Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

03-04-2017 , 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by th14
broadly speaking
liberals are the people that debate issues using reason, for the common good
conservatives are anti-liberals that say NO. what they stand for is opposition to liberalism.
No they debate using emotion not logic.
03-04-2017 , 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
When the travel ban first went into effect American citizens were prohibited from entering the country and some were even sent back to the country they arrived from even though they were 100% legal.

Being worried about what might happen if you leave the country, under this administration is not even a tiny bit irrational. Maybe not every other presidency in US history but this one...yeah
I wonder what America will be like by the time I go back. Might go back only to have Trump turn it into another North Korea.
03-04-2017 , 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by truefish
No they debate using emotion not logic.
If you think you are debating with logic, you don't know what logic is.
03-04-2017 , 01:38 PM
just the best people....

Al-Qaeda likes Steve Bannon so much, they put him on the cover of their official newspaper

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8a79968aba47

wapo is just a rabid animal right now. Mark my words, they will be the paper to break trump gate within 90 days

Last edited by Sighsalot; 03-04-2017 at 01:43 PM.
03-04-2017 , 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by truefish
If you think 0 chance is good. He's not going anywhere but keep wishing.
when one of these intel people drops the recorded call of Trump and or Trump cabinet members its GG. No amount of support from you uneducated dolts will help him when the charge is treason. I have never felt so strongly that there is something out there. There are too many people chirping and if you follow the rabbit holes you can see **** is going to drop and the hard proof just may be out there.
03-04-2017 , 01:42 PM
if someone on the US side is going to leak 100% damning evidence (such as audio clearly implicating them in the election tampering), why would they not bring it forward immediately? maybe someone knows a reason. without thinking too much, i would expect it to only be drawn out if it comes from a russian source since their aim is to destabilize and discredit us.
03-04-2017 , 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
If you think you are debating with logic, you don't know what logic is.
1. Create arbitrary metric with no relation to human happiness or well being.

2. Use it to measure stuff.

3. Win debates on the Internet.

Sounds like logic to me man.
03-04-2017 , 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
Ladies and gentlement, your future President Paul "Tax Cuts for the Rich are Sweet, Bro" Ryan
The guy with what imo is the most punchable face in the world.
03-04-2017 , 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mw828
if someone on the US side is going to leak 100% damning evidence (such as audio clearly implicating them in the election tampering), why would they not bring it forward immediately? maybe someone knows a reason. without thinking too much, i would expect it to only be drawn out if it comes from a russian source since their aim is to destabilize and discredit us.
Some kind of negotiation.
03-04-2017 , 01:48 PM
The firehose of PURE REASON sprayin' all over up in here.
03-04-2017 , 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mw828
if someone on the US side is going to leak 100% damning evidence (such as audio clearly implicating them in the election tampering), why would they not bring it forward immediately? maybe someone knows a reason. without thinking too much, i would expect it to only be drawn out if it comes from a russian source since their aim is to destabilize and discredit us.
You don't throw your best secret punch in red 1 bro. You gotta jab your opponent into exhaustion first.
03-04-2017 , 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clovis8
I dont doubt this is all true. Howver as an non-American I am often confused on the subtles of your politics. How can the same demographic be strongly libertarian and pro authoritarianism? Are these not polar opposite ends of the political spectrum?

How can the right like Russia but scream freedom at the top of thier lungs, every two minutes, like Braveheart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobman0330
Most people who espouse libertarian ideas are really just anti-liberal. The pro-Putin hat fits just as well.
It has to do with Republicans being much better at the Winning friends and influencing people victory playbook than Democrats. Despite agreeing on a majority of issues, there are a ton of people in this very forum calling libertarians trash and telling them to gtfo basically.

Meanwhile, you have guys like Ted Cruz who hold ~0 pro-liberty positions, going on the podium and claiming that he is the best candidate for the libertarian cause, embracing and calling for their support.
03-04-2017 , 01:54 PM
Trump loves truefish. It's hard to compete with that.

