-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Trump 2024 ???
- Thread starter bwframe
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
Do you mean in the same way you marginalize people by claiming they expect you to **** Trump's **** or similar hyperbole - kiss the ring comes to mind - when they venture the opinion that he is a proven fighter who did many good things for the country against tremendous and unscrupulous resistance and is their first choice to reprise that performance
If what you are saying is you feel that pushback is needed when expressed opinions of Trump are too hagiographic, I can see that - as long as you accept that pushback will come when opinions are too antagonistic
That said, porn star ****ing is so 2016. You had your chance not to vote for him because of those sensibilities - twice - and you voted for him anyway. Smart money says it isn't really a deal-breaker, even for you. So, one wonders exactly why you feel the need to rehash it
Edit: I feel that 'I voted for Trump' is the politics equivalent of 'I have black friends' in the racism space
I have no disagreement with Trump being a proven fighter, except I would probably include in my ratings fights he lost because of his lack of control. I also have no disagreement that on balance he was good for this country. And no disagreement that he faced a **** storm of opposition to everything he tried to do, though I would remind that some of that opposition was fueled by his own behavior.
Yes, for the sake of representing a fuller perspective, I’d like all the relevant things that are true to be in the conversation. And yes, I expect pushback from those who would rather not have a critical view expressed. Though if that pushback is in good faith, it should probably not look like a full scale attack from the usual suspects.
Oh. See. This is again an instance where you mischaracterized the situation. I have told you many times that multiple things can be true at the same time. One can think a candidate has low character and yet vote for him because the other candidate sucks more. That’s that pragmatism we talked about that you seemed to think I claimed I didn’t have.
This is actually hilarious because I was going to use the same comparison in my reply to the post where you accused me of virtue signaling. I didn’t because I thought it was too inflammatory.
I’ve told you why I say that. But in case you didn’t bother to read it, here it is again. Two reasons.
1. It’s stupid to claim that I’m a neverTrumper (not that it’s actually any kind of insult) when I voted for the guy twice. It’s also stupid to claim that a person who has black friends is a racist.
2. It includes the fullness of my opinion about Trump in service of the point about multiple things being true at the same time.
So, argue in an arena defined by you, under RoE set by you and dealing only with subject matter accepted by you in order to receive the imprimatur of jamil approval?
I cannot help but see you in my minds eye as the stereotypical dude sitting at the folding table, sign saying 'Trump is a horrible person, change my mind' draped over the front
I cannot in good faith argue in what you define as good faith, the fact that you are full of yourself (change my mind
) needs to be addressed. I just don't see being required to accept your premise that Trump is persona non grata is justified. Yes, he has moral failings, but I'm not hiring him because of some need for him to be a role model. I'm hiring him to take an axe to regulation, red tape and woke overreach. It would also be less Kutsistent if there was evidence that you held more than Trump to those supposed moral standards. Perhaps I missed your ringing condemnations of marital infidelity when they targeted anyone other than Trump
The hand washing metaphor is apt. As long as you can tell yourself you HAD to vote for Trump next time, you can still feel that the hem of your garment is clean - and that is what really matters. Prior to that denouement, you can enjoy the delicious pleasure of faux moral superiority
I cannot help but see you in my minds eye as the stereotypical dude sitting at the folding table, sign saying 'Trump is a horrible person, change my mind' draped over the front
I cannot in good faith argue in what you define as good faith, the fact that you are full of yourself (change my mind
) needs to be addressed. I just don't see being required to accept your premise that Trump is persona non grata is justified. Yes, he has moral failings, but I'm not hiring him because of some need for him to be a role model. I'm hiring him to take an axe to regulation, red tape and woke overreach. It would also be less Kutsistent if there was evidence that you held more than Trump to those supposed moral standards. Perhaps I missed your ringing condemnations of marital infidelity when they targeted anyone other than TrumpThe hand washing metaphor is apt. As long as you can tell yourself you HAD to vote for Trump next time, you can still feel that the hem of your garment is clean - and that is what really matters. Prior to that denouement, you can enjoy the delicious pleasure of faux moral superiority
Jesus christ dude. Calm the **** down. You keep trying to make this about me.So, argue in an arena defined by you, under RoE set by you and dealing only with subject matter accepted by you in order to receive the imprimatur of jamil approval?
