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

[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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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

'I'm coming after you:' Trump issues new threats after new indictment

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.

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.

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://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...ry?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.

Marjorie Taylor Greene indicated support for executing prominent Democrats in 2018 and 2019 before running for Congress | CNN Politics

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.

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.

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.


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 to ostracize trans youth.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Outrage after DeSantis says he’d ‘start slitting throats’ if elected president | Ron DeSantis | The Guardian
'I'm coming after you:' Trump issues new threats after new indictment
Source.
Source.
Source.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...ry?id=48914504
Source.
Marjorie Taylor Greene indicated support for executing prominent Democrats in 2018 and 2019 before running for Congress | CNN Politics
Source.
Source.
Source.
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 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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I do think the Gosar is a valid example.

Originally Posted by Edward64

My original quote holds.

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Your naivete is, as usual, shocking, Edward.

Why waste time arguing with the delusional?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

np. Fine by me.

Talk to you on Aug 15, 2030.

I eagerly await your next thread crapping incident.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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

Legal or illegal?

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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]

Originally Posted by 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....

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:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Legal or illegal?

What kind of morally bankrupt person even asks this?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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/...iscussions.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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

What kind of morally bankrupt person even asks this?

You already know.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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

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

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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/...iscussions.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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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

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.