Is America great now?

[Maou]

Oh the mainstream media is absolutely ridiculous with the way they do journalism period these days. But part of being diplomatic is knowing when to shut the fuck up. Trump's ego is why he has to respond to all this and he really should not because he's feeding the flames of a war he cannot win. that's why most candidates DON'T do what he does in response.

Yeah, thats the thing. Not every president is good at everything. They have their strengths and weaknesses. Anyone who expects perfection is unrealistic. Trump does have a big ego, and loves to fight, and is an asshole. I didnt vote for him, to be nice. I didn't vote for an democrat ass kisser republican. I voted for a fighter against established norms, and a nationalist, and I got exactly that. I don't get people who ask me if I hate Trump yet. Like no, he is exactly what I voted for. Why would I be mad when he tries to enact it? I do not care if he is an asshole, and people get offended.

As for your war comment, which one are you referring to?

 

[Maou]

i don't remember Kaepernick insulting him before he started going on about him.

- - - Updated - - -



That attitude is why the protests stopped being peaceful. Now I guess it goes from "protests are stupid and a disgrace" to "I support peaceful protests."

Yeah, keep trying to twist my positions and ignore nuance, Im sure people wont notice.

Also, I think Im done with this thread. I dont like this 4 on 1 debate. Only Jazzy has been respectful.

 

[Red Memories]

Yeah, thats the thing. Not every president is good at everything. They have their strengths and weaknesses. Anyone who expects perfection is unrealistic. Trump does have a big ego, and loves to fight, and is an asshole. I didnt vote for him, to be nice. I didn't vote for an democrat ass kisser republican. I voted for a fighter against established norms, and a nationalist, and I got exactly that. I don't get people who ask me if I hate Trump yet. Like no, he is exactly what I voted for. Why would I be mad when he tries to enact it? I do not care if he is an asshole, and people get offended.

As for your war comment, which one are you referring to?

I'm referring to just the unrest in general. There's just a group of people online until anything they dislike is absolutely annihilated they aren't going to stop. The "cancel culture" which is destroying just about anything from art to this. If you do not feed them your career usually ends up fine so I don't know why so many people either have to FIGHT them or kiss their asses to try and make 2% of loudmouths a little chirpier. No apology is enough anyway. They just say you should have no career, no livelihood, basically you should be dead.

"Cancelling" is a little different than a boycott in this right. He just does himself no favors by responding to that crowd. They don't care if you're an asshole or you're sorry. Nothing you do or say is enough. Nothing is ever right unless it is their exact line of thought and belief and everything. It's actually pretty bad. I wouldn't consider them to really have a political party. They're just people trying to destroy everything.

 

[anticlimatic]

Honestly I expected the tantrum over Trumps election to die down after a year or so, yet the screaming children seem even less consolable now than before. I'm to the point now where I'm actually hoping he loses in November if it gets me out of this damn grocery store.

You want to tear down the country, tank the economy, flush all of the prosperity perks you take for granted down the crapper, and usher in your socialist hellscape? Be my guest. You deserve it.

 

[anticlimatic]

Yeah, keep trying to twist my positions and ignore nuance, Im sure people wont notice.

Also, I think Im done with this thread. I dont like this 4 on 1 debate. Only Jazzy has been respectful.

People with weak positions only feel comfortable attacking in numbers.

 

[Lark]

I think it is a good question, its the sort of vagaries that the left used to be really good at when they talked about progress or an ideal future "jam tomorrow" or religions used to do about the afterlife/heavens "pie in the sky" but now the right does it too.

Its nothing but a bluff, what's going to happen when its found out?

 

[Lark]

People with weak positions only feel comfortable attacking in numbers.

In my experience people dont recognize their positions as weak, they also dont care about what their numbers are when they do on the attack.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It's funny that a bunch of people who claim to value individualism and freedom operate as a hive mind are always telling people they can't do things.

People with weak positions only feel comfortable attacking in numbers.

I guess I should apologize for pointing out flaws in her argument. She was claiming that Trump supports peaceful protests, when that's not actually true. He was attacking them until the protests stopped being peaceful. Then he was in favor of them. It's kind of bullshit if you claim to be in favor of something, but are only ever in favor of it in hypothetical scenarios and oppose all practical examples. That means that you're probably just saying that in an attempt to look good and don't actually believe it.

I mean, if this thread is upsetting to Trump supporters, they don't have to post in it. I'm not forcing them to participate. He's had a chance to prove himself (hell, even I was willing to give it to him) and he failed to deliver, and you know it. It's just your personal faith backing your positions now, which has made you guys very fragile. Maybe you should stay away from these kinds of threads if you can't handle them?

 

[Lark]

It's funny that a bunch of people who claim to value individualism and freedom operate as a hive mind are always telling people they can't do things.[



I guess I should apologize for pointing out flaws in her argument. She was claiming that Trump supports peaceful protests, when that's not actually true. Hr was attacking them until the protests stopped being peaceful. Then he was in favor of them. It's kind of bullshit if you claim to be in favor of something, but are only ever in favor of it in hypothetical scenarios and oppose all practical examples. That means that you're probably just saying that in an attempt to look good and don't actually believe it.

I mean, if this thread is upsetting to Trump supporters, they don't have to post in it. I'm not forcing them to participate. He's had a chance to prove himself (hell, even I was willing to give it to him) and he failed to deliver, and you know it. It's just your personal faith backing your positions now, which has made you guys very fragile. Maybe you should stay away from these kinds of threads if you can't handle them?