I cannot help but see you in my minds eye as the stereotypical dude sitting at the folding table, sign saying 'Trump is a horrible person, change my mind' draped over the front
I cannot in good faith argue in what you define as good faith, the fact that you are full of yourself (change my mind
The hand washing metaphor is apt. As long as you can tell yourself you HAD to vote for Trump next time, you can still feel that the hem of your garment is clean - and that is what really matters. Prior to that denouement, you can enjoy the delicious pleasure of faux moral superiority
So to address the points:
RoE.
This is pretty standard here. Argue the points, not the person. Sometimes personalities are involved in the points so that's fair to a point. But you're trying to make this personally about me. If you have a problem with me, I suggest you put me on ignore, because like anyone else on this forum, I get to post my opinions and such, as long as I stay within the rules. So if you have something to say about some points I've made, have at that.
"change my mind"
I gave an opinion that I believe is supported by facts, which you have not refuted. That you think this fits in the "change my mind" category just sounds more like another way you're making this about me. It has nothing to do with whether my opinions expressed are, or are not, supported by facts. So. That begs the question if is not you making this about me personally, is it the case that everyone who expresses an opinion you don't like also sitting at the "change my mind" table? Or, is it just me? If it's the latter, I suggest you're just going to have to find a way to cope. You and this particular delusion is not my problem to solve. Put me on ignore if you can't handle someone criticizing something or someone you hold in high esteem.
"moral failings"
This is not much different from what I've said. Trump has faults, but I'll vote for him anyway, because... That's basically what you just said, only I used different words to express the same thing. But when I said it earlier in this thread, you accused me of virtue signaling.
We don't have exactly the same position. I'm not looking to hire a role model either, but where we differ, if there's another candidate who has many of the same favorable attributes that I like about Trump, but without all that baggage to criticize, yeah, I'd drop Trump like a used rubber and hire the new guy. I feel zero loyalty owed to any candidate I vote for. It seems to me that you do feel a sense of loyalty. So if you feel like you just want to stick with the tried and true porn star ****er, maybe out of admiration, or loyalty, you go with god, man. All day long. I promise I won't jump YOUR **** and personally attack you. That has nothing to do with morality. It's temperament. You get to be you without judgement.
"evidence"
I've listed some of Trump's criticisms in this thread. I don't think any of those are facts in question, but either way, you really have not addressed those without making it personally about me. But, you have several ways available to you besides making it all about me.
1. you could just not care. Yawn, jamil just criticized Trump. Oh well. To each his own. Which is what most everyone who read it did. So that would make it the normal response to something like that.
2. claim none of the things criticized actually happened. For example, you could claim Trump didn't actually **** Stormy Daniels.
3. you could say that those examples of criticisms aren't actually anything critical. You know, claim they're a feature, not a bug. For example, it's okay to **** a porn star when your wife is pregnant with your kid when you're rich and powerful, because it's what shows you're powerful. If he hadn't ****ed Stormy Daniels, he wouldn't be signaling his power. Something like that. But of course, obviously, there would be some push back on that point.
4. admit they're legitimate criticisms but you don't care, and be done with it. Now, as far as I can tell, this is mostly your position, except you had a problem with the "be done with it" part. You can't leave it just at that. You have to attack the criticizer.
5. NOT RECOMMENDED - claim that people shouldn't criticize people on our side because it might drive undecided people away, because undecided people like to join sides that can't be intellectually honest about their own failures. This is absolutely nutty. Of course you should be able to criticize leaders within your own group. It's how you hold your own leaders accountable.
