The 2024 Presidential Nomination - GOP Debate #1 (Aug 23, 2023)

[Edward64]

Simple question. Who wins it tonight.

Define "win" however and in whatever context you want.


(Yeah, I purposely left out Trump because I suspect many of you will say he won by default).

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/22/1195200866/republican-presidential-primary-debate-milwaukee

[sovereignstar v2]

Burgum was apparently injured during a staff pickup bball game last night and brought to the emergency room.

[Edward64]

Burgum was apparently injured during a staff pickup bball game last night and brought to the emergency room.

Yeah, I saw that he might not make the debate. Too bad if he doesn't, I have absolutely no idea who he is. Would have been good to see how he performed.

[Thomkal]

I said Christie because he's the only one who has the balls to go after Trump apparently, But I could have said Trout because if Trump is still on the ballot it doesn't matter who "wins"

[BYU 14]

Win is a loose term here, Christie will be a winner in the eyes of independents and moderate GOP because he will tell the truth about Trump. I picked Vivek though, because I feel he is articulate enough to make the biggest gains poll wise of the 8 (7 if Burgum can't make it)

DeSantis will be the biggest loser because he will actually have to think on his feet and it has already been made public that he will be defending Trump. Which to me means they are hedging their bets on Trump being convicted and know this is the best road to get the nomination if he can't run. Of course this is not true because Trump will never endorse him and it's too late with Trump supporters because their demigod has already made his disdain for DeSantis clear.

In the end though as mentioned, this is all academic if Trump is able to run, it's his nomination.

[molson]

Who does Trump declare to be the nominee if he can't run?

[Thomkal]

Win is a loose term here, Christie will be a winner in the eyes of independents and moderate GOP because he will tell the truth about Trump. I picked Vivek though, because I feel he is articulate enough to make the biggest gains poll wise of the 8 (7 if Burgum can't make it)

DeSantis will be the biggest loser because he will actually have to think on his feet and it has already been made public that he will be defending Trump. Which to me means they are hedging their bets on Trump being convicted and know this is the best road to get the nomination if he can't run. Of course this is not true because Trump will never endorse him and it's too late with Trump supporters because their demigod has already made his disdain for DeSantis clear.

In the end though as mentioned, this is all academic if Trump is able to run, it's his nomination.


I think Vivek may be the most far right of all of them-okay with Russia taking over Ukraine, pulling out of NATO, letting China take Taiwan I think I saw somewhere. Hope this debate buries him under all the other traitors.

[HerRealName]

This will be a competition to see which candidate can say the highest number of crazy things. I usually enjoy these debates but no way I'm watching. Trout all the way.

[albionmoonlight]

I think that the expectations for DeSantis are so low that he will be declared the "winner."

After a couple months of What's Wrong in DeSantisland? stories, the media will be ready to pivot to Comeback Ron.

[Lathum]

Christie. The number on Trump are obviously overwhelming but lets remember the people who DONT want him is also a huge number. Thats why I say Christie.

He is the only one who will go after Trump. I also think he could demolish DeSantis who malfunctions easily.

[BYU 14]

I think Vivek may be the most far right of all of them-okay with Russia taking over Ukraine, pulling out of NATO, letting China take Taiwan I think I saw somewhere. Hope this debate buries him under all the other traitors.

You forgot climate denier :) But these reasons also contribute to me picking him. He is just scratching the surface of becoming nationally known to a lot of the people who will eat up his agenda, so I thinks it's his night to lose.

I do actually agree with one point of his though, and that is taking super PACs out of the political equation, but then even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[JPhillips]

I think that the expectations for DeSantis are so low that he will be declared the "winner."

After a couple months of What's Wrong in DeSantisland? stories, the media will be ready to pivot to Comeback Ron.

He's going to eat a pudding cup with his fingers just to show America that it isn't at all weird to do so.

[BYU 14]

Christie. The number on Trump are obviously overwhelming but lets remember the people who DONT want him is also a huge number. Thats why I say Christie.

He is the only one who will go after Trump. I also think he could demolish DeSantis who malfunctions easily.

That's a good point, but I don't see it eroding the Trumpian base at all, which he needs to win a segment of.

I would love to see him demolish DeSantis. Christie is a talented debater and DeSantis does not have the temperaments to act with grace under pressure.

[JPhillips]

This is funny, but also a fascinating look into what the Trump base finds objectionable about each candidate. I'll give Trump credit that he's seemingly the only GOPer who understands how toxic cuts to SS and Medicare are.

https://www.vpdebate2024.com/

[Lathum]

That's a good point, but I don't see it eroding the Trumpian base at all, which he needs to win a segment of.

I would love to see him demolish DeSantis. Christie is a talented debater and DeSantis does not have the temperaments to act with grace under pressure.

No one is getting that segment. It’s amazing how Christie and Hutchison are the only ones who seemingly understand this is 2016 all over again.

Now I’m under no illusion anyone other than trump is the nominee, but their only hope is consolidation and none are willing in some minuscule hope they can pick up the maga base. If trump is somehow ineligible it’s far more likely than base just stays home.

[Solecismic]

Expectations play a large role in this. We expect Christie to come out firing on Trump with effective, common-sense missiles. But they've already landed. Anyone who can be persuaded by effective, common-sense missiles is already ABT (anyone but Trump).

Saying Christie will win because he's the most experienced and effective room-reader at this game doesn't mean he'll be able to move the needle because one thing he has never done well is tell us why we should vote for him. He doesn't inspire people.

Expectations for DeSantis could not be lower. He's the constant butt of jokes. He's "relaunched" his campaign several times, but keeps doing the same things. We read countless stories about how awful he is as a human being. Yet he's the guy who destroyed the competition in a state that not long ago was known as the most purple state in the country.

He's the top seed who got kicked around in the first half and if he makes the right adjustments, it's touchdown after touchdown in the second half. I'll pick him to win not because he'll be particularly insightful or wonderful at this, but because he's going to be focused on the base.

In 2016, Trump won 14 million primary votes and 62 million presidential votes. More than twice as many people voted for him for president than voted, period, in all the primaries combined.

What we see tonight is not for independents, not for Democrats, not even for half of the Republican voters who think of primaries as the players warming up before the season opens. Aaron Rodgers hasn't even taken a snap in the preseason.

Haley and Scott and Pence will make their stump speeches. All three are good at this, but that isn't what draws new voters. Ramaswamy is the wild card. He's dangerous because he wants the Trump base, but is a far more coherent speaker and doesn't have the massive Trump negatives. He inspires. But he also seems to support some really dangerous ideas. This is his first appearance on a real stage. He could win, too, because he's had a long time to prepare for this moment and this will be the first look at him for millions of people.

Anyway, DeSantis wins because of low expectations and Ramaswamy buries the competent Romney/McCain types, who belong in government, but cannot really inspire people. And Christie gets to play his role.

I'd love to see a Burgum/Garoppolo type break through, but the people who would listen to that type do not vote in primaries.

In the end, though, unless this group does the smart thing and coalesces around one challenger (Christie will make this pitch, and it will fail because politicians), it's going to be Trump, and he won't even have to debate.

[RainMaker]

I'm surprised people are saying Christie. He's universally hated by both the left and right in this country.

Not sure how it'll translate in a debate, but Vivek is a really good speaker. Probably why we're seeing so many reports about other candidates looking to attack him in the debate.

The others will just be there. Most have been in the game long enough to know how to handle debates and I don't think we'll see anything special. DeSantis has never really been in a tough debate before so I think he might be in trouble. But none of these people really matter. These are just vanity campaigns for money or influence. People like Tim Scott are just hoping to be chosen as Trump's VP.

[RainMaker]

Also, these 8 person debates are silly. You barely get to talk and it's just hoping a soundbite gets picked up on by the public. I think they'd be better off doing 15-30 minute townhalls with the candidates where they actually get to speak and answer questions.

[JPhillips]

Reports are that Fox is going to show clips of Trump and ask the candidates to respond. How humiliating for the candidates there.

[Edward64]

Yeah, I saw that he might not make the debate. Too bad if he doesn't, I have absolutely no idea who he is. Would have been good to see how he performed.

Burgum will be there tonight.

[RainMaker]

I think Bergum is the one that ran that weird "Donate $1 and get a $20 gift card" workaround to get into the debates.

Reports are that Fox is going to show clips of Trump and ask the candidates to respond. How humiliating for the candidates there.

lol this is pretty funny. He should make them get on their knees and beg for fealty.

[RainMaker]

I guess Christie is banned from the post-debate coverage on Fox.

[JPhillips]

I think Bergum is the one that ran that weird "Donate $1 and get a $20 gift card" workaround to get into the debates.


And the fucker hasn't sent me my gift card. Should have known it was all a grift.

[Silver Owl]

And the fucker hasn't sent me my gift card. Should have known it was all a grift.

I thought the same thing but I did get it.

[NobodyHere]

Well I'll give Nikki Haley credit for mentioning that the Republicans have spent way too much money.

[Atocep]

Well I'll give Nikki Haley credit for mentioning that the Republicans have spent way too much money.

It's very early, but so far she's only one with a different message so far.

[QuikSand]

Da Vek has that same brand of Snake Oil as the guy sitting this out. Fun wrinkle.

[Atocep]

DeStantis' covid lockdown rant felt weird, forced, and was painfully memorized.

[NobodyHere]

I think the next person who says "Thank you for this question" should be shoved off the stage.

[Atocep]

Chris Christie should be invited to every debate for both parties if he can it as entertaining as that interaction with Vivek.

[NobodyHere]

The moderators need a mute button badly.

[QuikSand]

Chris Christie should be invited to every debate for both parties if he can it as entertaining as that interaction with Vivek.

...like a political Jeffrey Ross

[Atocep]

...like a political Jeffrey Ross

Yes, exactly. He's not going to win and he's a bad politician, but lets see these guys react in real time to being roasted.

I'm also genuinely curious to see where Vivek's polling goes from here as people get to see him on TV. I really question whether a dorky looking brown guy that sounds like a nerd can appeal at all to the GOP.

[NobodyHere]

It's very early, but so far she's only one with a different message so far.

She is doing a good job staying out of the mud so far.

[QuikSand]

The advertising stream on Rumble is verifying every stereotype of the right.

[Atocep]

Haley continues to impress me tonight.

I think Vivek is going to be too polarizing. He's an either love him or hate him guy without the charisma that Trump has.

[NobodyHere]

Haley continues to impress me tonight.

I think Vivek is going to be too polarizing. He's an either love him or hate him guy without the charisma that Trump has.

Vivek is a snake oil salesman. He's full of sayings but no substance. I was 50/50 on him before tonight but he has sunk.

[Atocep]

Vivek is a snake oil salesman. He's full of sayings but no substance. I was 50/50 on him before tonight but he has sunk.

The fact that he thinks letting Russia roll over Europe would be projecting strength should tank him, but he's going to have his supporters. He's put a ceiling on himself with his performance tonight though.

[Atocep]

I imagine DeSantis saying "stone cold dead" in the mirror over and over trying to get the right inflection.

[RainMaker]

DeStantis' covid lockdown rant felt weird, forced, and was painfully memorized.

Scared to mention Trump's name so he bashed Pence. Then threatened to fire a guy who retired 9 months ago.

[NobodyHere]

I forgot Tim Scott was on the stage.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Distinct wisdom from the Twitterverse. (I don't have to really like it to acknowledge the accuracy of it)

RazörFist @RAZ0RFIST
·
13m
I declare the winner of tonight's debate to be Rand Paul.
The only man circumspect enough to realize this isn't the year to run.

[Lathum]

The whole "abortion up until birth" shit is so maddening.

[Solecismic]

In terms of betting odds, Trump and DeSantis each got a noticeable increase. Haley appears to have doubled her chances.

On the downside, Ramaswamy went down a lot and Scott lost a significant portion of the small chance he had.

I was expecting DeSantis to win by not being awful, but I thought he was awful anyway. Still, he and Haley had the biggest overall increases. It's probably time for many in this group to drop out - definitely anyone still polling under 2% after tonight, and I'd say Christie, Scott and Pence just don't have a path forward, either. Maybe if other candidates got behind Haley, this could get interesting. It isn't right now.

[Swaggs]

I thought Haley and Pence were the only two that seemed presidential. Haley not being all in on abortion will spoil her chances, even though she seemed the most pragmatic about it and foreign policy. Pence is good at debates.

