|
|
Post by sweep on Aug 24, 2021 13:35:22 GMT -6
Really Republicans have embraced "confrontation", I could have sworn it was liberals who promoted last years riots. On the other hand breaking into Congress to disrupt the business of the Congress, with violent intent to harm elected officials is a political motive. It was hardly spontaneous reaction to a shocking and surprising event, did involve considerable planning and preparation by "conservative" organized elements such as the proud boys to coincide with Constitutional duties of the Congress.
You don't watch the news do you, or maybe CNN just skipped this story all together. www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/You really are an idiot. We have been telling you this for months. The entire "Insurrection" bullshit was nothing but a DNC/Media creation, just like "Russian Collusion". |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 24, 2021 14:02:32 GMT -6
On the other hand breaking into Congress to disrupt the business of the Congress, with violent intent to harm elected officials is a political motive. It was hardly spontaneous reaction to a shocking and surprising event, did involve considerable planning and preparation by "conservative" organized elements such as the proud boys to coincide with Constitutional duties of the Congress.
You don't watch the news do you, or maybe CNN just skipped this part all together. www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/Hold on a minute, we are talking about SOME conservatives doing some planning with a very clear political motive. That much there is evidence. Unless you think the Proud Boys are liberals. The organizers of the Trump rally were asking for trouble but not planning it, and others took advantage.
My point was not just that you seem to want to hold liberals as a group responsible for rioting with much less evidence than that for the Jan 6 politically motivated violence. But the big point is over generalization, demonizing of opponents and politics of blame is exactly the kind of rhetoric we need less.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Aug 24, 2021 14:05:56 GMT -6
Give it up already.........
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 24, 2021 14:49:26 GMT -6
I have no idea what that means.
Okay, how about "symbolism over substance". Ah you mean like declaring war on Covid and then declaring victory over it? Covid, Covid, Covid...why were people worried?
You have a good point that politics is in no small part about symbolism, but not just for liberals.
Trump is a politician relying more on symbolism and less on substance, less governed by political philosophy than any President of either political party I have seen since being vaguely aware of an election in 1952. How do you see that he has embodied conservative political philosophy rather than populist symbolism?
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 24, 2021 14:55:51 GMT -6
Give it up already......... Yeah, right away when you go back to the original question of how populism solves problems in an effective way. Simple messaging misrepresenting that there are complex problems and issues gains populist appeal but has a lousy record of solving problems. For liberals or for conservatives. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Aug 24, 2021 19:33:38 GMT -6
That's what's known as "projection" ladies and gentlemen.
Please clarify how populism encourages a sophisticated approach to problem solving?
Please, please, make a case that Trump is governed by any philosophical principles, but in particular conservative principles.
It certainly is not projection that Trump has discarded conservative principles with respect to immigration, free trade, American leadership in world alliances, public health as outside politics, local school boards and local governments as free to make decisions for their community, and the Senate as a body which featured political compromise.
Look up and try to understand the concept of psychological projection. Then you would understand that "Trump is evil! trump is stupid!" is not really a very effective retort. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 24, 2021 20:12:17 GMT -6
It certainly is not projection that Trump has discarded conservative principles with respect to immigration, free trade, American leadership in world alliances, public health as outside politics, local school boards and local governments as free to make decisions for their community, and the Senate as a body which featured political compromise. Look up and try to understand the concept of psychological projection. Then you would understand that "Trump is evil! trump is stupid!" is not really a very effective retort. I understand the concept. You apparently do not.
This a definitely not a case of unconsciously taking beliefs or traits I don't like in myself and attributing them to someone else. On these issues I am quite conscious of maintaining my beliefs in conservative doctrine not discarding them. Now there may be a few other beliefs I have discarded from a conservative canon, myself, not these. But I have done so consciously and am quite happy with the decision.
It is fairly objective fact not name calling that Trump is not following long standing conservative doctrine on trade, immigration, and the other issues I mentioned. He has not perhaps ever held any political conviction on these issues, so perhaps you are right he isn't discarding any beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Aug 25, 2021 7:04:24 GMT -6
You're about as conservative as Karl Marx.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 25, 2021 7:16:35 GMT -6
You're about as conservative as Karl Marx. Really? In what area would that be?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Aug 25, 2021 14:18:45 GMT -6
Every area that you've ever posted on. But I guess if I were a liberal I'd be afraid to admit it, too.
Name ONE thing you're conservative about.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Aug 25, 2021 14:44:45 GMT -6
You're about as conservative as Karl Marx. Really? In what area would that be?
You seem to use "class struggle" to excuse every single f-up the BSU basketball program makes. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 25, 2021 15:02:50 GMT -6
Really? In what area would that be?
You seem to use "class struggle" to explain every single f-up the BSU basketball program makes. The only class struggle I've ever worried about was avoiding any problem with APR. We've done well enough there. I do recall very often arguing that you get what you pay for and that markets determine who gets the best coaches. Now the players are being paid we'd expect that markets will be more a factor. Marx didn't understand markets or competition. Thinking about it, he might have been right that taxing the rich to help poor BSU would be good for us, I suppose. Never thought about that angle. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Aug 26, 2021 6:23:10 GMT -6
Thinking about it, he might have been right that taxing the rich to help poor BSU would be good for us, I suppose. Never thought about that angle. Well, Old Man Biden seems to think that taxing corporations for his ridiculous Green New Deal Human Infrastructure bill means that the average taxpayer won't have to pay for it. Where does he think corporations get their money? |
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Aug 26, 2021 7:00:08 GMT -6
Where does he think corporations get their money? I doubt he troubles himself with such things. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 26, 2021 8:10:34 GMT -6
Thinking about it, he might have been right that taxing the rich to help poor BSU would be good for us, I suppose. Never thought about that angle. Well, Old Man Biden seems to think that taxing corporations for his ridiculous Green New Deal Human Infrastructure bill means that the average taxpayer won't have to pay for it. Where does he think corporations get their money? Corporate tax increase is not the big problem with the infrastructure bill. Corporations when they received big rate cuts were thought by some to be able to use that tax savings to improve productivity, create jobs make domestic investment and so on.
There was a genuine debate on economic grounds about what the corporate tax policy should be and whether we hit the sweet spot lowering that rate.
It is not clear that it is now in any way an optimal rate to favor the US economy, or that it even produced significant benefit.
Certainly there is not much evidence it led to more investment, or lower prices or higher income to employees. Might be a good thing to force Congress to look at that.
|
|