03-04-2017 , 01:54 PM
Aren't libertarians pretty much all old white guys who want a return to the 50's? I don't want anything to do with that.
03-04-2017 , 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerowo
Aren't libertarians pretty much all old white guys who want a return to the 50's? I don't want anything to do with that.
Case in point.
03-04-2017 , 01:58 PM
We saw this with Democrats alienating a bunch of Bernie supporters as well.
03-04-2017 , 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by .Alex.
It has to do with Republicans being much better at the Winning friends and influencing people victory playbook than Democrats. Despite agreeing on a majority of issues, there are a ton of people in this very forum calling libertarians trash and telling them to gtfo basically.

Meanwhile, you have guys like Ted Cruz who hold ~0 pro-liberty positions, going on the podium and claiming that he is the best candidate for the libertarian cause, embracing and calling for their support.
Rand Paul calls himself a libertarian and he just voted for Jeff Sessions for AG. Jeff Sessions who is pro-private prisons, pro-drug war, pro-civil asset forfeiture, anti-voting rights, and apparently anti-telling the truth under oath to Congress.
03-04-2017 , 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by .Alex.
Case in point.
Name something libertarians are for that is significantly different than it was in the 50's.
03-04-2017 , 02:01 PM
You Can’t Be Socially Progressive and Economically Conservative
https://medium.com/@MikeEpifani/you-...fad#.o54zd4zcw
Quote:
If you want to be socially progressive, you have to support initiatives that foster social progress, like education equality, women’s health resources, criminal justice reform, universal healthcare, workplace equality, and so on. These initiatives either cost taxpayer money, require governmentally enforced regulation, or both. If you believe in smaller government and want to pay less in taxes, how do you propose social progress be made? Because if there’s no social progress funding, there’s no social progress. Passive support is no support at all.

You can be socially conservative and fiscally conservative, but if you’re fiscally conservative, you can only be either socially conservative or a person who doesn’t give a ****. And not giving a **** is not progressive.

Granted, social conservatives seek to actively digress social progress while social progressives, as the label indicates, actively seek to further social progress. But if you’re not actively seeking either, again, you just don’t give a ****.

I don’t understand why people can’t just admit they don’t care. You can just say: “Well, however it works out for them, so be it. I’m staying out of it.” That’s what you’re already saying when you say, “I’m socially progressive and economically conservative.” Just own it.

Will you protest a Planned Parenthood building? No, but are you willing to have your tax money go toward paying for Planned Parenthood? No? So, you’re not progressive. You don’t have to be, but you also can’t truthfully, at any level, say that you are.

You don’t support something if you don’t care whether or not it happens.
03-04-2017 , 02:01 PM
Alex, you're missing the fact that actual, principled libertarianism is A. extremely hard to define from a policy-perspective and B. has effectively no credible organization in 2017.

The faux-libertarians' alignment with the anti-Obama coalition basically cemented the view on the left that they were not our allies. They've essentially been fully absorbed into the GOP base at this point.
03-04-2017 , 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
You Can’t Be Socially Progressive and Economically Conservative
https://medium.com/@MikeEpifani/you-...fad#.o54zd4zcw


This conveniently ignores the massive suckling tick of defense spending.
03-04-2017 , 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
Rand Paul calls himself a libertarian and he just voted for Jeff Sessions for AG. Jeff Sessions who is pro-private prisons, pro-drug war, pro-civil asset forfeiture, anti-voting rights, and apparently anti-telling the truth under oath to Congress.
I don't know if you're disagreeing with me or not (you're one of the people that routinely bashes libertarians here) but that's exactly my point!
03-04-2017 , 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by .Alex.
I don't know if you're disagreeing with me or not (you're one of the people that routinely bashes libertarians here) but that's exactly my point!
My point is why would anyone respect a libertarian when they are for all of those things? That is about as anti-liberty as it gets.
03-04-2017 , 02:08 PM

https://twitter.com/DomenicoNPR/stat...86626521858052
03-04-2017 , 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autocratic
Alex, you're missing the fact that actual, principled libertarianism is A. extremely hard to define from a policy-perspective and B. has effectively no credible organization in 2017.

The faux-libertarians' alignment with the anti-Obama coalition basically cemented the view on the left that they were not our allies. They've essentially been fully absorbed into the GOP base at this point.
Sure, but there are actual libertarian people out there (5 million people voted for Gary Johnson), so I don't understand the constant desire to push them away instead of maybe making the tiniest effort to bring them into the fold.

      
m