[HerRealName]

Predictit shows Trump as the winner of the debate last night. DeSantis is down 2. Every clip of Ronny that I've seen is him yelling maniacally into the camera in between getting makeup applied during commercial breaks.

[albionmoonlight]

Predictit shows Trump as the winner of the debate last night.

He's the frontrunner and he wasn't there to defend himself, and from what people are saying, no one did anything to attack him.

So, yeah, he won.

What a bunch of cowards.

[CrimsonFox]

There was a peestain on the set. It had a lot of great things to say

[Thomkal]

Biden campaign out with a great ad on the debate already:


https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1694558222294691847

[QuikSand]

Interesting take from NeverTrump GOPer Charlie Sykes:

Vivek Ramaswamy, who seems to have won the Elon Musk primary, was the night’s break-out star. “Ramaswamy Seizes Spotlight,” The New York Times declared, describing the first GOP debate as “The Ramaswamy show.”

My colleague Mona Charen spoke for many of us when she said last night that “I guess if I react with visceral disgust to Vivek, it’s probably a sign that the base loves him.”

Well, exactly.

Vivek is a facile, clownish, shallow, shameless, pandering demagogue, but he is exactly what GOP voters crave these days. So, he will likely get a bump in the polls, at least in the short-run.

Last night, Vivek was Trumpier than Trump. He touched all the erogenous zones of the MAGAverse with a fluency and zeal unmatched by anyone on the stage, from his anti-Ukraine memes to his fawning praise of the absent God King.

Trump himself loved it, posting a video clip of Vivek declaring him “the BEST president of the 21st century, and thanking him: “This answer gave Vivek Ramaswamy a big WIN in the debate because of a thing called TRUTH. Thank you Vivek!”

For most of the night, Vivek seemed to dominate the debate.

hxxps://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/the-vivek-and-nikki-show

[PilotMan]

You had me at "touched all the erogenous zones."

<3

[Atocep]

I think Vivek sees a bump in polling. He was the most unknown of the candidates and his stances will appeal to a portion of the MAGA crowd.

He's definitely taken to the Trump approach or just lying to everyone even when there's easy to find proof. He said climate change is a hoax last night even though he's stated recently that climate change is real and on some level is man made. He also trashed Trump for J6 in his book and denied it when Christie called.him on it.

[Edward64]

I'm glad Haley did well. Hopefully enough to get/keep her into the next knockout round.

The criteria for next debate

The first debate only required candidates to receive 1% in three national polls, or 1% in two national polls and two early state polls. The next debate will reportedly require at least 3% in two national polls, or 3% in one national poll and two polls conducted in early states.

Assume Burgum, Hutchinson are not going to make it as they currently are well below 538 average < 1%.

[RainMaker]

Yeah, I think Vivek is trying to build up support for 2028 or beyond. He's targeting the groyper demographic of the party and hoping to garner young support.

Vivek is my favorite because he just throws out the dumbest, wild ideas imaginable. Part of his schtick is that Americans need to pass a civics test to vote. Then he says the Constitution won us the Revolutionary War (which wasn't written till well after). His demographic should be younger people, but he wants to ban them from voting. Just incredible dumb guy energy and I hope he stays in for a long time.

[GrantDawg]

Idk. He seems dumb enough to actually become President.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Solecismic]

After the dust has settled a bit...

Winners: Trump (unscathed, so that's a huuge win), Haley (handled herself very well, gets to continue).

No real change: Ramaswamy (lots of press, lots of people wondering about him, but also some major negatives - I think it evened out).

Losers: DeSantis (by weird-smiling and weird hand-raising and not winning), Christie (by not playing his role well), Scott (by not doing anything anyone noticed - another ten runs for president and he's Bob Dole).

Why Bother?: Pence (respectable, but too many negatives), Hutchinson (I could only pick him out by eliminating the other seven), Burgum (apparently a lousy basketball player as well).

If they could somehow get down to four for the next one, Trump's refusal to debate will hurt him. But I think he would join, then, just to derail it. The RNC needs moderators that at least can tolerate the group. Not an easy task at all. I couldn't do it.

[Edward64]

It's obvious y'all don't fall under the category of "likely Republican primary voters"

See 538 report on who "won"

Who Won The First Republican Debate? | FiveThirtyEight (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/republican-debate-august-poll/)
The first 2024 Republican presidential primary debate is in the books, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy seem to have made the best impressions.

We know that thanks to fresh data from a FiveThirtyEight/Washington Post/Ipsos poll, conducted using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel in the hours immediately following the debate. We surveyed the same group of likely Republican primary voters before and after the debate, allowing us to see how much it may have shifted public opinion. All pre- and post-debate numbers below are limited to respondents who watched some or all of the debate.

[flere-imsaho]

It's probably time for many in this group to drop out

That's not how you get speaking engagements, FOX News gigs, cabinet posts and even a chance at the VP seat.

You drop out when the primaries start, when you can leverage something out of dropping out (even better if you're winning a few delegates along the way).

[Front Office Midget]

Vivek definitely made the biggest gains among MAGA Nation, but overall, I'd say Chris Christie was the one who "won" the debate. He's the only one on that state who came across as a competent alternative to Trump, instead of begging for his approval. Christie's politics seem disagreeable from my perspective, but he doesn't come off as a complete whackjob who gets all of his information from Grandpa's Facebook posts.

Trump benefits from all the Trump Jr.'s staying in the race longer. Basically looks like Christie is the only "Anyone but Trump" choice, and dear leader's best hope is that the field stays diluted so Christie can't build momentum.

Of course, if Trump can't run for whatever reason, then who knows which wannabe fascist Maga nation flocks to. Desantis seems like a joke so far, but it's early in the campaign, and he has a track record of winning.

[JPhillips]

The question I'd love to see:

Raise your hand if you think you'd be a better President than Donald Trump.

Christie and Hutchinson would, but would any of the others?

[Edward64]

That is a fantastic question.

[flere-imsaho]

"Why do you hate America?"

[Thomkal]

So if you are running for President perhaps you might have been interested enough in the job to vote in most elections for someone who best fitted your philosophy right Vivek?


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/gop-presidential-candidate-vivek-ramaswamy-unaffiliated-voter-records-rcna101827

[JPhillips]

Vivek is just a salesman willing to say whatever will make you close the deal.

[QuikSand]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">2024 National Republican Primary:<br><br>Trump 42%<br>Ramaswamy 15%<br>DeSantis 12%<br>Pence 7%<br>Haley 6%<br>Christie 5%<br>Scott 3%<br>Burgum 0%<br><br>.<a href="https://twitter.com/cygnal?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@cygnal</a>/<a href="https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@VivekGRamaswamy</a> Internal Poll, 1,500 LV, 8/24-26 <a href="https://t.co/0eJfOPdgbh">pic.twitter.com/0eJfOPdgbh</a></p>&mdash; Political Polls (@Politics_Polls) <a href="https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1695968835759907055?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Atocep]

Vivek has made it clear he sees his path to the presidency as being Trump 2.0 in case Trump has to drop out. He said today that he would like to make Trump a special advisor if he won the Presidency.

If Trump isn't eligible he's positioning himself to pull a sizeable portion of the MAGA base. I'm not sure he can pull enough and keep enough of them engaged to win the primary, but he's completely unelectable in a general.

Out of those on the stage at the first debate, Haley would probably be the biggest threat to Biden, but wanting to raise the retirement age would really hurt her.

I wonder how much of a threat Pence would be if he hadn't been VP for Trump.

[RainMaker]

I don't think Vivek has any ideas of winning this. He's just getting his name out there for 4 years from now. Seems to be banking on the party continuing down the fascist/QAnon/white power route they've been on.

Some have mentioned VP, but I don't think Trump would nominate anyone who would draw attention away from himself. That's why I think it'll end up being someone like Tim Scott.

[Brian Swartz]

I should, and hopefully won't, ever again say anybody is unelectable. Trump broke the mold on that in my opinion, and shifted my perspective on what's possible. I would be only moderately surprised if a dead person were elected President in my lifetime.

[GrantDawg]

I would be only moderately surprised if a dead person were elected President in my lifetime.
You mean Biden? :D
I think Trump has a real shot at winning in 2024. People aren't happy right now, most especially the working class. Just go on my mostly left-leaning feed of social and see people just struggling to survive. Every body has jobs, and those jobs have moderately in creased pay, but those increases aren't even coming close to keeping up with the increase in prices on every day items. I'm afraid for every young voter feed up and afraid of what freedoms they are having taken away, there might be two that have given up on voting because of how badly the economy has turned on them.
I'm not crazy about how things feel right now. Every side is way too angry and frustrated. I think we are on the verge of a huge break, and I am afraid it is not in a good way.
"It is the grocery store, stupid."

[Edward64]

Thanks for sharing.

Your experiences with your left-leaning friends is not what I've experienced. But accept the group of folks I socialize with is different.

TBH, I just assume left-leaning will vote Joe, even if he wasn't their first choice, just to beat Trump. Interesting you think inflation may be the deciding factor.

[larrymcg421]

I don't see it. Trump has done nothing to win back the people he lost in 2020. If anything, he's lost some hold the nose people who picked him for judges or taxes or whatever.

I suppose there's a danger of a 3rd party candidate splitting the vote, but I don't see it. Trump is one of the best candidates in history at getting out the vote, both for himself and for his opponent.

[albionmoonlight]

The liberals I know in real life are generally of the "Biden is a bit old for my taste, but assuming the GOP puts up Trump or a Trumper, I'm voting for Biden."

The vocal liberals I see on Twitter are more of the "My bagel was slightly under toasted this morning, so I am as mad at the Democratic party as I have ever been in my life." I am hoping that, like so many vocal folks online, they are a smaller group than their volume would have you believe.

[flere-imsaho]

No one who's actually liberal is going to vote GOP. This isn't the GOP of 20 years ago who would still lie about not wanting to outlaw abortion or eliminate welfare or privatize social security. This GOP is clear that they're going to do all that stuff and more.

[BYU 14]

I suppose there's a danger of a 3rd party candidate splitting the vote, but I don't see it. Trump is one of the best candidates in history at getting out the vote, both for himself and for his opponent.

Cornell West is 100% going to be that guy for progressives on the left

[Sweed]

No one who's actually liberal is going to vote GOP. This isn't the GOP of 20 years ago who would still lie about not wanting to outlaw abortion or eliminate welfare or privatize social security. This GOP is clear that they're going to do all that stuff and more.

Isn't the danger they won't vote at all? Or vote for a third party candidate, if there is one, on their high principles or because "their candidate" was ignored/disrespected etc. etc. and their feelings were hurt? The GOP doesn't have this problem, at all. Virtually every Trump hating R says if he's the nominee they will still vote R. Not sit it out, but still vote R.

[flere-imsaho]

@Sweed - yes, that's always a danger with fickle liberals, but the GOP has done the Democratic party a favor here by going to extreme & overboard with their policies so as to induce enough fear to keep them coming out.


Here's the data, anyway:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/06/PP_2021.06.30_validated-voters_00-04.png

Both Trump & Biden gained voters at the ideological ends, but only Biden increased his share of his party's "moderate"* voters.


*whatever the fuck "moderate" means in today's American political hellscape

[GrantDawg]

I'm not saying they are voting GOP. The sentiment I'm seeing a lot is "I voted and it just keeps getting worse for me. Why bother?"

[JPhillips]

This fucking guy.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Now that the Supreme Court finally ended affirmative action, colleges will only further deprioritize SAT scores in favor of subjective factors because of large racial disparities in test results. There’s a simple way forward that will drive excellence and diversity of talent…</p>&mdash; Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) <a href="https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1696234841249857658?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[RainMaker]

You mean Biden? :D
I think Trump has a real shot at winning in 2024. People aren't happy right now, most especially the working class. Just go on my mostly left-leaning feed of social and see people just struggling to survive. Every body has jobs, and those jobs have moderately in creased pay, but those increases aren't even coming close to keeping up with the increase in prices on every day items. I'm afraid for every young voter feed up and afraid of what freedoms they are having taken away, there might be two that have given up on voting because of how badly the economy has turned on them.
I'm not crazy about how things feel right now. Every side is way too angry and frustrated. I think we are on the verge of a huge break, and I am afraid it is not in a good way.
"It is the grocery store, stupid."

