Jump to content

m308gunner

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    984

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

  • Feedback

    100%

 Content Type 

Posts posted by m308gunner

    Music Debate 43: Foo Fighters

    in Everything Else

    Posted

    I want to like them more than I actually like them. A few songs I enjoy, but nothing I would seek out. Interviews I've seen of Dave actually make me like them more, but musically they are pretty bleh. And I would actually pick Nickelback over Foo Fighters if they were playing on the radio at the same time. 

    • Like 1

    The President of the US has been impeached

    in Everything Else

    Posted

    6 hours ago, Link said:

    I don’t like some of the ways Californication engages in discussion as you point out, even though I basically agree with him in regards to the best way to move our whole society forward for most people.  And I do appreciate your steadfastness to be respectful in conversation. 

    But. I think Californication and I both find some cognitive dissonance in your stances, because you multiple times don’t approve or like what The Donald does, yet keep defending, or saying that it should not be criticized on grounds that we don’t know what he really personally thinks. Which is, to follow your lead of being polite, (aka at best) not valid.  

    We do know, firstly, that the majority of his followers are rude (or straight the fuck up physically violent) to those different from them. I think Californication therefore sees no necessity of politeness in response. 

    We do know, also what The Donald thinks according to his statements and  actions, as well as the statements and actions of those he surrounds himself with, including his vice president and other appointees: • We know he is against abortion, therefore thinks the government should control decisions contrary to those of women and their doctors. • We know, by his tax breaks and other legislation and speeches, he is against wind and solar power, and for coal power, even if private industry and the free market is seeing benefits of those renewable resources (citations available upon request). • We know, by his directly involved lawsuits, that he is cool with sexual harassment, even if he’s not a rapist, contrary to several explicit narratives given by several women including his first wife and multiple contestants in his various competitions and other professional relationships (see the “list” that I “kindly provided” earlier). • We know, that he has removed protections for the environment, for workers’ rights, and for immigrants. • We know that he has acted in favor of so-called job creators with tax breaks and other advantages, but doesn’t hold them accountable. 

    lmk if you need any citations or explanations for the above.

    So. Since we are simply having a conversation and not a debate with rules and terms m308gunner. What do you really believe? I got into this a bit ago and you said something about ideologies so where are YOU at? Not Scott Adams, not politicians that you claim to not like any, not breitbart bloggers and not vloggers who don’t know how to get to the goddamn point. What’s really your deal with The zdrumpf? 

     I'll give you this, you love to ask big questions. Even the question "what do you really believe"... a forum like this is too small to fully explore that idea, even when constrained to the issue at hand, because it is so multifaceted. Politics dips it's tentacles into pretty much every facet of modern life (to all our ill I would say) so I'll try to keep things constrained, but prepare for a waist high wall of text regardless. And I'm not sure how one come's to any opinion of worth apart from the input of others, considering how finite and constrained our own experiences are, but I digress.

     The crux of the matter, and why you may think it "not valid" is that I do not subscribe to any type of "purity test" for anyone outside of my everyday personal sphere (and many of those in it, but that would be a huge tangent). I have a personal moral standard for myself and a detached pragmatic standard for when I view Trump. People can be horrible and still do good things, because life is not a comic book or movie and does not adhere to such simplistic modes of conduct or analysis, especially in the political realm. You can assume something about someone's character, but unless you can somehow read that person's mind you don't really know in any given circumstance what they are thinking or what their motives are. You can often come to a reasonable conclusion, given a person's history or policy choices, but that is not a sure road down Personal Conviction Lane. You can't know definitively. (And with Trump, I'd be inclined to think he doesn't have any personal convictions apart from "what can this do for me".)

      Which is why I haven't completely ignored Californication. I don't know for sure what is going through his mind, what his life experiences have been, what he's been subjected to (or not subjected to) so I always have to leave room for doubt. I've always tried to leave him an escape hatch. Even when his conduct would lead me to believe otherwise.

      And if you ever see someone treat an individual a certain way because of their perceived group identity ("he's a Trump follower!") then what does that say about that person? "Look! He's a *fill in the blank*! He must be *fill in the blank* and think/act like all the other *fill in the blank*!" We've seen that ideology played out many times in the past century. Has it ever produced good results? They're taking the perceived actions of a group and transplanting them onto an individual. Charitably, I think the old term for that would be "scapegoat", but there are more accurate/worse terms for the situation. And you seem to indicate that that is the reason Californication is treating me the way he has, but I'll leave that there.

        And that is where the left has gone off the rails in recent years. They are completely assured of their own moral, philosophical and informational correctness. There is no room for doubt (because they also tend more towards the emotional side of the spectrum). They are "true believers" and to hell with the heretics. They have become the new puritans (oh the irony). Which is not to say that each individual that identifies themselves with the left is of equal character (it is a broad brush I am painting with), but when grouped together certain ideologies tend to come to the forefront and gain the most attention. 

      As for your characterization of "the majority of his followers", how are you measuring that exactly?  Do those you see as rude and violent make up the majority or are they the loud minority? We've been constantly told that the nutbags on Twitter that try to get people fired or cancelled for failing some purity test or other are the "vocal minority", but per your standard can we now judge the left by the actions of Antifa?

      The president is not, nor ever has been, my moral compass or role model. No elected leader should be for anyone in this day and age. I am not on Trump's "team", but I will confess that I find him amusing on occasion and frustrating on others. He is, however,  a direct reaction to the left's years of overzealous activism. In a very real sense they created him. 

