cruz? Shutting down the gov? How many votes to kill Obamacare, like 50? Misleading the US into 2 trillion dollar wars and crashing the economy (meanwhile giving tax cuts to the wealthy) . . .

Where does the douchery end?

I could go on all day, but you really got me with the Rolling Stone and Melendez. I´m speechless

You underestimate, either out of willful ignorance or obstinance, the significance of publications like Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair and comedy shows like The Daily Show on the national political discourse. They are not merely music or fashion magazine or comedy shows, though they are that. These media outlets help frame the national dialogue and in some ways more important than NBC News or the Sunday news talk shows.

To suggest, as you seem to, that only the major newspapers like the New York Times or TV networks such as Fox and CNN are what are relevant to what people think about politics is pure fantasy.

The Rolling Stone article wasn't merely "a mistake". It was a catastrophic collapse of editorial judgment that has even the Columbia Journalism Review shaking its head in disbelief. There have been journalistic fibs before, but nothing quite as massive as on this scale. But the point for purposes of this discussion is not to judge Rolling Stone too harshly. It happened and we move on.

The point is that one cannot reasonably generalize from outrages such as the Rolling Stone gang rape article and come to a general conclusion about left-wing Democrats. I find the work by Matt Taiibi (hopefully no relation to Massimo Taibi!) to be very high quality and highly recommend keeping a close on his writings as we approach the 2016 elections. (I also recommend following Ta Nehisi Coates, another outstanding left-wing commentator, who writes for The Atlantic.) Their fine work goes on, despite the massive clusterfeck.

Where I'm trying to take you is not to be so ideologically blinkered, so deluded to the point where you believe that one political party or one spot on the ideological is right about almost everything and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong about almost everything or, worse, is a douchebag. Every other left-leaning Democrat I know, and I know a lot more than you do, reserves respect for a few people they may disagree with, but disagree with honorably. Sadly, your blindness and hatred says more about you that you are incapable of such a sentiment than it does about nearly everyone else who is.

You're on solid ground opposing and supporting the individual policies that you oppose and support, but you might want to look more deeply into some of these issues before you assign all the blame to the Republicans and none of it to Democrats. Most Democrats followed W into war in Iraq...both times (as well as Vietnam). Democrats did nothing on immigration when they had both houses of Congress and Obama was potus and only announced his immigration plan AFTER the November 2014 election. The Democrats have done nothing on entitlement policy, which needs to be reformed. Obama has actually not only maintained the PATRIOT Act but expanded the surveillance state over American citizens to the point where tea partyers and the Occupy types both agree is extremely troubling. I could go on. But one would also be right to flog Republicans for their hypocritical position on Obamacare, whose intellectual roots came from conservative think tanks, not Mother Jones, and which saved the health plan industry from a scarier alternative, single-payer. The Reps have held national security funding hostage to defunding a very sensible and humane (at least as I see it) executive order relating to undocumented workers who have children born in the US (that's what the video was about that I posted yesterday...a Rep congressman getting trashed in his district by tea partyers for refusing to defund DHS). Republicans have attempted to dismantle Dodd-Frank, though while far from a perfect bill at least sets up a better regulatory framework over the banking industry than what we had before (much of which you can thank Bill Clinton for.) The tobacco industry settlement was a bipartisan agreement. Republicans and Democrats are working together, with the exception of the extremist elements of both parties, on trade agreement authorization bills that Obama wants. If you're going to blame Reps for this, you gotta blame Dems too.

But I can see why you "can't stand discussing issues with [me]". The facts are too much for you to bear.

Blood is on the hands of both left-wingers and right-wingers and Democrats and Republicans. The roots of the mortgage lending industry meltdown -- the big short -- are deep into both political parties. Our military invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was a bipartisan decision. Wall Street calls the shots in both the offices of McConnell and Schumer.

You can assign policy wisdom to the left and I have no problem with that at all, as we all have a right to bask in the dignity of being right as we see it, but to argue that because someone is a left-wing Democrat he or she can't be a douchebag or that because someone is a right-wing person he or she must be a douchebag is pure blind madness -- or that douchebags gravitate away from Democrats and toward Republicans or whatever formulation you wish to describe. I would say the exact same thing to a right-wing wackjob who argues, and such people do exist, that left-wingers are traitors or douchebags and that right-wingers and patriots and honorable people. Both are idiotic statements.

I hear these spiteful smears all the time from leftists like you, Nobby, or tea partyers and one can say about that it is induces Picardian facepalms and cringes. Reason is, for such people, a bridge too far.
 
I'm not a lawyer, but I'd imagine they are legit seeing as there are an army of lawyers at DOJ and elsewhere who get consulted on this sort of thing.

That's not a good argument. An army of lawyers was consulted on torture and on many other things that weren't actually constitutional. Not to mention the army of lawyers on the other side of the issue.
 
That's not a good argument. An army of lawyers was consulted on torture and on many other things that weren't actually constitutional. Not to mention the army of lawyers on the other side of the issue.

Its probably not the most cogent argument, but I hope they don't stop them. I just returned from 18 months in Afghanistan and saw first hand how devastating drones are to terrorist psychology in the area.
 
Its probably not the most cogent argument, but I hope they don't stop them. I just returned from 18 months in Afghanistan and saw first hand how devastating drones are to terrorist psychology in the area.

I imagine you would find an even more devastating impact to the psychology of the families of the victims killed as collateral damage.


The government doesn't have the right to deprive people of life without due process. That's a fundamental pillar of our society and drone strikes set a dangerous precedent.
 
I imagine you would find an even more devastating impact to the psychology of the families of the victims killed as collateral damage.


The government doesn't have the right to deprive people of life without due process. That's a fundamental pillar of our society and drone strikes set a dangerous precedent.

That's why you do your homework before making a strike, and even so, there will still be mistakes, but that's the nature of war.
 
That's why you do your homework before making a strike, and even so, there will still be mistakes, but that's the nature of war.

Even if our intelligence and execution was infallible, doing homework is not a substitute to a trial by jury, as is the constitutional right of all American citizens. Our intelligence and execution is far from infallible. Obama's statement today basically said "we didn't know who was there".

That's not an acceptable level of certainty and it's disappointing to me that no candidate opposes strikes.
 
Even if our intelligence and execution was infallible, doing homework is not a substitute to a trial by jury, as is the constitutional right of all American citizens. Our intelligence and execution is far from infallible. Obama's statement today basically said "we didn't know who was there".

That's not an acceptable level of certainty and it's disappointing to me that no candidate opposes strikes.

Trial by jury would be great if we were just talking about criminals and not enemy combatants. This is however a war.
 
Trial by jury would be great if we were just talking about criminals and not enemy combatants. This is however a war.

Don't you find it worrying that the president can unilaterally declare American citizens to be enemy combatants and then kill them? You may agree with who this president kills today but what about the next president? What about the next conflict? What if president Rubio wants to kill a populist leader in a country where we support a brutal dictator for strategic purposes? What if a president wants to kill environmental activists who are blocking the acquisition of fossil fuels that make our economy run? What if the next Kissinger just wants regime change in some third world country unlucky enough to be in our way?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.