Biden is unpopular, but I just don't think it matters as long as he's up against Trump. Any generic Republican like Youngkin probably wins, just not Trump.

I look at it this way. Trump needs to win 3 of these states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia. Are there any signs he can do it?

Michigan not only rejected him in 2020, but was pretty strong for Democrats in the midterms. That included against election deniers. His handpicked candidates in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Arizona lost and even ran behind other Republican candidates. A liberal judge just walloped a conservative judge in a very important race in Wisconsin.

Those states seem to be trending away from Trump. I could maybe see Wisconsin flipping with the right conditions since it was close, but I just don't see how he's winning any of those other states.

[GrantDawg]

Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and possibly Arizona all go red with a decent third party candidate in the mix. Pretty easily actually.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

Btw, Georgia is still a red state. Every single state rep is Tepublican including the Lt. Governor who was a fake elector.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

No one who's actually liberal is going to vote GOP. This isn't the GOP of 20 years ago who would still lie about not wanting to outlaw abortion or eliminate welfare or privatize social security. This GOP is clear that they're going to do all that stuff and more.

I agree with this, but turnout will be a factor, and independents/moderates/whatever you want to call them will be a factor. I know the 'how could anyone possibly be undecided between Biden/Trump' will come up, but there will be a statistically significant amount of such people.

To GrantDawg's point, I don't think inflation will be nearly as big an issue by the time the election happens. That's over a year of likely economic improvement away. I think larrymcg421 hit the nail on the head. I can see a bunch of Democrats just sitting out with depressed turnout if it were a meh Republican candidate. I can't see them doing that with Trump. Ironically for the GOP, this is a very winnable election for them if they were competent.

They're nowhere close, and all indications are their voters still want Trump. It's really unprecedented for a modern candidate to be the clear choice of their party after having *lost* the last election. People just move on to something else, but they won't do that with Trump ... at least not yet.

The sentiment I'm seeing a lot is "I voted and it just keeps getting worse for me. Why bother?"

This is one of the approaches that drives me bonkers the most, and yes I know it's common. It's right up the 'Fierce Urgency of Now' lane. You just assume inflation is Biden's fault, and that another President would have done better - or worse, you just don't care, get mad at the situation, and take it out on him. I think he's done some things to make it worse but mostly I think a lot of dominos were knocked over by the pandemic that no President could do more than just manage. These sorts of completely impossible expectations just show me how utterly incapable we are of self-governance.

[Brian Swartz]

Last I checked Warnock and Ossoff are still in the US Senate. I'd say Georgia is purple, not red.

[GrantDawg]

Ossoff will lose to Kemp in the next election. Warnock only won because the GOP ran the worst candidate they could find. He most likely doesn't win reelection.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

We'll see. I'd say it's unknowable who gets re-elected and who doesn't, but picking decent candidates is part of winning. A state that has had governor races as close as Georgia and has democratic senators, regardless of the reason, is just not red by any reasonable assessment IMO.

[GrantDawg]

We'll see. I'd say it's unknowable who gets re-elected and who doesn't, but picking decent candidates is part of winning. A state that has had governor races as close as Georgia and has democratic senators, regardless of the reason, is just not red by any reasonable assessment IMO.
You realize that last Govenor's race wasn't that close, right? Even though Stacey had made a star turn and they had Walker dragging down the ticket, the GOP won every state wide election. Georgia has many independents, but they largely lean strong right. You can describe Arizona the same. Let a semi-sane conservative run, and they win 53-47. Let a prominent conservative leaning independent garner 3% of that independent vote, and a complete GOP nut bag will win.

[Lathum]

I think we can easily see a trump win with the perfect storm of a third candidate, poor turnout by the dems, and Biden losing even a small fraction of the black vote. If blacks in Philly, Atlanta, and Milwaukee don’t turn out or are suppressed trump can easily win.

[Lathum]

The question is are there any states Biden can flip from 2020. Maybe North Carolina? Florida is probably a pipe dream but maybe meatball ron has turned enough people off.

[Ksyrup]

Hey, I found another important issue for MAGA to run on!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A majority of American dog owners are now expressing “concerns” about vaccinating their dogs— including for rabies— following MAGA conspiracies about COVID. <br><br>Nearly 40% were baselessly concerned that vaccines could cause their dog to develop autism. <br><br>��<a href="https://t.co/gq4L7dwYzr">https://t.co/gq4L7dwYzr</a> <a href="https://t.co/HlBSOEFi1u">pic.twitter.com/HlBSOEFi1u</a></p>&mdash; No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) <a href="https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1696289572223668530?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 28, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[NobodyHere]

Republican Candidate Drops Out of Presidential Race (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-candidate-drops-out-of-presidential-race/ar-AA1fWReL?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=69d5a28ffeb44eb9bd0dc692512aaa06&ei=34)

Oh Francis Saurez we hardly knew ye.

Like seriously, I had no idea this guy was running.

[Lathum]

Heard some chatter today that people "in the know" are saying Biden isn't going to run.

If not who gets the nomination? Does Newsome jump in? Whitmer? Harris?

[QuikSand]

"It is the grocery store, stupid."

I am totally stealing this

[Brian Swartz]

I don't believe it (on Biden), but if he decides not to run and announces that extremely soon, I'll be very impressed. Won't be long before it's dangerously too late to do any such thing though, so if he's going to say that (not buying it), it needs to happen basically yesterday.

[miami_fan]

Republican Candidate Drops Out of Presidential Race (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-candidate-drops-out-of-presidential-race/ar-AA1fWReL?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=69d5a28ffeb44eb9bd0dc692512aaa06&ei=34)

Oh Francis Saurez we hardly knew ye.

Like seriously, I had no idea this guy was running.

I still am not sure what happens with the money guys like him fundraise during the campaign but we do know he has gotten PAID since taking office to "serve the public's best interests.

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article278776354.html

[RainMaker]

Heard some chatter today that people "in the know" are saying Biden isn't going to run.

If not who gets the nomination? Does Newsome jump in? Whitmer? Harris?

JB Pritzker would be their best hope.

[GrantDawg]

JB Pritzker would be their best hope.
I had to look him up. A billionaire? Who graduated from a law school named after his family? An interesting pick.
I would personally pick Mark Kelly, but I doubt he would run. Newsom is already running without running. Whitmer would be a choice I would like but probably wouldn't win the nomination.

[bronconick]

Shapiro

[JPhillips]

Dems have a pretty deep bench of governors.

[GrantDawg]

I think the rumor he won't run is more wishful thinking than anything. I think we desperately need some younger blood in leadership across the board, but I don't think Biden is willing to step aside to let that happen.

[GrantDawg]

Dola: But in light of that rumor, this is interesting. Sort of taking a conservative talking point?
<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">“As we see around the nation, threats against the integrity of our elections are alive and well … We have expanded voting rights; now we must shore up election security.”<br><br>— Gov. Whitmer (D-MI) addresses Michigan’s fall agenda by reflecting on the 2020 election/election security <a href="https://t.co/C1gnw38PlL">pic.twitter.com/C1gnw38PlL</a></p>&mdash; The Recount (@therecount) <a href="https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1696922212929048971?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 30, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>

[RainMaker]

I had to look him up. A billionaire? Who graduated from a law school named after his family? An interesting pick.
I would personally pick Mark Kelly, but I doubt he would run. Newsom is already running without running. Whitmer would be a choice I would like but probably wouldn't win the nomination.

He's been one of the best governors in the country. Pulled Illinois out of some bad financial issues and has passed some popular legislation. He's also a pretty savvy politician which is lacking on the Democrat side. And it doesn't hurt that he can fund a chunk of his own campaign.

Shapiro and Whitmer would be good choices as well. As JPhillips said, the Dems have a deep bench of popular governors. Problem is that what makes them popular is also what would make the establishment fight against them.

[QuikSand]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Perfect video illustrating how Vivek Ramaswamy made his fortune on grifting investors.<br><br>People are catching on that he's a smooth talking psychopathic snake oil salesman<a href="https://t.co/z1pHEQmwet">pic.twitter.com/z1pHEQmwet</a> <a href="https://t.co/bx9de7XCOd">https://t.co/bx9de7XCOd</a></p>&mdash; Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) <a href="https://twitter.com/FinanceLancelot/status/1696735857690939796?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 30, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

fun stuff

[PilotMan]

All great except that the right now believes that con men are actual business men who were smart enough to know how to make money. If someone else was hurt by them, then that's on them. Because the business (con) man was smarter and knew what he was doing. Furthermore, the supporter wasn't hurt by the businessman which makes it all ok, because they were smart enough to not be swindled and taken advantage of them. They place themselves on the same level as the con man, they are smart, you are dumb, the conman is great at business, he has my full support.



This is exactly how trump's supporters view him, and the only people who have been hurt and taken advantage of are the dumb ones who should have known better, and they are the enemy. It's the new mindset of the new right.

[Atocep]

All great except that the right now believes that con men are actual business men who were smart enough to know how to make money. If someone else was hurt by them, then that's on them. Because the business (con) man was smarter and knew what he was doing. Furthermore, the supporter wasn't hurt by the businessman which makes it all ok, because they were smart enough to not be swindled and taken advantage of them. They place themselves on the same level as the con man, they are smart, you are dumb, the conman is great at business, he has my full support.



This is exactly how trump's supporters view him, and the only people who have been hurt and taken advantage of are the dumb ones who should have known better, and they are the enemy. It's the new mindset of the new right.

All while they're buying Trump bucks and donating to build the wall.

[GrantDawg]

All while they're buying Trump bucks and donating to build the wall.
Be that as it may, he is dead right and that is how they see the world. Everyone else, including politicians, educators, scientist are all stupid and they are much smarter than them because they have "common sense." How they define common sense is much like how most people define "old wives tales."

[thesloppy]

When pressed most of these same folks will also admit that they know Trump lies constantly, but is also somehow telling only truth about crucial issues, if you're 'smart' enough to interpret him.

[RainMaker]

All great except that the right now believes that con men are actual business men who were smart enough to know how to make money. If someone else was hurt by them, then that's on them. Because the business (con) man was smarter and knew what he was doing. Furthermore, the supporter wasn't hurt by the businessman which makes it all ok, because they were smart enough to not be swindled and taken advantage of them. They place themselves on the same level as the con man, they are smart, you are dumb, the conman is great at business, he has my full support.

This is exactly how trump's supporters view him, and the only people who have been hurt and taken advantage of are the dumb ones who should have known better, and they are the enemy. It's the new mindset of the new right.


Exactly. It's pretty telling that none of the candidates attacked Vivek for being a con artist.

[Galaril]

New poll out Trump 40% Biden 39% and Green Party 3 %. Won’t say I to.d people so but yeah we are going to get a mad man as president next year.

[Brian Swartz]

It's over a year until the election. If it looks that way in the spring, that's when I would start getting concerned.

I don't want to presume, but my impression is that the idea of Trump winning again is so catastrophic that it causes a primal reaction in some people, over-riding the way they would normally look at a situation if it were 'Generic Politician Y' running or something.

[Galaril]

It's over a year until the election. If it looks that way in the spring, that's when I would start getting concerned.

I don't want to presume, but my impression is that the idea of Trump winning again is so catastrophic that it causes a primal reaction in some people, over-riding the way they would normally look at a situation if it were 'Generic Politician Y' running or something.

True.

[Swaggs]

Count me in the "I need to see it to believe it" column with elections post-Roe v Wade being overturned. There have been a number of statewide elections (plus the 2022 midterms) that have indicated that voters are still energized and where the polls have underestimated margins. Trump, Nikki Haley, Nancy Mace and a handful of others seem to be banging the drum that it is a losing issue, but the GOP base seems to want to take things further in that direction by making laws more restrictive and punitive to doctors and mothers.

[Atocep]

Count me in the "I need to see it to believe it" column with elections post-Roe v Wade being overturned. There have been a number of statewide elections (plus the 2022 midterms) that have indicated that voters are still energized and where the polls have underestimated margins. Trump, Nikki Haley, Nancy Mace and a handful of others seem to be banging the drum that it is a losing issue, but the GOP base seems to want to take things further in that direction by making laws more restrictive and punitive to doctors and mothers.