      Finally, to hopefully dispel what seems to be a constant refrain, I do not watch Fox News (or any old dusty media company who's sole purpose is profit) and I don't visit Breitbart (had to google the spelling). Those sources I do listen to are up front about their biases and range from far left-ish to almost far right. And if I could put them all in a room I'm pretty sure they'd get along just fine.

     

    The President of the US has been impeached

    in Everything Else

    Posted

    15 minutes ago, Californication said:

    I actually disagree with Link about that. Youtube has allowed more voices to be heard and expanded the conversation. If you go back before Youtube, political debate was more dominated by the huge multimedia conglomerates and if you just look at their treatment of Bernie Sanderson you understand why this is a problem.

    The thing about Youtube is that you have to be careful about who you listen to. No one has time to check every fact that they hear on the news, so you have to do your best to find credible sources so you are not misinformed. 

    Also, there is plenty of bad journalism in print.

    My God... we actually agree on something... QUICK jot down the time and date!

    • Like 1

    The President of the US has been impeached

    in Everything Else

    Posted

    38 minutes ago, Californication said:

    There is nothing obscure about the president not being able to screw with the money congress appropriates, that is like govt. 101. I don't know if it sounds obscure to you because you made me get an articles that specifically points out the law because you didn"t accept my opinion. 

    You keep looking at one piece of information instead of the whole picture because you think that's how you prove your point. 

    In the real world there are multiple layers going on and this is just one point. 

    When you add this to the phone call that is extremly incriminating through the transcript which the Trump White House already edited, 

    And the fact that they lied to govt. Agencies about why the money was being held, 

    And that they then hid the transcript of the phone call in a database were it should not have been, 

    If you are being honest and can't admit that he did something wrong you've got to be either disingenous or maybe a little slow.

    And if you can't put that together than you probably also missed the other problem, this is the one time were Trump was caught red handed with his hand in the jar. He is probably doing this with other countrys in other ways. 

    Look at all the foreign countrys paying inflated prices at his hotels. What do you think they expect in exchange for that? Or the manufacturing/exporting deals Ivanka gets in China. 

    These countrys expect something in return. 

    *sigh* You seem incapable of carrying on a conversation without eventually relying on slander and/or insults. This is at least the second time you've done this to me personally in this thread. I think any casual observer could see that I've been trying to keep things civil and given you the benefit of the doubt, but you don't seem to be operating on the same level with me. I understand you may feel frustrated, but you're making it as hard as possible to come to a consensus on this issue.

      I never "made you get articles that specifically point out the law". That's on you. You may have felt that I implied something to that effect, but AGAIN, refer to my previous posts on the subject of Trump's personal vs our nation's interests. And I don't have to accept your opinion, just as you don't have to accept (or apparently read) mine. And in the context of the article you linked I pointed out a few portions that seem to indicate that nobody has all the information they need to come to a definitive conclusion on this matter, so stop making declarative statements that sound like established concrete facts.

      There is not "one piece of information" that I have been relying on. Not in our interactions, and certainly not in the scope of this entire thread.

    The President of the US has been impeached

    in Everything Else

    Posted

    On 12/29/2019 at 3:48 AM, Link said:

    I’m sorry. I know you have been harping on persuasion and Scott Adams videos for this whole thread, but I can’t. I have never watched or listened to a podcast, or a vlog as they used to be called. I don’t even like AVGN or Pat or Game Grumps or any of the other 5 million video game related youtubers. 

    It’s not a format that interests me. I do love reading professional interviews, biographies, and memoirs of people I admire (some of my favorite books ever), and even people I don’t like if the interviewer is skilled enough to tease out interesting perspective from the subject, but videos of random blithering are just not something I can get with. I honestly gave this video a full 5 minutes, got nothing from it, and could not stand any more. 

    For me, write well or be ignored. And goddamn, get to the fucking point already. That’s why youtube blogs suck. They need lots of filler to pad their time. I’m not down with that.

    Ah, I see. Well, you do you.

    The President of the US has been impeached

    in Everything Else

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Californication said:

    I'm sure he has some sort of audience despite making a fool out of himself over and over. Looks like he was on Joe Rogan in April and August. 

    So I posted a breakdown of how congress appropriated money to Ukraine and how the funds already passed the point where Donald Trump could divert them.

    Before you said Donald Trump didn't break the law because he had the right to withhold the funds. Do you still think he didn't break the law?

     I don't think I argued either way about the legality of Trump temporarily withholding the aid, but feel free to quote where I did. Learning is fun. I've maintained that as long as Trump's goal aligned with our national interests I'm fine with how thing went down. Also, from the article you linked:

    "At present, it is unclear whether OMB withheld the money in a manner consistent with its legal obligations. Without drawing any definitive conclusions, this post explains the complex legal underpinnings of the issue about which Congress seeks information."

    And from Dick Durbin (emphasis added), "... They were withholding these funds that had been appropriated and signed into law by the President until the last two weeks of the fiscal year. That’s crazy. It hardly ever happens."

    "Whether there is some good legal or other explanation for the long delay in releasing the money is a question that lacks a clear answer, and that might remain unanswered indefinitely if Congress cannot get its hands on the requested documents."

    There are other passages that seem to indicate there's more wiggle room legally (lawyers will be lawyers), but I would have thought if there was something the Democrats could hang their hat on it would have been more clearly defined in their articles of impeachment. Color me unimpressed until we get more information.

      Also, most Americans who haven't been baying for Trump's blood since his inauguration probably give less of a toss than I do. Pretty sure the president not obeying an obscure law/code/ordinance ranks pretty low on their daily list of concerns or how they would rate his performance. 

×
×
  • Create New...