Totally, and that's why I included that last bit. Sorry wasn't clear. And Franchise, thanks for that cookie story, and LOL @ summative statement for BBS behavior. :grin: In some sense, loud confrontational (or even violent) protests at Trump rallies, as righteous as they may be, play into the whole movement's hands (or fists). It's exactly how they want to confront those with differing views. The BLM movement, I think, has lacked good sage leadership on this front, in many cases. Oh for another MLK Jr. ... But then.... I'm not dealing with centuries of frustration, high hat, and broken promises either. I can't pretend to put myself in those shoes.
Vs pre-fact age of America? Just want to said, my imagination still much prefer the "post-fact" age of American
There are times that I am sorely tempted to do a thorough search on the internet looking for websites that have the sole function of providing direction along the lines of this: How to combat intelligent arguments against "conservative values" when posting on a blog. 1) Ignore factual information provided by "moderates" or "the Left" and post nonsensical crap with lots of these - !!!!!!!!!! 2) Attack everything posted by the "opposition." If it is perfectly reasonable, even to you, the response is still to ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!!!! 3) If you are placed on ignore, consider that a VICTORY!!!! 4) The intention is to exhaust the "opposition," no matter what they post, no matter how logical their posts might be, by using the steps provided above. They will become so sick and tired of your apparent "stupidity" that they will simply stop posting on political forums. THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT!!!! Why? If they give up attempting to have a conversation about politics, you have been VICTORIOUS!!!!
Funny. Pre-fact world would be the dark ages. We just didn't understand that the enlightenment was metastable, delicate, ... not permanent.
This is great advice that should be heeded by both sides. You wouldn't believe the crap I have gotten from day one from the left just for saying I was starting to like Trump. I was immediately stereotyped and demonized by a wide array of people. That kind of behavior helps no one and actually works against the overall goal those people are aiming for. This election cycle has taught me a lot. I will no longer (I'll try, at least) be so hyperbolic or absolute in my judgments. I will recognize that people that I totally disagree with like Ted Cruz do have legitimate reasons for their supporters to support them. I have found common ground with staunch conservatives this cycle that I have almost never had common ground with before.
Really? Look at the tone and content of the Democratic debates, look at the Republican ones - is it really "BOTH sides" being a problem?
You betcha... m favorite parts of the Democratic debates have been when Hillary implied Bernie had a small hands and schlong, and when Bernie called Hillary a liar and a fraud, and both called each other choke artist. Oh wait, none of that ever happened, did it?
My business partner, who is active in local Republican politics, believes that the Senate will eventually have hearings and vote on Garland before the election. This could be a sign he might be right. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...publican-senator-to-call-for-vote-on-garland/ Mark Kirk is first Republican senator to call for vote on Garland Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois on Friday became the first Republican senator to call for an up-or-down vote on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, saying on a Chicago radio show that his colleagues ought to “just man up and cast a vote.” That Kirk would be first to break with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other GOP colleagues, who believe the next president should pick the replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, is not particularly surprising: Kirk was already one of two Republican senators, with Susan Collins of Maine, to call for hearings. Kirk faces what is perhaps the most difficult Senate reelection race in the nation — running during a presidential election year as a Republican in a state that hasn’t voted for a Republican president since George H.W. Bush in 1988. He is pitted against Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D), who has already sought to tie Kirk to national Republicans, including GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump. [Democrats plan push to force hearings on Supreme Court nomination] Further complicating matters for Kirk is that Garland grew up in Illinois, in a Chicago suburb only a few miles from the border of the congressional district Kirk used to represent. Kirk, speaking Friday morning on WLS-AM, said that the Senate “should go through the process the Constitution has already laid out” but that he did not see McConnell relenting before the election. “I think given Mitch’s view, I don’t see his view changing too much,” Kirk said. “Eventually we will have an election, and we will have a new president, and the new president will come forward with a nomination.” Among Senate Republicans, only Kirk and Collins have said they favor holding hearings on Garland’s nomination. Several others have said they would grant a courtesy meeting but only to inform Garland of their position against taking up his nomination. Kirk, who said he admired Scalia’s approach to the law, did not indicate he had decided he would vote for Garland. He said he would question the appeals court judge on whether “the Constitution is a total living document that can change quite a bit.” “Make sure the words mean the words,” Kirk said, explaining his views. “When it says freedom of speech, we should have freedom of speech — make sure the Constitution is something laid out in stone and so the common language of the words is what we understand them to be.” Kirk’s comments come three days before Democratic activists plan a nationwide “Day of Action” to protest Republican senators who are opposed to taking up Garland’s nomination. At least some Democrats were not impressed by Kirk’s willingness to break with McConnell: “If Senator Kirk were serious about fulfilling his constitutional responsibilities, he would publicly rebuke the strategy of the Republican Majority Leader he voted for, not predict the strategy’s success,” said Sean Savett, a spokesman for the Democratic Party of Illinois. Correction: This file has been updated to correct the fact that Illinois last voted for a Republican president in 1988 not when Ronald Reagan last ran for president.
5. Make sure to tell people when they are on and off of your extremely fluid Ignore List. Be sure to Concern Troll as hard as possible and express disappointment. Keep your safe space intact in order to shut out the opposite arguments. Block roads if necessary.
Ghandi wasn't shy about calling out ignorance nor insulting people. A reporter once shouted at him asking him what he thought about western civilization, and his response was, "I think it's a good idea" Ignorance is ignorance. There is ignorance on the left and on the right. People who believe that blacks are lazy and that's why they fail, that Muslims are violent inherently, that Mexicans are this or that...people who think Obama is anti-American - these people aren't going to change their mind. They aren't just ignorant, they revel in it. They are proud of their uninformed views. They dismiss science and reason with glee. You will never convince them - especially on an internet BBS - where people are here more to express their anger and frustration by taking it out on the other side. This is the only place where you can write and no one can stop you. Each side calls the other ignorant. But it's ridiculous to say the left posters here are the same as the right. There is a huge knowledge gap and you see it by how substantiated each side makes its claims.
I am guessing that one possible turning point for this nomination is when the GOP's Presidential nomination is finalized. I think the Senate GOP is still holding out hope that someone else can beat Trump (likely in a contested convention). But if Trump ends up being the guy, the Senate GOP will have to re-think the denial of Garland. Not only is Trump polling much worse vs. the Dem candidates than any other GOP contender, he is also a wild card as far as who he'd pick if elected. GOP is still holding out hope that one of the non-Trump Republicans would win the Presidency, b ut eventually, they may have to face the music.
A brokered convention in 2016, with the level of media inundation... with Trump NOT being the nominee would be an absolute disaster for the Republican Party. Brand loyalty among Republican voters is at a recent low. Even Republicans that did not vote for Trump would be upset with Ryan, Kasich, Cruz or Romney getting the nomination. If they deny Trump the nomination and Cruz as well. I cannot imagine the outrage.
saw gov goodhair mentioned as a possible candiate to emerge from the convention lol... < derail>the SCOTUS can't do anything but is it too late to repeal the 22nd amendment and give obama a 3rd term? i didn't vote for him either time yet i have nothing other than respect for the man. aside from this nomination his visit to cuba puts #44 at the top of my lifetime (39-present)< /derail> demand for appointment hearings is going to increase right?