GOP insiders and strategists are expecting heavy losses as long as Trump is on the ballot or directing the party. I saw one quoted as saying 2024, 2028, 2032, or until he's dead"

The special elections and statewides you mention are also far more accurate of a gauge of where things are than polling. I'm not saying it's a given, but Trump plus Roe is going to be incredibly difficult for the party to overcome.

[GrantDawg]

I wish I had you guy's faith in that.

[thesloppy]

I am anxious as hell too, but why would you choose to believe polling accuracy, down to the point, given like the last 10 years as evidence?

[GrantDawg]

I am anxious as hell too, but why would you choose to believe polling accuracy, down to the point, given like the last 10 years as evidence?
I promise you, my nerves are not solely based on polling.

[Galaril]

I promise you, my nerves are not solely based on polling.

Ditto.

[Brian Swartz]

I am anxious as hell too, but why would you choose to believe polling accuracy, down to the point, given like the last 10 years as evidence?

Speaking only for myself, I don't believe it down to the point. I do think that, while not as accurate as it used to be, the polls are still a heck of a lot more accurate than somebody's intuition or gut feeling. They've still been quite close in the last two presidential elections for example.

Personally, I think the most sensible thing to do is combine the polls with what happens in special elections and such. As many have observed, the 'grocery store stupid' argument, i.e. inflation, is really a great equalizer here. The number of people who just don't care about anything else if they don't like the economic situation is ... not small, and people vote on that more for presidents than they do for congressmen or state referenda. That's ... not wise, but it's what happens. I think it's Biden's election to lose, but also that most of what could make him lose it is not in his control. It's very likely to tip on whether people have confidence in the economy when it comes time to vote.

If things have improved enough by then, and I expect they will, I have very little doubt he wins. If they haven't, all bets are off.

[larrymcg421]

I believe that poll is a roughly accurate reflection of who people say they will vote for in 2024. There are a very large number of undecideds. Biden has much more potential to win those voters, and I think it's not particularly close.

[Lathum]

Also need to remember while most dems and independents don't want Biden to runs, if he does and it is against Trump it will be at worst a repeat of 2020 and they will all vote him.

Majority of Americans, including a lot of Rs know how awful a second Trump term would be.

[Sweed]

That there is even a discussion going on about Trump tells me how bad/dangerous things are. The trouble with the "Trump candidates" all lost is they, for the most part, didn't lose by much. None of these elections should have been close, hell none of these candidates should have made it on the ballot.

While I try to comfort myself with the idea that the middle/undecided and independents (me) will go with Biden knowing how bad a second Trump term would be, I'm not counting on it. Hell in my state, Iowa, the majority don't think Trump has done anything wrong. They may be to the point of not totally supporting him, but he's not a D so he gets their vote. He will win here and it won't be close.

[QuikSand]

I am anxious as hell too, but why would you choose to believe polling accuracy, down to the point, given like the last 10 years as evidence?

Is this a widely held view... that recent years have basically discredited polling overall?

[Atocep]

I want to add that I think Trump made a mistake by skipping the debate. He's best at sucking all the air out of a room and allowing other candidates to stand out on their own in any way goes against what works for him. He's still easily the favorite but he's lost a little ground and he doesn't want GOP voters to get comfortable with alternatives.

Edit: to add, I'm not sure he has the energy to campaign heavily this time around. He loves his rallies, but I don't think he wants anything to do with an actual campaign at this point. He wants to fundraiser, hold rallies, and sit back and win with as little effort as possible in the hopes of being able to eventually kill off these indictments.

[GrantDawg]

That Haley number is interesting:
<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">CNN/SSRS ‘24 general election trial heats:<br><br>Trump 47%<br>Biden 46%<br><br>DeSantis 47%<br>Biden 47%<br><br>Haley 49%<br>Biden 43%<br><br>Pence 46%<br>Biden 44%<br><br>Scott 46%<br>Biden 44%<br><br>Biden 46%<br>Ramaswamy 45%<br><br>Christie 44%<br>Biden 42%<a href="https://t.co/sONmyvLsaT">https://t.co/sONmyvLsaT</a></p>&mdash; Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1699740087754293423?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 7, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>

[Lathum]

Great poll for Biden

[GrantDawg]

Great poll for Biden
He's gottem right where he wants them. Things will really take off when he loses three-four more points.

[Lathum]

He's gottem right where he wants them. Things will really take off when he loses three-four more points.

You realize 60% of the participants were right or right leaning independents?

[GrantDawg]

<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">...would be for the GOP primary poll that was also part of this survey. For that, they would have wanted a larger pool of R's, because they were asking many questions specific to the GOP primary. But for the &quot;Biden vs....&quot; general election match-ups, here's the methodology: <a href="https://t.co/pMkKgtJODN">pic.twitter.com/pMkKgtJODN</a></p>&mdash; Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1699758875463877010?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 7, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>

[Edward64]

That Haley number is interesting:

It is.

Ready for the GOP field to get whittled down to 3-4 and hope she makes it.

[Lathum]

Confusing because the original release clearly states oversampling of republicans and right leaning independents.

[Lathum]

Just heard on the radio the GOP has won the popular vote once since 1992. That is astonishing.

[larrymcg421]

Just heard on the radio the GOP has won the popular vote once since 1992. That is astonishing.

Yep, and the one time they won it in that period was by just 2.5%

[Brian Swartz]

Modern polling is always complicated. It's unfortunately never as simple as 'pick 2000 people at random and report what they said' since a sizable amount of any such group is never voting anyway and/or isn't representative in a zillion other ways.

[Swaggs]

And the GOP has only gotten more than 50% of the vote once since 1988. And just barely, George W. Bush got 50.7 in 2004.

[albionmoonlight]

And the GOP has only gotten more than 50% of the vote once since 1988. And just barely, George W. Bush got 50.7 in 2004.

Which is weird because Kerry was actually pretty close to winning in the electoral college despite losing the popular vote.

[Thomkal]

Loved seeing/hearing most of the fans at the Iowa/Iowa St game boo and give the finger to Trump, DeSantis, and Vivek today

[whomario]

Loved seeing/hearing most of the fans at the Iowa/Iowa St game boo and give the finger to Trump, DeSantis, and Vivek today

But i was told they spread rose petals and showered him with love?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5n7pbzXkAAv3Ii?format=jpg&name=small

[GrantDawg]

Yup, only true love:
<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NEW: Iowans flicking off Trump at the Iowa-Iowa state game today. �� <a href="https://t.co/OiYAr8J3da">pic.twitter.com/OiYAr8J3da</a></p>&mdash; Cryptid Politics ������ (@CryptidPolitics) <a href="https://twitter.com/CryptidPolitics/status/1700610834743853284?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 9, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>

[Brian Swartz]

Loved seeing/hearing most of the fans at the Iowa/Iowa St game boo and give the finger to Trump, DeSantis, and Vivek today

Incivility is unquestionably a thing to celebrate.

[Thomkal]

But i was told they spread rose petals and showered him with love?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5n7pbzXkAAv3Ii?format=jpg&name=small


Only in Dinesh's new book, due out next month!

[Galaril]

Incivility is unquestionably a thing to celebrate.

Those assholes deserve every ounce of it.

[Ghost Econ]

I mean, appeasement with Nazis worked well the last time so....

[Lathum]

Incivility is unquestionably a thing to celebrate.

So if someone bullies you and constantly treats you like shit you just take it?

I suspect I know the answer but figured I would ask anyway.

[Thomkal]

Incivility is unquestionably a thing to celebrate.


Normally I would agree with you on this Brian, but the entire Republican Party as it stands today wants to overthrow the govt and rule forever-so yeah I'm okay with it here.

[jbpostbot]

sometimes you just gotta call an asswhite an asswhite

[Atocep]

Incivility is unquestionably a thing to celebrate.

Should we be civil if they win and start implementing project 2025?

[Lathum]

Video: See the moment Biden press conference ends abruptly in Hanoi, Vietnam | CNN Politics (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/09/11/biden-press-conference-ends-abruptly-es-ldn-vpx.cnn)

This guy isn't going to win, and certainly can't govern for another 5.5 years. If the Dems don't get it together Trumps going to win and destroy the nation.

[Brian Swartz]

Those assholes deserve every ounce of it.

I think virtues like civility are important not because people deserve it. They only mean anything and have value when we use them with people who don't deserve it. It's like free speech. Popular speech doesn't need protection because nobody ever wants to ban it. It's the unpopular speech, the people saying the things we don't like, that reveal whether we think it's a principle worth defending or just a bunch of hot air.

I mean, appeasement with Nazis worked well the last time so....

Godwin's Law Alert. Also, see next response ...

if someone bullies you and constantly treats you like shit you just take it?

Nope. I'm not advocating relaxing in the slightest politican opposition to politicians who are advocating policies and demonstrating behaviors we disagree with. We can and should do all of those things ... and still treat those people decently. As mentioned above, not based on them deserving it or not, that's irrelevant.

Should we be civil if they win and start implementing project 2025?

Yes, the same way the ones who think Democrats are traitors worse than ISIS should also do so.

If we say (and I do) that what passes as conservatism in the US today is dangerous to the republic, corrosive and destructive to the institutions and ideals of democracy, elements of public behavior are morally reprenhensible, and all the rest of that, we cut the ground from underneath our feet if we aren't being examples of how people who disagree with each other politically should treat each other. Jumping down in the pit with them just minimizes the distinction and abandons a portion of the moral high ground.

[Edward64]

I think it's overstated, in the pic below, I see 5 people with fingers up and 3 of them are using middle, and the other 2 are using index (for whatever reason).

But I'm overall okay with the middle finger. Not because "the other guy started it first" or "both sides" rationale but because (1) he put himself out there in public, campaigning (2) I believe boo's should be allowed on the campaign trail unless it disrupts like in a debate, town meeting scenario (3) a finger is not much different from booing and (4) ultimately I don't believe it rises to level of not being civil. What may have been the standard(s) back 20-30 years ago has change and boos and fingers are relatively mild nowadays. There's no going back to those days.

What does cross the line for me are going to a person's home to protest (SCOTUS), disrupting a family meal (okay with business meals) and things like that.

https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1700631386606985697/photo/1

https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1700631386606985697/photo/1

[flere-imsaho]

I think virtues like civility are important not because people deserve it. They only mean anything and have value when we use them with people who don't deserve it. It's like free speech. Popular speech doesn't need protection because nobody ever wants to ban it.

I'm going to stop you right there. A lot of the country has said "hey, maybe we should be nicer to LGBTQ people" and the Republican response has been "no, let's ban, ostracize, and/or kill them." That's one example.

The ship on civil society sailed years ago, maybe when a Republican President told half the population that they were "with the terrorists". Your desire to bring it back is admirable, but you're swimming against the tide, here.

[flere-imsaho]

If we say (and I do) that what passes as conservatism in the US today is dangerous to the republic, corrosive and destructive to the institutions and ideals of democracy, elements of public behavior are morally reprenhensible, and all the rest of that, we cut the ground from underneath our feet if we aren't being examples of how people who disagree with each other politically should treat each other. Jumping down in the pit with them just minimizes the distinction and abandons a portion of the moral high ground.

This is the core of your misunderstanding.

The issue isn't that Republicans are dangerous to the republic, corrosive and destructive to the institutions and ideals of democracy, etc.... Although that is all true.

The issue is that the right-wing that will be empowered should they succeed electorally in 2025 has stated explicitly that they will dramatically curtail the personal liberties of anyone they don't like, up to and including killing them.

Republican politicians in power are already an existential threat for a lot of Americans. Civility isn't going to solve that. Civility didn't save those police officers on Capitol Hill, and wouldn't have saved Mike Pence if the mob got a hold of him.

[Lathum]

We can always count on Brian to show us how morally, ethically, and intellectually superior he is to the rest of us.

[Brian Swartz]

stated explicitly that they will dramatically curtail the personal liberties of anyone they don't like, up to and including killing them.

Before I give a proper response, I'm going to need to request that you support this statement with facts.

[Edward64]

Before I give a proper response, I'm going to need to request that you support this statement with facts.

Wouldn't surprise me if there were some extremist group with those threats. The real question is are we in danger of the majority of the GOP political apparatus supporting that extremism.


BTW I personally don't mind you challenging the popular consensus here. Always good to have a different voice speak up in a respectful manner and sharing POVs. Good to learn new things or new angles on discussions.

[Lathum]

Wouldn't surprise me if there were some extremist group with those threats. The real question is are we in danger of the majority of the GOP political apparatus supporting that extremism.

