All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I quite often see you using opinion and anecdotal evidence as fact and to up an argument for division among the party you claim to support. I don't think I'm the only one here who sometimes wonders if you have ulterior motives for spending so much time and energy in your efforts to convince Sanders supporters that they should be upset and resentful over what occurred in 2016.

Sorry I'm going to respond with ancedotal evidence if the post I'm replying to has a center argument of ancedotal evidence. No offense, but the fact that I was responding to a post whose first words were "I was there in 2016" and was based around ancedotal evidence of their experience at the times and I was responding to literally say my ancedotal differed with theres, and your going to call me out for it, is dubious at best.

Which is funny because you are accusing me of ulterior motives but you certiantly didn't call out the person who brought ancedotal evidence into this discussion. Seems like it was only conveniant to bring that up out of context to attack me and my motives. Which makes me questions.

Which is funny because I've never actually once tried to convince Sanders supporters of anything. I rarely actually tell anybody how they should feel and perceive. Maybe that's fear an anxiety on your part. Or you're just trying to shut me up because you don't like my opinion. But I almost never say that anybody should do anything. If anything I sat how I feel as someone who supported Sanders, voted for Hillary, and then got **** on for it. If anything I say how I might vote. But most of the time, I'm really just responding to people who are making arguments that Sanders is the reason for the divide in the party and that his supporters are jerks who are causing divisiveness.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Not at all -- I can take it no problem.

Tried to deal with it reasonably and diplomatically for years in fact -- but it's obvious at this point that's not how this works with Sanders supporters.

So -- again -- explain to me how Clinton's supporters were worse when Sanders' supporters and volunteers violently attacked Trump rallies, booed and threw dollar bills at Hillary Clinton, and shot up GOP congressmen?

You didn't though. You deflected and made a contextless post that ignored everything about what led up to that moment in 2008 and also ignored how Sanders' supported Hillary.

How are Clinton supporters worse? Well the only thing that really matters is votes, and they lacked in voting for Obama by a preposterously high margin. Worse than what they self servingly accuse Sanders of. So maybe they should clean their own house first before they give their unsolicited criticisms.

[aja_christopher]

I'm biased, yet your post before this was one of the most contextless and actively misleading posts I've read in this thread from a self proclaimed Democrat (IE not one of the crazy Republicans who pop up from time to time) in quite a while.

Also it's interesting, you want Trump out of office, the most popular politician in the country for the last two years is running in your party, mostly votes with your party, and has a huge groundswell of supporters among both progressive left leaning Democrats who have been dissatisified and with the midwestern states that probably were the biggest weakness in the last election. Yet you constantly take a shot at him whevenevr you can, go after his appearance (but lets be real if someone here said something about Clinton's appearance it would defcon 5), and attack his supporters who mostly would vote for you.

Lets not even get into the fact that you make misleading arguments against him like he is bad with Civil Rights. Or that minorities don't support him (they do, it's just heavily concentrated in the youth, like most of his support)

Never made that argument -- I said marching in the 60s doesn't count as a "civil rights" record period.

And he doesn't do well with minority voters -- that's a fact.

And his hair is terrible -- he doesn't look like anyone I'd want representing me anywhere in public.

And his policies are "leftist" ideals that couldn't even make it out of the Democratic primaries.

Also -- the Democratic party is not my party so stop lying to make your arguments look better.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/17/u...-outreach.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ore-difficult/

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...c-black-voters

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-divide-213948

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...matter-n961506

[Kevinroc]

https://twitter.com/GOP/status/1107314663023353864

Don't worry, the GOP can still be racist against certain groups of White people too.

[Dalak]

I really could care less that the same 5 or so posters that constantly post in this thread and make the same bad faith arguments think I'm divisive.

Here's a newflash for you, not many people post in this thread. When they do, they get ganged up on and eventually leave the thread. And I've had multiple people PM me saying this thread was a lost cause and that they are sick of trying have discourse with people who call for unity and then take every chance they can to trash Bernie and his supporters. Do you really think that anything that you Paul or aja have posted regardling Bernie supporters really encouraged unity? Like in your heart do you believe you've done anything to foster unity among Democrats in this thread.

This is more of a "I can dish it, but I can't take it" sort of thing. And even this post.... no specifics. Yeah you don't blame Bernie supporters entirely for the loss, but you blame them. Even though most evidence suggest otherwise. Yeah your side is divisive. And your side isn't changing hearts and minds either. You're just running people off and only attracting people like Mets who get off on political debate regardless of whether it's useful. You guys can't move on either.

I've pointed out that people are pretending to be Bernie supporters to be divisive, other than that can you bring up a single thing I've posted about Bernie at all? On the subject of specifics, you ignored everything I'd discussed in the post I replied to there only to complain of no specifics here so I'll repeat the question. Do you think Clinton's 'supporters' would be excused as you claim here if McCain had won? I 'quote' supporters there because as I say about anyone who claimed to support Bernie yet voted for Trump or didn't vote, they weren't really supporters of anything Bernie stood for.