The fragility point does reflect what I've seen online lately, the defend Trump at all costs has gotten much more desperate and irrational than its been in the past.

Although, its also been linked with things I never saw it linked with before too, at least not overtly.

I saw pics of asian restaurants vandalized and daubed with the words "white power" and a lot of people rushed to immediate protest that this was all fake and engineered to make "Trump look bad", I did not know he was representing for either vandalizing small business or white power for that matter.

 

[Lark]

It's funny that a bunch of people who claim to value individualism and freedom operate as a hive mind are always telling people they can't do things

In fairness this could as easily be said of the liberal "left" as much as the right wing of politics, particular US or neo-liberal politics.

 

[ceecee]

In fairness this could as easily be said of the liberal "left" as much as the right wing of politics, particular US or neo-liberal politics.

Telling people not to do shit like this, you mean? Or that this is wrong? Fuck yes it is.

Black woman attacked by men wielding lighter fluid, racial slurs | Madison365

 

[anticlimatic]

In my experience people dont recognize their positions as weak, they also dont care about what their numbers are when they do on the attack.

I agree with your first line, but my experiences differ on the second. Strength of the debater themselves is also a factor that can compensate for objectively weak arguments. But in general, I think a pack or group mentality more attracts "team players" that are more in it for the easy validation than the challenging critique.

 

[anticlimatic]

Black woman attacked by men wielding lighter fluid, racial slurs | Madison365

Empire star Jussie Smollett attacked in alleged MAGA hate crime

FBI investigating noose left in Bubba Wallace'''s NASCAR stall | newscentermaine.com

 

[Lark]

Telling people not to do shit like this, you mean? Or that this is wrong? Fuck yes it is.

Black woman attacked by men wielding lighter fluid, racial slurs | Madison365

No, I dont mean that, why did you think I meant that?

 

[Lark]

I agree with your first line, but my experiences differ on the second. Strength of the debater themselves is also a factor that can compensate for objectively weak arguments. But in general, I think a pack or group mentality more attracts "team players" that are more in it for the easy validation than the challenging critique.

Yeah, I think you're engaging in a biased argument here which may flatter your own opinions and also probably your self-concept too.

Group think and belonging are powerful motivators for all sorts of political opinions, left or right but especially the sorts of identity politics that are very in fashion right now.

 

[anticlimatic]

Yeah, I think you're engaging in a biased argument here which may flatter your own opinions and also probably your self-concept too.

Begs the question: do our experiences shape us, or do we shape our experiences?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I agree with your first line, but my experiences differ on the second. Strength of the debater themselves is also a factor that can compensate for objectively weak arguments. But in general, I think a pack or group mentality more attracts "team players" that are more in it for the easy validation than the challenging critique.

I wrote a multi-paragraph rebuttal to something you posted, and your only response was "Cities are run into the ground by the Democrat party." I think you overestimate your strength as a debater and skill in responding to critiques. Just because you invoke logic and atheism doesn't mean you make convincing arguments.

That response convinced me that you weren't interested in debate. It addressed nothing I actually said, and simply provided a lame non-sequitur about the Democrat party, which I don't even like all that much. The fact that I've heard multiple people say the exact same thing makes me think that the lame non-sequitur does not even have the virtue of being your own original thought, but is rather a creaky regurgitated talking point from some professional pundit. That's usually been the case when I've heard something particularly stupid and irrelevant repeated by "champions of individualism." I've almost always found later that it had it's origin in something some overpaid pundit said.

 

[highlander]

Thats bullshit, and its always those he insults who attack him first. Its all devisive rhetoric, where the media and others attack him first, then whine like the dogs they are when he attacks them back screaming he is being mean to them. No one actually cares what rhetoric Trump uses, and it doesn't matter either. They will still hate him. People will still be divided, since it's a polarized political climate. If he was nice, he would be ignored or still at fault. He can't get a message out without hyjacking controversy to use the media. Simple as that. If itcwas so fucking bad, the media is more at fault for reporting what he says. But no, they do it because they make money off of Trump, and secretly love him.

You sound like a zealot. He insults anyone who disagrees with him. Honest to God I cannot understand people like you who support this narcissistic lunatic

 

[Stigmata]

You sound like a zealot. He insults anyone who disagrees with him. Honest to God I cannot understand people like you who support this narcissistic lunatic

I'm kinda convinced you have an ever growing subset of the Republican party that hold such fervor for "owning the libs" that they'll push to do so even at the expense of the well-being of the country. It's not about politics and policy anymore with them, it's about winning at all costs and hurting those that they view opposite of their team.

 

[anticlimatic]

Just because you invoke logic and atheism doesn't mean you make convincing arguments.

Arguments are cerebral exercise- they are not intended to convince. They're for my benefit, not yours. I feel like a lot of people, particularly on this forum, live under the delusion that the things they say matter. Like they are solving problems somehow, or working to make the world a better place through combative discourse.

That response convinced me that you weren't interested in debate.

The nice thing about knowing yourself- in regards to debate- is that when people go on tilt, and default to ad hominem attacks that are obviously false, it only ends up weakening their credibility- and by proximity, their positions.

I'm kinda convinced you have an ever growing (X) party that hold such fervor for "owning the (X)" that they'll push to do so even at the expense of the well-being of the country. It's not about politics and policy anymore with them, it's about winning at all costs and hurting those that they view opposite of their team.

You think this facet is unique to a subset of the Republican party? Look around you. It's endemic.