.

Right. Because the majority of the gop apparatus has such a solid track record lately of denouncing horrible shit their party advocate for.

[Edward64]

Right. Because the majority of the gop apparatus has such a solid track record lately of denouncing horrible shit their party advocate for.

There's not denouncing and there's actively supporting. The original quote was

The issue is that the right-wing that will be empowered should they succeed electorally in 2025 has stated explicitly that they will dramatically curtail the personal liberties of anyone they don't like, up to and including killing them.

[flere-imsaho]

Outrage after DeSantis says he’d ‘start slitting throats’ if elected president | Ron DeSantis | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/04/ron-desantis-slitting-throats-federal-jobs-president-campaign)

'I'm coming after you:' Trump issues new threats after new indictment (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/04/im-coming-after-you-trump-issues-new-threats-after-new-indictment/70529404007/)

Former president Donald Trump recently said he’d have “no choice” but to lock up his political opponents if he wins the 2024 presidential race because his opponents are already doing the same to him and his allies. Trump’s comments came during an interview with conservative radio host Glenn Beck on Tuesday.

Source. (https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-threatens-retaliatory-scheme-already-tried-implement-rcna103385)

At a conservative rally in western Idaho last month, a young man stepped up to a microphone to ask when he could start killing Democrats.

“When do we get to use the guns?” he said as the audience applauded. “How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?” The local state representative, a Republican, later called it a “fair” question.

In Ohio, the leading candidate in the Republican primary for Senate blasted out a video urging Republicans to resist the “tyranny” of a federal government that pushed them to wear masks and take F.D.A.-authorized vaccines.

“When the Gestapo show up at your front door,” the candidate, Josh Mandel, a grandson of Holocaust survivors, said in the video in September, “you know what to do.”

Source. (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/us/politics/republican-violent-rhetoric.html)

Nothing in particular was happening on July 31, 2021, that should have given Kevin McCarthy’s words any special weight. It was a Saturday. The House of Representatives was on summer break. McCarthy was in Nashville at a fundraising event, and the state’s House Republicans presented him with an oversize gavel. Then he “joked”: “I want you to watch Nancy Pelosi hand me that gavel. It’ll be hard not to hit her with it.”

Source. (https://newrepublic.com/article/168362/paul-pelosi-attack-almost-died-republican-response)

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-police-nice-suspects/story?id=48914504

In Florida this week, Martin Hyde, a GOP Congressional candidate for the US House said in a campaign video that FBI agents would leave his home "in a body bag" if they tried to search him like they did Mar-a-Lago. Likewise, Florida state house candidate Luis Miguel was banned on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook after saying he would legalize shooting federal agents "on sight."

Source. (https://www.businessinsider.com/extremists-gop-candidates-violent-threats-after-mar-a-lago-raid-2022-8)

Marjorie Taylor Greene indicated support for executing prominent Democrats in 2018 and 2019 before running for Congress | CNN Politics (https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-democrats-violence/index.html)

The White House on Monday condemned Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene for suggesting over the weekend that the Capitol riot "would’ve been armed" if she and former President Trump aide Steve Bannon had been involved in the planning, and said her "violent rhetoric" is a "slap in the face" to law enforcement.

Source. (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-condemns-marjorie-taylor-greenes-violent-remarks-capitol-riot-organization)

In March 2020, a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives posted a video message addressed to two Democratic political candidates that issued a threatening challenge if they passed laws he did not like. Standing in his Capitol Hill office, Ken Buck of Colorado’s Fourth District gestured toward a rifle mounted on the wall.

“I have a message for Joe Biden and Beto O’Rourke. If you want to take everyone’s AR-15 in America, why don’t you swing by my office in Washington, D.C., and start with this one.” At this point, Buck reached for a stars-and-stripes-decorated rifle mounted on the wall. He brandished the weapon, smiled what he must have imagined was a tough-guy smile, and said, “Come and take it.”

...

Missouri Governor Eric Greitens resigned in disgrace in 2018 after facing allegations that he had used explicit photographs to blackmail a former lover. He tried to revive his career with a Senate run in 2020. Guns became a major theme of that campaign, culminating in a video ad that pictured him carrying a gun as he broke open the door of a house. Accompanied by two armed goons, he urged: “Get a RINO-hunting permit. There’s no bagging limit, no tagging limit, and it doesn’t expire until we save our country.”

Source. (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/pelosi-republicans-partisan-political-violence/671934/)

The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to approve a resolution that censures Rep. Paul Gosar and strips him of his two committee assignments, the first time a sitting House member has been censured in more than 10 years.

The action led by House Democrats represents a major rebuke to the Arizona Republican for posting a photoshopped anime video to social media showing him appearing to kill Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and attacking President Joe Biden.

The final vote was 223 to 207. Republicans Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Liz Cheney of Wyoming voted with all the Democrats for the censure resolution. Republican Rep. David Joyce of Ohio voted present, meaning he took no position either way.

Source. (https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/17/politics/house-vote-censure-gosar-aoc-video/index.html)


This is all from a cursory google, focusing solely on Republican politicians and candidates, not even going down into local politicians and activists. And doesn't even deal with things like red states passing legislation (https://www.hrc.org/resources/attacks-on-gender-affirming-care-by-state-map?utm_medium=ads&utm_source=GoogleSearch&utm_content=GACMap-General&utm_campaign=GoogleGrant&utm_source=GS&utm_medium=AD&utm_campaign=BPI-HRC-Grant&utm_content=657195962805&utm_term=trans%20ban&gclid=Cj0KCQjw9fqnBhDSARIsAHlcQYROrBpfTD6Fl-R1faETf5iS1PI17xVxk0_5NFkNEYmBWANUskN5ga8aAsQ0EALw_wcB) to ostracize trans youth.

[Lathum]

There's not denouncing and there's actively supporting. The original quote was

bullshit.

By not denouncing what the rest of the party is doing they are supporting.

Jesus Christ, read a history book.

[Edward64]

Outrage after DeSantis says he’d ‘start slitting throats’ if elected president | Ron DeSantis | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/04/ron-desantis-slitting-throats-federal-jobs-president-campaign)
'I'm coming after you:' Trump issues new threats after new indictment (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/04/im-coming-after-you-trump-issues-new-threats-after-new-indictment/70529404007/)
Source. (https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-threatens-retaliatory-scheme-already-tried-implement-rcna103385)
Source. (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/us/politics/republican-violent-rhetoric.html)
Source. (https://newrepublic.com/article/168362/paul-pelosi-attack-almost-died-republican-response)
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-police-nice-suspects/story?id=48914504
Source. (https://www.businessinsider.com/extremists-gop-candidates-violent-threats-after-mar-a-lago-raid-2022-8)
Marjorie Taylor Greene indicated support for executing prominent Democrats in 2018 and 2019 before running for Congress | CNN Politics (https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-democrats-violence/index.html)
Source. (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-condemns-marjorie-taylor-greenes-violent-remarks-capitol-riot-organization)
Source. (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/pelosi-republicans-partisan-political-violence/671934/)
Source. (https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/17/politics/house-vote-censure-gosar-aoc-video/index.html)
This is all from a cursory google, focusing solely on Republican politicians and candidates, not even going down into local politicians and activists. And doesn't even deal with things like red states passing legislation (https://www.hrc.org/resources/attacks-on-gender-affirming-care-by-state-map?utm_medium=ads&utm_source=GoogleSearch&utm_content=GACMap-General&utm_campaign=GoogleGrant&utm_source=GS&utm_medium=AD&utm_campaign=BPI-HRC-Grant&utm_content=657195962805&utm_term=trans%20ban&gclid=Cj0KCQjw9fqnBhDSARIsAHlcQYROrBpfTD6Fl-R1faETf5iS1PI17xVxk0_5NFkNEYmBWANUskN5ga8aAsQ0EALw_wcB) to ostracize trans youth.

I'm not speaking for Brian, just myself.

Many of your quotes espouses violence and only 3 are more specific to "killing them".

Of the 3, one is running as a GOP candidate, another state house candidate. I do think the Gosar is a valid example.

My original quote holds.

Wouldn't surprise me if there were some extremist group with those threats. The real question is are we in danger of the majority of the GOP political apparatus supporting that extremism.

I am sure I can find some left wing extremist examples that also call for violence (not necessarily kill) against the GOP. Nothing for either party to be proud of.

[flere-imsaho]

Your naivete is, as usual, shocking, Edward.

[flere-imsaho]

I do think the Gosar is a valid example.

My original quote holds.

The real question is are we in danger of the majority of the GOP political apparatus supporting that extremism.

The final vote was 223 to 207. Republicans Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Liz Cheney of Wyoming voted with all the Democrats for the censure resolution. Republican Rep. David Joyce of Ohio voted present, meaning he took no position either way.

All but 3 GOP members of the U.S. House of Representatives thought it was perfectly fine for Gosar to post a video showing him killing a fellow member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Does that qualify as support, Edward? What kind of message do you think that sends?

And that's just one example. I found plenty, and I only went one page into the google search results. I'd find more, but I'm pretty sure a mountain of evidence won't convince you otherwise.

[Edward64]

bullshit.

By not denouncing what the rest of the party is doing they are supporting.

Jesus Christ, read a history book.

Let's bring this back to the specific quote that originated this.

The issue is that the right-wing that will be empowered should they succeed electorally in 2025 has stated explicitly that they will dramatically curtail the personal liberties of anyone they don't like, up to and including killing them.


You may want to "boil the ocean" and talk about the bigger picture, but I'm speaking specifically about the above quote which Brian called out.

In my reply, the GOP censured Gosar. The other 2 examples provided, one wasn't even in Congress, the other was a state representative.

My statement was

Wouldn't surprise me if there were some extremist group with those threats. The real question is are we in danger of the majority of the GOP political apparatus supporting that extremism.


Now if you want to talk about the bigger picture, sure we can pivot to that. But let's not go off topic when we were talking about a specific point.

[flere-imsaho]

In my reply, the GOP censured Gosar.

No. They. Didn't.

And the only 2 GOP Reps who voted to censure are no longer in Congress.

The other 2 examples provided, one wasn't even in Congress, the other was a state representative.

So? That's addressed in my statement that you keep quoting but apparently not reading.

The issue is that the right-wing that will be empowered should they succeed electorally in 2025 has stated explicitly that they will dramatically curtail the personal liberties of anyone they don't like, up to and including killing them.

Those right-wing state reps and candidates you mention? Who do you think is going to be in power should the now right-wing GOP succeed electorally in 2025?

Edit: it's not the Adam Kinzigers or Liz Cheneys of the world who are going to be part of that electoral success in 2025.

[Edward64]

All but 3 GOP members of the U.S. House of Representatives thought it was perfectly fine for Gosar to post a video showing him killing a fellow member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Does that qualify as support, Edward? What kind of message do you think that sends?

This is fair criticism against the GOP.

And that's just one example. I found plenty, and I only went one page into the google search results. I'd find more, but I'm pretty sure a mountain of evidence won't convince you otherwise.


Yes, I think this is what Brian and I were asking for. Not calls for violence. Not calls by irrelevant players (e.g. candidate or state house). Both of which I'm sure I can find on the extremist left.

But real examples of "killing them" by the (my quote) "The real question is are we in danger of the majority of the GOP political apparatus supporting that extremism"

[flere-imsaho]

But let's not go off topic when we were talking about a specific point.

You're the one dragging this off topic. I gave specific examples of specific threats and you've hand-waved them away.

You are not, as usual, arguing in good faith.

[Edward64]

So? That's addressed in my statement that you keep quoting but apparently not reading.


I am reading it. I also have my own quote in response to it.

Your example of 3 doesn't do much to dissuade me from my statement below.

Wouldn't surprise me if there were some extremist group with those threats. The real question is are we in danger of the majority of the GOP political apparatus supporting that extremism.

I believe we are back to our "bet" of whether families will be rounded up (will find the exact quote if you want) by US government by 2030 (?). We differ on the level of severity of this issue that exist today.

EDIT: found it and putting it here for ease of reference. Date agreed to was Aug 15, 2030

All that I ask is a mea culpa in the form of an "I'm sorry" when the GOP eventually round up my Jewish wife & sons. Thanks.

[Edward64]

You're the one dragging this off topic. I gave specific examples of specific threats and you've hand-waved them away.

