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

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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
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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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

Sure: On Smarm

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Sure: On Smarm

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooosssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhh

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

See you on Aug 15, 2030.

[whomario]

Tim Scott is outraged after Republican donors threatened to stop funding him if he doesn’t explain why he’s unmarried.

He says they’re only insinuating he’s gay because they “can’t say I’m Black.”

“It sounds like we're living in 1963 and not 2023.”

��https://t.co/OtADHC9apt pic.twitter.com/1rhuzwIJFc

— No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) September 12, 2023

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by whomario

Tim Scott is outraged after Republican donors threatened to stop funding him if he doesn’t explain why he’s unmarried.

He says they’re only insinuating he’s gay because they “can’t say I’m Black.”

“It sounds like we're living in 1963 and not 2023.”

��https://t.co/OtADHC9apt pic.twitter.com/1rhuzwIJFc

— No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) September 12, 2023

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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
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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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

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




[Edward64]

Originally Posted by 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.

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:

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.” https://t.co/khdW2iafq0

— McKay Coppins (@mckaycoppins) September 13, 2023

[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/stat...54990909784314

[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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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]

Originally Posted by Galaril

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, I rest my case.

This had me rolling.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Galaril

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]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Galaril

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

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Hah, that's the spirit.

Standard PM 101 stuff.

[Flasch186]

What I still can’t wrap my head around is that I was banned for a month for doing far less than what Edward does on the regular… 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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

What I still can’t wrap my head around is that I was banned for a month for doing far less than what Edward does on the regular… 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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

In Utah?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

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]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

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

Are you sure you have the right Brian this time?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

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]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Are you sure you have the right Brian this time?

What exactly does this mean?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

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.