[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

[tstorm823]

No, back in the day people worked together to create good environmental policy, it wasn't 'the left vs the right' back then, most people didn't even know what the left or right was until the terms got popularised in the last ten years or so. It wasn't so divisive back then.

And the thing is, you can argue left vs right, but theres also progressive vs conservative. And a conservative means to conserve, which in this case is not environmental conservation, but simply conserving the way things are, conservative means opposition to change. The conservative doesn't want new policies that effect environment or any thing, they only want new policies when they return to the old ways. At a lot of times in history conservatives were in the right being the guys who said no to thins. But these days its a big time of change, new technology, finally waking up to things like gay rights and such, that the conservatives resisting change often want us to regress to bad old things. And one day they will be right again once this big era of change is settled. Heck, I feel every day conservatives become more reasonable, like how many aren't against gay marriage anymore. One day the progressives will have changed far enough and the conservatives will be right again.

Conservatism and Progressivism are fundamentally identical. They're both based on the idea that what people do as a nation and as a society can bring good into that nation or society in the future. A progressive intends to change society now in order to make new good things happen. A conservative intends to preserve the things done in the past in order to repeat the good things we have now. Conservatives aren't slaves to tradition that does bad things any more than progressives want revolution that wouldn't help. None of it is that senseless. We have good things now because of what was done in the past, and because of the things we do now, we can make more good in the future. To kinda quote Republican conservationist Teddy Roosevelt, wise conservatism and wise progressivism go hand in hand. They are connected theories of governance. This is different from something like liberalism where the purpose of government is to abide eternally by set values, in that case liberty, equality, and sometimes justice. Conservatism and progressivism aren't ideologically bound like that. They just seek to do what's good for the people. The difference is whether you prefer to do what you know works or try to aim for better, and I'd argue any reasonable person should be doing both of those things depending on the situation.

That progressives and conservatives are so at odds at the moment is an accidental consequence of a separate ongoing culture war. Those primarily identified as conservatives are trying to conserve Christian morality, an undeniable part of the American culture during the rise to prosperity. Those primarily identified as progressives are those trying to deny Christian morality, believing for some reason that Christian morals hurt people. And I could write a book about how that current conflict is basically all John Calvin's fault. But this concept of who is conservative and who is progressive is just this moment in time. There's nothing progressive about environmental stewardship, that's a centuries old concept that is well ingrained in the status quo. There's nothing conservative about banning abortion, abortions were allowed so long as the baby hadn't kicked yet until modern medical science came around and even though there were laws against abortion at some point, the position of treating a fetus as a human being is wildly new. Hell, Prohibition was part of the Progressive movement, that's not exactly how people would classify it these days (cause they don't know what the words mean).

The world is about to swing culturally in a way you don't expect. Studies indicate young people, gen z, are about as politically conservative as millenials. The thing is, people get more conservative as they age, which means that gen z is actually more conservative than millenials in the long run. And as a matter of personal behavior, gen z is less sexually active, less high, and less drunk than recent previous generations as teenagers. People keep trying to find ways to pin this on smart phones or fast food, but the truth is much more simple than that. Kids can tell that the people who depend on these things are just genuinely miserable. Kids are going to emulate the people who are happy, and right now the people who are happy are the Christian conservatives with traditional families. What's "progressive" and what's "conservative" are going to change greatly, but not for the reasons you think. People aren't just going to give up on Christian sexual morality, the opposite is going to happen. Whether or not the Bible is involved, we're going to have a return to the culture of sexuality, parenthood, and marriage being united concepts, because people would rather be happy than miserable.

 

[tstorm823]

Sounds like a lot of conservative wishful thinking tp justify their unpopular policies and dwindling support

That's even if republicans as a whole make it out of trumps first term with their dignity intact

Literally every time Democrats win in a general election, people start talking about how the Republicans have no support and will probably disappear completely in a few years. Obama killed the Republican Party forever, just like Clinton did, just like Lyndon Johnson did in 1964, and yet here we are.

 

[Leg End]

We should make it easier for them to do it legally then, not harder.

...Yes. Pretty sure we've been on the same page here.

So you endorse violence against the government if necessary. Remember that next time you decry left-wing violence.

Violence as a last resort with reasonable people being forced to do unreasonable things versus... random lynchings of people in the street and calling them racial slurs because they are minorities that somehow don't agree with you. Somehow doesn't seem the same to me.

Lots of bigots think their bigotry is perfectly ok.

Yes. Yes they do.

Nazis are stupid, sure. Communists are not the same as Nazis. I know the Right wants to pretend otherwise, but that wont change that it was Nazis who wanted to commit ethnic genocide and not Communists.

You've been shown this before. They even did it before the Krauts.

Nazis think Trump is a White Supremacist. If they have any problem with him, is that he wont move to the next step of their desired 4th Reicht.

Nazis think Trump is a puppet of Israel and a race traitor, if they don't think he's a Jew outright. Again, you're never finding a consensus on this.