You are not, as usual, arguing in good faith.

We see things differently. But okay, go ahead and begin the accusations/sarcasm to prove how you are debating in good faith.

[flere-imsaho]

Not calls by irrelevant players (e.g. candidate or state house).

Former U.S. President and polling leader for GOP nomination in 2024.
Current Governor of Florida and candidate for GOP nomination in 2024.
Current GOP Speaker of the House.
Current U.S. House Rep with Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committee assignments
Current U.S. House Rep with Oversight and Accountability, and Homeland Security committee assignments
Current U.S. House Rep with Oversight and Accountability, and Natural Resources committee assignments which, for the latter, he is Chairman of the subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Both of which I'm sure I can find on the extremist left.

Any of them politicians elected to national office?

[flere-imsaho]

We see things differently. But okay, go ahead and begin the accusations/sarcasm to prove how you are debating in good faith.

Go ahead and back down when you're called out on your bullshit.

[Edward64]

Former U.S. President and polling leader for GOP nomination in 2024.
Current Governor of Florida and candidate for GOP nomination in 2024.
Current GOP Speaker of the House.
Current U.S. House Rep with Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committee assignments
Current U.S. House Rep with Oversight and Accountability, and Homeland Security committee assignments
Current U.S. House Rep with Oversight and Accountability, and Natural Resources committee assignments which, for the latter, he is Chairman of the subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Any of them politicians elected to national office?

You are saying all of those people espoused below? I may well be wrong, but the original request was for quotes/sources. Not the "curtail the personal liberties" but the "killing them".

The issue is that the right-wing that will be empowered should they succeed electorally in 2025 has stated explicitly that they will dramatically curtail the personal liberties of anyone they don't like, up to and including killing them.

Go ahead and back down when you're called out on your bullshit.

Nah, a couple of your bros have left the forum already. I'm pretty sure I'll outlast your extremism and alarmism.

[flere-imsaho]

Now you're just deliberately mis-reading the quote.

[flere-imsaho]

You are trolling and gaslighting me at the same time. Quite impressive.

[Edward64]

Now you're just deliberately mis-reading the quote.

Not speaking for Brian.

I am specifically asking you to provide source for the quote below.

The issue is that the right-wing that will be empowered should they succeed electorally in 2025 has stated explicitly that they will dramatically curtail the personal liberties of anyone they don't like, up to and including killing them.

What am I mis-reading? That the up to and including "killing them" was not the major point of the quote but you tossed it in there for some added drama?

If you are willing to remove the bolded piece, I have no issues with your original statement.

[Qwikshot]

Your naivete is, as usual, shocking, Edward.

Why waste time arguing with the delusional?

[Edward64]

You are trolling and gaslighting me at the same time. Quite impressive.

Oh, the term gaslighting again. I'm manipulating you like you're a weak malleable person? Regardless of our differences, I don't believe you are that.

See below definition. Others have differing words but it's basically the same. Get over gaslighting, we are having a discussion and we are either miscommunicating or we fundamentally disagree.


Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that often occurs in abusive relationships. It is a covert type of emotional abuse in which the bully or abuser misleads the target, creating a false narrative and making them question their judgments and reality.

Be glad to get into trolling examples and provide examples of trolling you did not call out because they were from your bros.

[flere-imsaho]

No, I'm not doing your work for you.

Deliberately and obtusely mis-reading people's statements and carving out narrow arguments and discounting sourced evidence is your argumentation schtick and I'm not indulging in it today.

You have everything you need to understand my argument. If you cannot do so, that's on you, not me.

[RainMaker]

Boebert, Massey, Hawley, Gaetz, Cawthorn, Mo Brooks, Gohmert, and many others have called for violence or insinuated it as a means. White House staffers under Trump called for it. Conservative media outlets including people like Tucker Carlson have said the same.

There's a small insurgency happening in this country. Political violence on the right has been high. Mass shootings that target gays, blacks, and jews. Constant bomb and violent threats targeting schools, libraries, bookstores and hospitals. Heck, Trump bragged about committing an extrajudicial killing when he was in office.



These are all mainstream Republican positions too. These mass murderers watch mainstream right-wing media. They buy into all the rhetoric and the veiled threats of violence. And those who don't commit the violence almost always come up with excuses for it and blame others for the actions (or claim it was a false flag).

[flere-imsaho]

Be glad to get into trolling examples and provide examples of trolling you did not call out because they were from your bros.

You aren't, really. Time and time again people provide you with examples from which you then strip the context and then question their validity. I refuse to believe that someone is this dense. You're doing this deliberately.

[Lathum]

Now if you want to talk about the bigger picture, sure we can pivot to that. But let's not go off topic when we were talking about a specific point.

How are we going off topic? There is a segment of the GOP that wants to start murdering people they don't like or agree with politically. Most in the GOP don't agree with that, but certainly aren't speaking out against them either. Sounds a lot like another time period when a bunch of Jews were murdered.

[Edward64]

Deliberately and obtusely mis-reading people's statements and carving out narrow arguments and discounting sourced evidence is your argumentation schtick and I'm not indulging in it today.

np. Fine by me.

Talk to you on Aug 15, 2030.

[Lathum]

Boebert, Massey, Hawley, Gaetz, Cawthorn, Mo Brooks, Gohmert, and many others have called for violence or insinuated it as a means. White House staffers under Trump called for it. Conservative media outlets including people like Tucker Carlson have said the same.

There's a small insurgency happening in this country. Political violence on the right has been high. Mass shootings that target gays, blacks, and jews. Constant bomb and violent threats targeting schools, libraries, bookstores and hospitals. Heck, Trump bragged about committing an extrajudicial killing when he was in office.



These are all mainstream Republican positions too. These mass murderers watch mainstream right-wing media. They buy into all the rhetoric and the veiled threats of violence. And those who don't commit the violence almost always come up with excuses for it and blame others for the actions (or claim it was a false flag).

Don't forget DeSantis openly saying we should shoot immigrants.

[flere-imsaho]

There's a small insurgency happening in this country. Political violence on the right has been high. Mass shootings that target gays, blacks, and jews. Constant bomb and violent threats targeting schools, libraries, bookstores and hospitals. Heck, Trump bragged about committing an extrajudicial killing when he was in office.

As an example, the Great Replacement Theory was espoused by multiple GOP U.S. Senate candidates alone in the last cycle: Republican Senate candidates promote ‘replacement’ theory | PBS NewsHour (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republican-senate-candidates-promote-replacement-theory)

[Lathum]

What am I mis-reading? That the up to and including "killing them" was not the major point of the quote but you tossed it in there for some added drama?

If you are willing to remove the bolded piece, I have no issues with your original statement.

Do you honestly not thing we aren't terribly far away from "conversion camps" for LGBTQ? Internment camps for migrants and dreamers? Mass violence against Jews and Blacks.

People in early Nazi Germany didn't think their government would commit those atrocities, and by the time they were it was too late, you were with them or against them.

[flere-imsaho]

np. Fine by me.

Talk to you on Aug 15, 2030.

I eagerly await your next thread crapping incident.

[Edward64]

How are we going off topic? There is a segment of the GOP that wants to start murdering people they don't like or agree with politically. Most in the GOP don't agree with that, but certainly aren't speaking out against them either. Sounds a lot like another time period when a bunch of Jews were murdered.
My comment was in regards to your statement

Originally Posted by Lathum View Post
Right. Because the majority of the gop apparatus has such a solid track record lately of denouncing horrible shit their party advocate for.

My comments was specific to his original statement


The issue is that the right-wing that will be empowered should they succeed electorally in 2025 has stated explicitly that they will dramatically curtail the personal liberties of anyone they don't like, up to and including killing them.
And I said


Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post
Wouldn't surprise me if there were some extremist group with those threats. The real question is are we in danger of the majority of the GOP political apparatus supporting that extremism.


So to answer your question on going off topic ...

Your statement was talking about (1) "horrible shit their party advocate". The specific topic of discussion was his statement on calls for (2) "up to and including killing them".

(2) is a subset of (1) but (1) is much, much more broader.

Sounds a lot like another time period when a bunch of Jews were murdered

Yeah, we had this discussion before. Let's just say I disagree with that characterization as irrational and alarmist. But I've got a date with him on Aug 15, 2030 and let's see who does the "mea culpa".

[Edward64]

Don't forget DeSantis openly saying we should shoot immigrants.

Legal or illegal?

Do you honestly not thing we aren't terribly far away from "conversion camps" for LGBTQ? Internment camps for migrants and dreamers? Mass violence against Jews and Blacks..

Conversion camps. As in US government mandated? Yes, we are far from that.

Interment camps for migrants and dreamers? Not dreamers that I've read. Assuming you mean illegal migrants ... sure I'm all for that. It's essentially happening now under Joe, and Trump, and Obama etc. Needs to be humane though and definitely none of that splitting up kids from parents BS.

People in early Nazi Germany didn't think their government would commit those atrocities, and by the time they were it was too late, you were with them or against them.
As mentioned previously, irrational & alarmist. I'm looking forward to Aug 15, 2030 when I grovel and give a "mea culpa" or you/him do the same.

[Edward64]

I eagerly await your next thread crapping incident.

Sure. Whenever.

But remember, a key part to discussing in good faith means not being insulting or sarcastic (e.g. don't be the first, perfectly okay to be insulting or sarcastic in response to it). And definitely not exaggerating definitions like gaslighting.

[flere-imsaho]

You are, once again, misrepresenting what I wrote.

I quite clearly said that should the GOP have electoral success in 2022 and 2024, then I would expect by 2030 my wife & sons to be rounded up and put into camps.

If the GOP fails to have that success, then either a) the date might push out or b) it's because the country returned to some semblance of sanity and it's no longer relevant.

This is an important distinction because the point I was making (which is also relevant to this thread) is that the end goal of current GOP policies is to disenfranchise their political opponents so that they can then more easily remove liberties from those they or their base don't like (minorities, Jews, women, etc...), all of which leads to the discussion of extra-judicial killings, camps, etc....

[flere-imsaho]

But remember, a key part to discussing in good faith means not being insulting or sarcastic

No they're not. Insults and sarcasm are merely rhetorical flourishes.

Failing to respect another's argument by wilfully mis-understanding (or mis-reading) it and/or ignoring evidence presented or casting it aside for specious reasons is the key part of not discussing something in good faith.

You feel a lack of civility suggests a lack of probity, when in reality it's the other way around, for which you, of course, provide our shining example.

[Edward64]

You are, once again, misrepresenting what I wrote.

I quite clearly said that should the GOP have electoral success in 2022 and 2024, then I would expect by 2030 my wife & sons to be rounded up and put into camps.

If the GOP fails to have that success, then either a) the date might push out or b) it's because the country returned to some semblance of sanity and it's no longer relevant.

This is an important distinction because the point I was making (which is also relevant to this thread) is that the end goal of current GOP policies is to disenfranchise their political opponents so that they can then more easily remove liberties from those they or their base don't like (minorities, Jews, women, etc...), all of which leads to the discussion of extra-judicial killings, camps, etc....

No, I don't think I misrepresented you. Maybe you misunderstood me.

From our other exchange, I believe the relevant (but feel free to quote others if you wish) text are:

We are arguing from two very fundamental viewpoints. You may find my viewpoint alarmist, but I find yours naive. Let's leave it at that.

Speaking of alarmist, don't read the following if you don't want to be offended.

2026 is probably a good look-back time to see how the GOP fared in the 2022 and 2024 elections and what they did in calendar 2025 assuming they fared well in both. 2030, pre-election, if we're still having elections, seems the right timing for a lookback for what I put in spoiler tags.

Of course, 2030 is our rough timing for moving out of the country, so....

My point is, even if the GOP wins in 2024 and 2028, it won't get as bad as your statement below:

All that I ask is a mea culpa in the form of an "I'm sorry" when the GOP eventually round up my Jewish wife & sons. Thanks.

[Lathum]

Legal or illegal?





What kind of morally bankrupt person even asks this?

[Edward64]

No they're not. Insults and sarcasm are merely rhetorical flourishes.

Failing to respect another's argument by wilfully mis-understanding (or mis-reading) it and/or ignoring evidence presented or casting it aside for specious reasons is the key part of not discussing something in good faith.

You feel a lack of civility suggests a lack of probity, when in reality it's the other way around, for which you, of course, provide our shining example.