"handwashing"
This is one of the more retarded personal attacks you've made. It's a non-seqitur. I don't feel that criticizing Trump makes me morally superior. What's the payoff?
How would voting for Trump, notwithstanding his criticisms, absolve me from anything? What is there to clean by doing that? I feel no moral problem with criticizing Trump at all. I feel no moral problem with voting for him even after criticizing him. That's a logical and pragmatic position. I dunno. I don't see a payoff. The "handwashing" does not follow. You're gonna have to explain that one better than you have, because it's your projection. It makes no sense in my worldview.
Yeah, that's pretty stupid. First, it's only 2 points. That's not even newsworthy. Second, it's 2 years away. Report on it when it matters. When it's significant enough to report on. But no. There are clicks and views to be had, so let's make something of nothing.
But, c'mon man. nevertrumper? Still? I mean, is that supposed to be some kind of insult to the people who will never vote for Trump? Let's play that conversation out.
Some rando Lincoln Project RINO: "I hate Trump. I will never vote for him. He says mean things on twitter."
ardent Trump supporter: "Why. You...You're a never-trumper!!!"
Some rando Lincoln Project RINO: "Uh. Yes. I just said that i would never vote for Trump. Is there something else I'm missing here?"
ETA:
Oh. Hold on. Maybe I get the nevertrumper label. It's an us/them thing? A term that labels the "nevertrumper" as a them. An outsider. I was thinking it was supposed to be a pejorative name. Like libtard or something.
Hmmm. Interesting formulation. Porn star ****ing was 16 years (and two elections ago)
From where is sit your automatic, instinctive assumption that your viewpoint is the correct one is the problem
Best I can offer (flips coin) is more succinct condemnation, 'cause I don't use ignore
Foszoe, is that you?
Dude, you're just parsing words into anything you can fit into a personal complaint at this point. But let me address it anyway.
1. The views I express on INGO are my opinions. Of course I think they're correct. Just like you think your opinions are correct. I'm sure if either of us did not think our opinions were correct, we wouldn't have the opinions we have. Is that such a hard concept to grasp? Is your contempt for me that great?
2. An opinion of the POTUS ****ing a porn star fits into the realm of moral character. An opinion that a news article reporting on head to head polls between two potential candidates, two years before the primaries, is meaningless clickbait fits no where into that moral universe. How can you possibly think that you made a logical conclusion? I suspect that you don't think made a logical point, because I don't think that was the goal. This sounds more like a personal vendetta.
3. If you're gonna do more of these succinct condemnations, you should at least try to make them sound more objective, and less of a personal attack. I mean, why do you keep making this personal? You don't seem interested in rebutting the criticisms that seem to be pissing you off. Because you haven't tried to rebut them yet.
I mean we could just escalate things. Hurl personal insults at each other. Blow this **** up. I'd rather not. I'd rather not be adversarial with you. I'd rather things not escalate. I'd rather mods not take notice. I'd rather neither of us get a timeout. But this personal vendetta ******** needs to stop or they will get involved.
I voice my opinions about stuff just like everyone else does. I don't think any higher of myself or my opinions than you do yours. I don't think I'm any more or less fallible than you are. If my opinions **** you off, I don't think that's my problem. As a member of this forum, I have as much right to express my opinions as anyone, including you. I'm fine if you decide to rebut something I say. Leave the personal vendetta **** out of it. Argue the points.
No kidding
2024 is a long way off yet.
If Biden and his handlers double down on what they have been doing the next few years we might not have a country anymore.
Maybe not the same country where our republic still functions. Something closer to Orwell' view of the world in his 1984 book.
If Biden and his handlers double down on what they have been doing the next few years we might not have a country anymore.
Maybe not the same country where our republic still functions. Something closer to Orwell' view of the world in his 1984 book.
They have two more years to fundamentally transform the US. Hopefully there’s a huge red wave in November, and a veto-proof majority in the House and Senate. And that Republicans have the courage to impeach Biden and Harris and most of his cabinet of Marxists.
That's not going to happen.
- Status