People who support bigotry to spite the left are just bigots looking for an excuse. Anyone who supports the confederate flag is a racist.

Or a Southerner. Can I say that people waving commie flags are supporters of genocide?

That you think that is poorly is an example of your poor use of guns.

Another thing you have had explained to you before. The vast majority of anyone that knows anything about Firearms is going to tell you that shooting for limbs is not going to give non-lethal or less-lethal results, and thinking such to justify an attempt at using very lethal force in a situation that it is not called for is going to do nothing more than do harm. If you're aiming for smaller, moving targets, your chance of missing is going to increase exponentially, which will then lead to damage to things and people that are not your target. You are going to harm people and property because you falsely believe that aiming for limbs is a safer use of lethal force, which is already an incredibly ignorant and downright dangerous mindset. Our arms and legs aren't just meat sacks devoid of important bits and bobs. You're going to hit an artery or bone, with the latter causing the bone to shatter and become shrapnel inside your body, causing incredible amounts of damage as bone fragments rip your ass apart. I am absolutely glad that you do not own firearms, because your idea of them is what gets people killed. There is no situation in which lethal force should be used or thought of as non-lethal. Period. End of.

If they are going to make gun laws too liberal, they are responsible.

Can I hold the Democrats responsible for every time an illegal immigrant breaks the law? Let's just say screw it and go off the deep end with this line of reasoning. Sue car manufacturers for drunk drivers and crap.

Because you are a Right-Winger. You wonder why I call you that, yet here we are.

I don't know why I bother.

You are admitting to advocate people should be allowed to own bombs!?

Absolutely. Sometimes you need that extra oomph to fight Tyranny. Or blow up junker cars in your backyard. One of the two.

Again, I do not think YOU are responsible enough to own guns.

And as I have explained a bit above, your opinion on who is responsible enough to own firearms means absolutely nothing to me, considering you are absolutely for lowering the bar for usage of lethal force, and think lethal force can be used non-lethally. You know absolutely nothing about firearms, but I implore you to change that and learn about them, to better understand their functions and uses, as well as learning that lethal force is lethal.

I know it doesnt. That is why I am so critical of you.

And I'm critical of you because you do not see the bigotry that you regularly post. Actually, strike that. I'm fairly certain that you are very much aware of it, considering a post elsewhere. You just think it is okay when you're doing it to the people you don't like.

That is you attempting to make up some BS right now and you know it.

Have you even been to SoCal recently?

I was using one example of equal rights.

By turning to good old fashioned racism.

Guns are for killing, cars are for transportation. This argument is a poor one and you know it.

Yeah. People doing stupid shit with Cars don't get the car blamed, and nearly kill as many people by accident that someone would have to typically do on purpose. Imagine if someone took a vehicle and started murdering people with that en masse. No wait, they already have.

I dont support your desire for a gun-filled race war.

I can't even begin to imagine where you got the idea that I want a race war. Is this a projection?

Trump does not care about you. Republicans do not care about you.

I'd say that was Hillary and the Dems in a nutshell, but frankly I don't care who 'cares' about me. Nobody is concerned with my safety but myself and people that surprisingly give a crap about me.

They both like the idea of the ethnicities they hate being in conflict with eachother, and you're feeding right into that.

I feel very similarly about the Democrats. They don't actually care about anyone, they just want us fighting so they can use that anger and fear to get minorities to vote for them. If you want to agree that both parties do that, I'd be willing to extend the hand on compromise there, because that's politics in a nutshell. They keep people afraid to control us. Outside of that, I'm out of this thread because I'd rather not be stuffed with straw and told I want a race war by someone that only sees the world in two colors, and I'm apparently on Red Team.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

snip

Something to clear first. Democrats may or may not care about you; but the GOP is openly hostile towards you. Why to vote for the latter?

 

[Leg End]

Something to clear first. Democrats may or may not care about you; but the GOP is openly hostile towards you. Why to vote for the latter?

Well, I have a few takes on this myself. Assuming the Democrats are simply apathetic and the GOP is openly hostile, I've always preferred the gun to my face than the one to my back, especially if the one to my back is because I'm no longer useful. On a more realistic approach, I've found both openly hostile to me at one point or another, and often at the same time. Democrats despise me for being a Latino with questionable location on the LGBTBBQ umbrella that think we need to secure our border and that I like guns, as well as thinking Nanny State policies are dumb and I'd rather not be reliant on the State(all of that is rather hostile, but you get the idea) and prefer to just give money out of pocket to help people or ask for help instead of using force to do it. GOP hates me for calling them pussies because I go far harder on freedom than they do(AKA actually caring) and shit on them for hypocrisy, as well as the umbrella thing. The difference is that I see the Democrats as seeing me as a useful pet until I disagree with them, then I get called an Uncle Tom and am a part of the statistic of strange Latinos that made the mistake of voting for Trump when clearly our race should vote as a collective for one party.