I'll just toss out some "definitions", I assume they are much better than just your opinions and made up definitions. Note that in both (and others), a common theme is "respectful" dialog. If you believe insults and sarcasm are "respectful" dialog, then let's agree to disagree.

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-07/Good_Faith-vs-Bad_Faith-Arguments_or_Discussions.pdf
GOOD FAITH: A “Good Faith” argument or discussion is one in which both parties agree on the terms on which they engage, are honest and respectful of the other person's dignity, follow generally-accepted norms of social interaction, and genuinely want to hear what the other person thinks and has to say.
Grammerly:

A good faith argument is an argument that’s honest, fair, and genuinely considers the opponent’s perspective. An argument doesn’t have to be factual or even logical to be made in good faith—the arguer’s intent is what makes a good faith argument.

In a good faith discussion, both parties agree to an honest, respectful dialogue. Both enter it interested in learning more about the other’s position and helping their opponent understand their own position. An individual might change their position following a good faith discussion, or they might respectfully disagree with their opponent. By contrast, if an individual enters a discussion with “an agenda,” a specific position they plan to push on their opponent regardless of the facts supporting the opposing position, they’re entering the discussion in bad faith.

[RainMaker]

What kind of morally bankrupt person even asks this?

You already know.

[Edward64]

What kind of morally bankrupt person even asks this?

Huge distinction between legal and illegal. I believe DeSantis' said below.

I think you are picturing Border Guards mowing down all illegals crossing? I believe DeSantis is saying if they need to, they can do it. As someone once said, nuance and context is important.

DeSantis pitches crackdown on illegal immigration in first major policy proposal of his campaign | CNN Politics (https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/politics/desantis-immigration-proposal/index.html)
Speaking here in Eagle Pass on Monday, DeSantis said he would allow the use of deadly force against people who attempt to cross into the US by cutting through border structures. He agreed with a man in the audience who likened the flow of undocumented migrants to “an act of war” that would require a military response. DeSantis also proposed giving states the power to “declare an invasion” and deport people on their own.

[Lathum]

Huge distinction between legal and illegal. I believe DeSantis' said below.

I think you are picturing Border Guards mowing down all illegals crossing? I believe DeSantis is saying if they need to, they can do it. As someone once said, nuance and context is important.

DeSantis pitches crackdown on illegal immigration in first major policy proposal of his campaign | CNN Politics (https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/politics/desantis-immigration-proposal/index.html)

If you don't think that is completely fucked you're a shitty human being.

[Edward64]

If you don't think that is completely fucked you're a shitty human being.

No more than someone who believes all/most Christians are the worst.


I'm actually okay with US sending military into Mexico. It can't be without Mexico's consent (which is what DeSantis is implying). But we have a serious problem south of the Border and we should offer to help Mexico including military forces.

[flere-imsaho]

I'll just toss out some "definitions", I assume they are much better than just your opinions and made up definitions. Note that in both (and others), a common theme is "respectful" dialog. If you believe insults and sarcasm are "respectful" dialog, then let's agree to disagree.

https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-07/Good_Faith-vs-Bad_Faith-Arguments_or_Discussions.pdf

I figured you'd pick Cato. Talk about beating the "why can't we all be nicer" while Rome burns drum.

Let's look at your other one:


A good faith argument is an argument that’s honest, fair, and genuinely considers the opponent’s perspective. An argument doesn’t have to be factual or even logical to be made in good faith—the arguer’s intent is what makes a good faith argument.

Yep, that's pretty much my point. You aren't honest in your intentions and as a result you don't respect my argument. You certainly aren't making any attempt to see it from my perspective, or you wouldn't be misconstruing what I said all the time.

[flere-imsaho]

No more than someone who believes all/most Christians are the worst.

A random person who thinks Christians are the worst is equivalent to a prominent national politician who says it's OK to consider undocumented migrants enemy combatants and shoot them on sight.

Got it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hadn't seen the DeSantis quote.

Talk about making sure I vote for him at any & every opportunity.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, I rest my case.

[RainMaker]

Huge distinction between legal and illegal. I believe DeSantis' said below.

I think you are picturing Border Guards mowing down all illegals crossing? I believe DeSantis is saying if they need to, they can do it. As someone once said, nuance and context is important.

DeSantis pitches crackdown on illegal immigration in first major policy proposal of his campaign | CNN Politics (https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/politics/desantis-immigration-proposal/index.html)

Yeah, it's a form of extrajudicial killings. Having some 70 IQ guy who couldn't cut it in the military mowing down people he guesses are illegal.

[Edward64]

I figured you'd pick Cato. Talk about beating the "why can't we all be nicer" while Rome burns drum.

Search on "definition of good faith discussion". Find me something that contradicts what I said about ...

Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post
But remember, a key part to discussing in good faith means not being insulting or sarcastic
Your response

No they're not. Insults and sarcasm are merely rhetorical flourishes.

I don't respect your argument? Misconstruing when I have provided actual quotes?

Okay, arguably what you say is may be true (but we can dissect that more) but I've kept a respectful tone until you started getting pissy. So I'd say you are definitely (based on "respectful" discussion) not discussing in good faith. And when that happens, I will respond in kind. Or in other words, don't say I was mean to you when you were mean to me first.

Let's look at your other one:

Yep, that's pretty much my point. You aren't honest in your intentions and as a result you don't respect my argument. You certainly aren't making any attempt to see it from my perspective, or you wouldn't be misconstruing what I said all the time.

[Edward64]

Yeah, it's a form of extrajudicial killings. Having some 70 IQ guy who couldn't cut it in the military mowing down people he guesses are illegal.

Back to quoting me and trying to engage me? I thought we agreed a while ago that we'll ignore each other?

If you want to debate, I'm honestly all for it. My request is to (1) define clearly what you want to discuss/debate (2) create a separate thread so other people can't bitch, and if they do it's their own fault for coming into the thread and (3) we have a good faith discussion as defined by below and includes the word "respectful" which means no insults or sarcasm.

If not, no problem. We can civilly agree to disagree, not waste each others time, and not quote each other or prompt each other to respond in the future. Dealer's choice ...

Page not found | Cato Institute (https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/...iscussions.pdf)
Quote:
GOOD FAITH: A “Good Faith” argument or discussion is one in which both parties agree on the terms on which they engage, are honest and respectful of the other person's dignity, follow generally-accepted norms of social interaction, and genuinely want to hear what the other person thinks and has to say.
Grammerly:

Quote:
A good faith argument is an argument that’s honest, fair, and genuinely considers the opponent’s perspective. An argument doesn’t have to be factual or even logical to be made in good faith—the arguer’s intent is what makes a good faith argument.

In a good faith discussion, both parties agree to an honest, respectful dialogue. Both enter it interested in learning more about the other’s position and helping their opponent understand their own position. An individual might change their position following a good faith discussion, or they might respectfully disagree with their opponent. By contrast, if an individual enters a discussion with “an agenda,” a specific position they plan to push on their opponent regardless of the facts supporting the opposing position, they’re entering the discussion in bad faith.

[flere-imsaho]

Search on "definition of good faith discussion". Find me something that contradicts what I said about ...

Sure: On Smarm (https://www.gawker.com/on-smarm-1476594977)

I don't respect your argument? Misconstruing when I have provided actual quotes?

Exactly. It's quite possible to quote something and then misunderstand/misread/misconstrue something. Happens all the time.

Okay, arguably what you say is may be true (but we can dissect that more) but I've kept a respectful tone until you started getting pissy. So I'd say you are definitely (based on "respectful" discussion) not discussing in good faith. And when that happens, I will respond in kind. Or in other words, don't say I was mean to you when you were mean to me first.

I don't give a fuck how mean you are to me because I value probity over civility. You seem to think the latter guarantees the former and I'm here to tell you: not so.

I mean, look at Jon. He's uncivil as fuck and for good measure hates almost everything I believe in. But he's never tried to convince me that I said, or meant, something different from something I actually said.

[flere-imsaho]

Oh yes, please keep quoting Cato, an organization steadfastly focused for almost 50 years on putting as civil a veneer as possible on the hellscape the GOP has been trying to implement since Reagan. You're proving the point of everyone who's arguing with you.

[Edward64]

Hadn't seen the DeSantis quote.

Talk about making sure I vote for him at any & every opportunity.

Factor in it takes 6 months to establish residency in FL.

[Atocep]

Yes, the same way the ones who think Democrats are traitors worse than ISIS should also do so.

If we say (and I do) that what passes as conservatism in the US today is dangerous to the republic, corrosive and destructive to the institutions and ideals of democracy, elements of public behavior are morally reprenhensible, and all the rest of that, we cut the ground from underneath our feet if we aren't being examples of how people who disagree with each other politically should treat each other. Jumping down in the pit with them just minimizes the distinction and abandons a portion of the moral high ground.

Who is this moral high ground playing to? The people who want to vote for Trump are moving the goalposts in any way they can to justify their vote. It doesn't matter if Trump does or doesn't get flipped off at an Iowa football game, they're going to find something to rationalize it.

As a straight, white male I think it's easy for any of us in that group to sit back and tell everyone we need to take the moral high ground, need to set the example, ect. However, non white, non straight males and females have either already lost rights or are in danger of losing rights. At what point to they get to stand up and fight for those rights and voice their displeasure?

Should they do so by voting? Oh, except one of the top 3 GOP candidates is in favor taking that right away from 31 million Americans. And when you do vote someone into office you have people like DeSantis that illegally fires them for not being a republican. Or the state of Wisconsin that's considering impeachment but not convicting someone on the Supreme Court so that justice is effectively suspended and the governor can't nominate a replacement all because they don't like the dems having a majority.

Lets keep the moral high ground so that we feel better about ourselves as we watch others all around us lose their rights to the minority party because they're interested in creating a single party system while everyone else should just be happy they're playing the game the right way.

[Edward64]

Sure: On Smarm (https://www.gawker.com/on-smarm-1476594977)

Exactly. It's quite possible to quote something and then misunderstand/misread/misconstrue something. Happens all the time.


Your don't like Grammerly? Have no idea what you are trying to tell me with smarm. Like I tell my wife, I don't read minds.

I don't give a fuck how mean you are to me because I value probity over civility. You seem to think the latter guarantees the former and I'm here to tell you: not so.
So we are talking about probity & civility vs definition good faith discussion?

I think you are taking us into a tangent. Regardless of what you give a frak about, the discussion was definition of "good faith", not your opinion on probity vs civility.

I provided you 2 definitions that included the word "respectful". I am positive I can provide you more. Regardless of your distaste of Cato you also have Grammerly. I've challenged you to find a contradictory definition. Your link to smarm uses the word "good faith" in a different context and does not contradict my 2 links on definition of "good faith".

I mean, look at Jon. He's uncivil as fuck and for good measure hates almost everything I believe in. But he's never tried to convince me that I said, or meant, something different from something I actually said.

Honestly, I quoted you. You did not explicitly tell me how I misinterpreted your direct quote. Let me repost it here. I have no idea how I am misquoting you.

The issue is that the right-wing that will be empowered should they succeed electorally in 2025 has stated explicitly that they will dramatically curtail the personal liberties of anyone they don't like, up to and including killing them.
And my response ...

Wouldn't surprise me if there were some extremist group with those threats. The real question is are we in danger of the majority of the GOP political apparatus supporting that extremism.

[flere-imsaho]

Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooosssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Edward64]

Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooosssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhh

Np. Not a big deal to just agree to disagree.

See you on Aug 15, 2030.

[whomario]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Tim Scott is outraged after Republican donors threatened to stop funding him if he doesn’t explain why he’s unmarried.<br><br>He says they’re only insinuating he’s gay because they “can’t say I’m Black.”<br><br>“It sounds like we're living in 1963 and not 2023.”<br><br>��<a href="https://t.co/OtADHC9apt">https://t.co/OtADHC9apt</a> <a href="https://t.co/1rhuzwIJFc">pic.twitter.com/1rhuzwIJFc</a></p>&mdash; No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) <a href="https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1701610659845443599?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 12, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Dear Tim Scott, they will in fact eat your face as well.

[Brian Swartz]

I regularly forget that the sort of discussions I would like to have are mostly not possible to have on this forum when it comes to, shall we say, emotionally charged political/social matters. I sincerely apologize for wasting everyone's time and will attempt to restrict myself to discussions of futurism, science, space exploration, and so forth which I find to be much more productive here.