BTW: Do you mind posting some of these PMs? Given your history of refusing to back up claims because you lack the time to look things up yet have all the time to post em, I don't trust you at your word. And good luck for you - PM's take no time to look up!

[aja_christopher]

How are Clinton supporters worse? Well the only thing that really matters is votes, and they lacked in voting for Obama by a preposterously high margin. Worse than what they self servingly accuse Sanders of. So maybe they should clean their own house first before they give their unsolicited criticisms.

So that's worse to you than violently attacking and shooting people -- glad you cleared that up.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

So do you. You say you don't care and then proceed to ramble on for two more paragraphs. You obviously do care.

You're right. I should put me money where my mouth is. This thread is way too toxic anyways. Have fun running yet another person who votes as a Democrat off this thread. I'm sure I won't be the last.

[aja_christopher]

You're right. I should put me money where my mouth is. This thread is way too toxic anyways. Have fun running yet another person who votes as a Democrat off this thread. I'm sure I won't be the last.

I thought you liked people who could dish it out and take it?

This is just objective political debate -- no holds barred.

You say I take shots at Sanders all the time, but when I actually do, suddenly things are too toxic?

[Malvolio]

It really is funny seeing people around here saying things like "I'm done with you," and then continuing to post the same arguments over and over. I sometimes wonder if any of us really want to persuade anyone or if we just want to get the last word in the argument.

[aja_christopher]

It really is funny seeing people around here saying things like "I'm done with you," and then continuing to post the same arguments over and over. I sometimes wonder if any of us really want to persuade anyone or if we just want to get the last word in the argument.

I don't expect anyone to persuade anyone in a political discussion -- especially if they already have a chosen party or candidate.

For me, personally, i's more about getting the truth out there and not repeating the mistakes of the past.

Honestly, I'd much rather be drawing comics, playing music, or working on my website but Trump -- and the current Republican party -- are much too serious a problem to ignore.

And the cold hard reality is that this stuff isn't just going to go away once Trump is out of office.

-----
The New Zealand shooting was inspired by the hate America is exporting. We need to deal with that reality."

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...eed-ncna983936

"It’s Time to Attack White Nationalism for the Terror Group It Is"

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-ze...or-group-it-is

"After New Zealand shooting, Trump downplayed white nationalist threat. But experts say it's growing."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...xperts-n984136

[Dalak]

It really is funny seeing people around here saying things like "I'm done with you," and then continuing to post the same arguments over and over. I sometimes wonder if any of us really want to persuade anyone or if we just want to get the last word in the argument.

Anyone else getting PMs from the guy?

E: Not posting specifics even though permission was specifically granted, just curious is all.

[wjowski]

Speaking of Lizzie Warren, her already very policy based campaign (remember her universal childcare plan?) has a new affordable housing plan:

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1106920618145079296

This is why Warren's my favorite. She'll get **** done.

[Dalak]

I don't expect anyone to persuade anyone in a political discussion -- especially if they already have a chosen party or candidate.

For me, personally, i's more about getting the truth out there and not repeating the mistakes of the past.

Honestly, I'd much rather be drawing comics, playing music, or working on my website but Trump -- and the current Republican party -- are much too serious a problem to ignore.

And the cold hard reality is that this stuff isn't just going to go away once Trump is out of office.

+1

This is why Warren's my favorite. She'll get **** done.

She's in my top 3 hopefuls, but my illogical eternal #1 is Willie Nelson.

[ed2962]

Booker yes. Harris I'm not sure about. She could be good. She has issues, but she's not a complete hack like Booker either.

I think moreso they know that if they got Booker or Gillibrand in there, they would be dealing with politics as usual and would be able to strategize and win back the House and start gaining little victories again and all they'd have to really do is stonewall Gillibrand from any big victories. Basically the strategy they had with Obama (though I do think Obama's heart was in the right place).

People forget how much of a shitshow Bush was by the end. He was objectively worse than Trump in everything but tempremant. He had the economy crash on him, the Iraq War was at it's height of unpopularity, the administration was a world wide joke. Republicans wouldn't even acknowledge Bush throughout Obama's term. Then 8 years later they erased that sentiment and had the House, the Senate, were holding a Supreme Court seat hostage, and got the Presidency.

The Stonewalling will be their strategy for whatever dem gets in the white house. But I think they afraid of dems who hold more progressive or outlier views because outliers seem to catch the imagination of the public. What's funny is that outliers ( I'd place Gabbard in that class as well) also frighten the establishment democrats because they are outside of the status quo and these establishment dems have found a way to make the status quo work for themselves.

[ed2962]

Mark Russel also wrote the mature Flintsones comic which I didn't read and the Tennessee Williams Snagglepuss comic with I did ( I liked it).