[GrantDawg]

Tim Scott "I have a girlfriend. I swear. She goes to another school."

[Thomkal]

yes Mr. Racism doesn't exist in this country well now you know.



And here maybe Tim and Lindsay are a couple given all the rumors about Lindsay over the years.

[Lathum]

I regularly forget that the sort of discussions I would like to have are mostly not possible to have on this forum when it comes to, shall we say, emotionally charged political/social matters. I sincerely apologize for wasting everyone's time and will attempt to restrict myself to discussions of futurism, science, space exploration, and so forth which I find to be much more productive here.

Sorry we’re so far beneath you. All bow down.

[RainMaker]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Tim Scott is outraged after Republican donors threatened to stop funding him if he doesn’t explain why he’s unmarried.<br><br>He says they’re only insinuating he’s gay because they “can’t say I’m Black.”<br><br>“It sounds like we're living in 1963 and not 2023.”<br><br>��<a href="https://t.co/OtADHC9apt">https://t.co/OtADHC9apt</a> <a href="https://t.co/1rhuzwIJFc">pic.twitter.com/1rhuzwIJFc</a></p>&mdash; No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) <a href="https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1701610659845443599?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 12, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Dear Tim Scott, they will in fact eat your face as well.

It is incredibly funny that both South Carolina Senators are deeply in the closet. What are the odds?

[RainMaker]

Back to quoting me and trying to engage me? I thought we agreed a while ago that we'll ignore each other?

If you want to debate, I'm honestly all for it. My request is to (1) define clearly what you want to discuss/debate (2) create a separate thread so other people can't bitch, and if they do it's their own fault for coming into the thread and (3) we have a good faith discussion as defined by below and includes the word "respectful" which means no insults or sarcasm.

If not, no problem. We can civilly agree to disagree, not waste each others time, and not quote each other or prompt each other to respond in the future. Dealer's choice ...

Page not found | Cato Institute (https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/...iscussions.pdf)
Quote:

Grammerly:

I have no clue what you're talking about. He said we should murder immigrants. You asked for a distinction on whether the executions should be for legal or illegal. Seems pretty extreme to think the government should come in and dome my co-worker because he overstayed his work visa.

[GrantDawg]

South Carolina has a type.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

I have no clue what you're talking about. He said we should murder immigrants. You asked for a distinction on whether the executions should be for legal or illegal. Seems pretty extreme to think the government should come in and dome my co-worker because he overstayed his work visa.

No clue about us ignoring each other? Are you the same person from 2016-2020?

Regardless, glad to have a good faith discussion. Want me to setup another thread so no one bitches about going off-topic? Or do you need the support of your bros here?

[RainMaker]

Nothing to discuss. I don't think we should have extrajudicial murder of immigrants, legal or not. No debate is going to change my views on that. Don't give a shit what your stance is on it.

[RainMaker]

As an example, the Great Replacement Theory was espoused by multiple GOP U.S. Senate candidates alone in the last cycle: Republican Senate candidates promote ‘replacement’ theory | PBS NewsHour (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/republican-senate-candidates-promote-replacement-theory)


Bunch of libraries in my state had to shutdown over violent threats today.

<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><iframe id="twitter-widget-0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" class="" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 507px; height: 647px; display: block; flex-grow: 1;" title="Twitter Tweet" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&features=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%3D%3D&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1701715374415200558&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.operationsports.com%2Ffofc%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dpostreply%26t%3D98974&sessionId=7480566122757ccec5881be60646620e583dc7b5&theme=light&widgetsVersion=aaf4084522e3a%3A1674595607486&width=550px" data-tweet-id="1701715374415200558"></iframe>
<script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp><iframe scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/widget_iframe.2b2d73daf636805223fb11d48f3e94f7.html?origin=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.operationsports.com" title="Twitter settings iframe" style="display: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: medium;" title="Twitter analytics iframe"></iframe>

[Edward64]

Nothing to discuss. I don't think we should have extrajudicial murder of immigrants, legal or not. No debate is going to change my views on that. Don't give a shit what your stance is on it.

Np. Wasn't going to be a good faith discussion anyway. Don't let the door hit you when you finally leave here, eeyore.

[GrantDawg]

Everybody talks big on their way out:
<samp class="EmbedCode-container"><code class="EmbedCode-code"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Some nights he vented; other nights he dished. I got the feeling he liked the company—our conversations sometimes stretched for hours. “A very large portion of my party,” Romney told me one day, “really doesn’t believe in the Constitution.” <a href="https://t.co/khdW2iafq0">https://t.co/khdW2iafq0</a></p>&mdash; McKay Coppins (@mckaycoppins) <a href="https://twitter.com/mckaycoppins/status/1702026873851490408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 13, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> </code></samp>

[Thomkal]

There's also this little tidbit about a text he sent Mitch McConnell on Jan 2, warning him about chatter he had received about what he saw as an attack on the capitol on Jan 6, including burning McConnell's home down, and that Trump might not help if it happens-McConnell never responded


https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1702054990909784314

[flere-imsaho]

Profile in Courage, that man.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I wonder who the Dems will find to replace a solid soldier like Romney.

[miked]

In other news, water is wet. The fact that 20 people are there to do their jobs is the most surprising part. That and he found Ron Johnson a good partner in legislation despite saying there wasn't a conspiracy theory he did not believe.

[Galaril]

This is the core of your misunderstanding.

The issue isn't that Republicans are dangerous to the republic, corrosive and destructive to the institutions and ideals of democracy, etc.... Although that is all true.

The issue is that the right-wing that will be empowered should they succeed electorally in 2025 has stated explicitly that they will dramatically curtail the personal liberties of anyone they don't like, up to and including killing them.

Republican politicians in power are already an existential threat for a lot of Americans. Civility isn't going to solve that. Civility didn't save those police officers on Capitol Hill, and wouldn't have saved Mike Pence if the mob got a hold of him.

This.

[Galaril]

Legal or illegal?



Conversion camps. As in US government mandated? Yes, we are far from that.

Interment camps for migrants and dreamers? Not dreamers that I've read. Assuming you mean illegal migrants ... sure I'm all for that. It's essentially happening now under Joe, and Trump, and Obama etc. Needs to be humane though and definitely none of that splitting up kids from parents BS.


As mentioned previously, irrational & alarmist. I'm looking forward to Aug 15, 2030 when I grovel and give a "mea culpa" or you/him do the same.

Unfortunately, if we have 4 years of Trump, Senate and House along with this Supreme Court I agree some of these things are more likely then not. Biden will at minimum be under house arrest as well as Hilary, and Pilosi. The FBI would be disbanded no doubt.

[GrantDawg]

Unfortunately, if we have 4 years of Trump, Senate and House along with this Supreme Court I agree some of these things are more likely then not. Biden will at minimum be under house arrest as well as Hilary, and Pilosi. The FBI would be disbanded no doubt.
I can see the FBI disbanded while a new group with private funding operates as "Patriots" to enforce cultural norms outside of restrictive government rules. Maybe in brown shirts, maybe not.

[Galaril]

Well, I rest my case.

This had me rolling.:lol:

[Galaril]

Tim Scott "I have a girlfriend. I swear. She goes to another school."

:D

[Edward64]

Unfortunately, if we have 4 years of Trump, Senate and House along with this Supreme Court I agree some of these things are more likely then not. Biden will at minimum be under house arrest as well as Hilary, and Pilosi. The FBI would be disbanded no doubt.

Glad to add you to the Aug 15, 2030 "mea culpa" meeting.

[Edward64]

I can see the FBI disbanded while a new group with private funding operates as "Patriots" to enforce cultural norms outside of restrictive government rules. Maybe in brown shirts, maybe not.

Okay, adding you to the list also for the Aug 15, 2030 "reckoning".

Hmmm, maybe I should start that thread now as a placeholder?

[Galaril]

Glad to add you to the Aug 15, 2030 "mea culpa" meeting.

:banghead:

[Edward64]

:banghead:

Oh com'on. Think of it as a Project risk log with a group lessons learn debrief after go-live.

[Galaril]

Oh com'on. Think of it as a Project risk log with a group lessons learn debrief after go-live.
:popcorn:

[Edward64]

:popcorn:

Hah, that's the spirit.

Standard PM 101 stuff.

[Flasch186]

What I still can&rsquo;t wrap my head around is that I was banned for a month for doing far less than what Edward does on the regular&hellip; wtf

Who does he have nudes of

Regardless, JMO FOFC is far less enjoyable or broad in engagement since Edward made this his blog.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I said it but 80% of FOFC is thinking it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

What I still can&rsquo;t wrap my head around is that I was banned for a month for doing far less than what Edward does on the regular&hellip; wtf

Who does he have nudes of

Regardless, JMO FOFC is far less enjoyable or broad in engagement since Edward made this his blog.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I said it but 80% of FOFC is thinking it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Man, you must really have been butt hurt with the ban.

Let it go. Life is too short to bring it up every month or so.


P.S. It would be good to know exactly why you were banned. It was probably being overly dramatic and a certain degree of stalking.

[flere-imsaho]

I think we're all too old to summon up the high-octane anger that flared up a few times in the 00s.

[flere-imsaho]

I wonder who the Dems will find to replace a solid soldier like Romney.

In Utah?

[PilotMan]

Man, you must really have been butt hurt with the ban.

Let it go. Life is too short to bring it up every month or so.


P.S. It would be good to know exactly why you were banned. It was probably being overly dramatic and a certain degree of stalking.


We're just tired of you and your persona. You freely tell everyone what you think on every single topic. Whether it's appropriate or not. You are entirely correct about everything in your own mind, you don't listen, and spend most of your conversations alternating between gaslighting people and the other insisting on controlling the conversation with minutiae and disingenuous conversation. You are not a fun person. You are a miserable, drudgery of a character and you are not liked by the vast majority of people here for all of those reasons.

[cuervo72]

That's a lot of words for "insufferable asshole."

[Edward64]

We're just tired of you and your persona. You freely tell everyone what you think on every single topic. Whether it's appropriate or not. You are entirely correct about everything in your own mind, you don't listen, and spend most of your conversations alternating between gaslighting people and the other insisting on controlling the conversation with minutiae and disingenuous conversation. You are not a fun person. You are a miserable, drudgery of a character and you are not liked by the vast majority of people here for all of those reasons.

Just as when you brought my mother into a mean sexual joke, I'll turn my other cheek for you. Go ahead, take a couple more cheap shots.

[Edward64]

That's a lot of words for "insufferable asshole."

Are you sure you have the right Brian this time?

[PilotMan]

Just as when you brought my mother into a mean sexual joke, I'll turn my other cheek for you. Go ahead, take a couple more cheap shots.

Life is too short blah blah blah

You're still not liked for all the same reasons. Everyone is tired of your personality.

[Edward64]

Life is too short blah blah blah

You're still not liked for all the same reasons. Everyone is tired of your personality.

Yes, life is too short.

But go ahead, take another cheap shot on my mother. Here's my other cheek.

Just know that Jesus still loves you.

[Lathum]

Are you sure you have the right Brian this time?

What exactly does this mean?

[Edward64]

What exactly does this mean?

Appreciate you asking for details before making any assumptions. He got confused and mixed up the people he didn't like. See below, you may have to read some earlier posts to get the context.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Discussion on FL "Don't Say Gay" bill (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=3405629&postcount=452)

[JonInMiddleGA]

We're just tired of you and your persona. You freely tell everyone what you think on every single topic. Whether it's appropriate or not. You are entirely correct about everything in your own mind, you don't listen, and spend most of your conversations alternating between gaslighting people and the other insisting on controlling the conversation with minutiae and disingenuous conversation. You are not a fun person. You are a miserable, drudgery of a character and you are not liked by the vast majority of people here for all of those reasons.

He's one of the few likable people left around this place, at least for the few remaining sane people here.

You on the other hand are nothing more than a fucking troll, and if there was any supervision here worth the name you'd be long gone. You spent at least a year being one of the most singularly miserable people I've seen in a long time -- you really ought to find some help for it, because you don't seem stable enough for people to put their lives into your hands -- your only purpose in life seems to be creating misery for anyone who has the misfortune to come into contact with you. Get some help, either reduce your dose or up your dose or do SOMETHING.

It's funny, those who keep taking their shots at him seem to have that personality trait in common.