Just from all that crap I just said, you can probably get a lock on my feelings regarding politics in general. I just want to be left the fuck alone, but nobody can quite grasp such an apparently antiquated concept.

 

[TheIronRuler]

Something to clear first. Democrats may or may not care about you; but the GOP is openly hostile towards you. Why to vote for the latter?

Well, I have a few takes on this myself. Assuming the Democrats are simply apathetic and the GOP is openly hostile, I've always preferred the gun to my face than the one to my back, especially if the one to my back is because I'm no longer useful. On a more realistic approach, I've found both openly hostile to me at one point or another, and often at the same time. Democrats despise me for being a Latino with questionable location on the LGBTBBQ umbrella that think we need to secure our border and that I like guns, as well as thinking Nanny State policies are dumb and I'd rather not be reliant on the State(all of that is rather hostile, but you get the idea) and prefer to just give money out of pocket to help people or ask for help instead of using force to do it. GOP hates me for calling them pussies because I go far harder on freedom than they do and shit on them for hypocrisy, as well as the umbrella thing. The difference is that I see the Democrats as seeing me as a useful pet until I disagree with them, then I get called an Uncle Tom and am a part of the statistic of strange Latinos that made the mistake of voting for Trump when clearly our race should vote as a collective for one party.

Just from all that crap I just said, you can probably get a lock on my feelings regarding politics in general. I just want to be left the fuck alone, but nobody can quite grasp such an apparently antiquated concept.

.
I love it when your support for a candidate is assumed because of your identity and not your ideological beliefs. I'm someone from a country with a parliamentary system, which has particularly many sectorial parties (a "sector" of the population), it can get very old when your identity literally translates to your preferred party.

 

[CaitSeith]

Something to clear first. Democrats may or may not care about you; but the GOP is openly hostile towards you. Why to vote for the latter?

Well, I have a few takes on this myself. Assuming the Democrats are simply apathetic and the GOP is openly hostile, I've always preferred the gun to my face than the one to my back, especially if the one to my back is because I'm no longer useful. On a more realistic approach, I've found both openly hostile to me at one point or another, and often at the same time. Democrats despise me for being a Latino with questionable location on the LGBTBBQ umbrella that think we need to secure our border and that I like guns, as well as thinking Nanny State policies are dumb and I'd rather not be reliant on the State(all of that is rather hostile, but you get the idea) and prefer to just give money out of pocket to help people or ask for help instead of using force to do it. GOP hates me for calling them pussies because I go far harder on freedom than they do(AKA actually caring) and shit on them for hypocrisy, as well as the umbrella thing. The difference is that I see the Democrats as seeing me as a useful pet until I disagree with them, then I get called an Uncle Tom and am a part of the statistic of strange Latinos that made the mistake of voting for Trump when clearly our race should vote as a collective for one party.

Just from all that crap I just said, you can probably get a lock on my feelings regarding politics in general. I just want to be left the fuck alone, but nobody can quite grasp such an apparently antiquated concept.

Noted.

 

[Agema]

Literally every time Democrats win in a general election, people start talking about how the Republicans have no support and will probably disappear completely in a few years. Obama killed the Republican Party forever, just like Clinton did, just like Lyndon Johnson did in 1964, and yet here we are.

Absolutely: they'll just adopt whatever ideological crazy grabs enough extra support for next election. Evangelical Christians in the 80s, then Tea Party libertarians, now the white nationalist fringe. That's how all those traditional Republicans once very safely conservative started to get called RINOs a few years ago and then started quitting politics after Trump was elected.

 

[tstorm823]

Absolutely: they'll just adopt whatever ideological crazy grabs enough extra support for next election. Evangelical Christians in the 80s, then Tea Party libertarians, now the white nationalist fringe. That's how all those traditional Republicans once very safely conservative started to get called RINOs a few years ago and then started quitting politics after Trump was elected.

Unfortunately for you, I know you know this isn't true.

Unfortunately for me, I can't prove it because R&P got nuked.

But you have personally backed me up in a thread before on the fact that at least relative to the fluctuations of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party has been roughly stable on most positions for 100+ years.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

The world is about to swing culturally in a way you don't expect. Studies indicate young people, gen z, are about as politically conservative as millenials. The thing is, people get more conservative as they age, which means that gen z is actually more conservative than millenials in the long run. And as a matter of personal behavior, gen z is less sexually active, less high, and less drunk than recent previous generations as teenagers. People keep trying to find ways to pin this on smart phones or fast food, but the truth is much more simple than that. Kids can tell that the people who depend on these things are just genuinely miserable. Kids are going to emulate the people who are happy, and right now the people who are happy are the Christian conservatives with traditional families. What's "progressive" and what's "conservative" are going to change greatly, but not for the reasons you think. People aren't just going to give up on Christian sexual morality, the opposite is going to happen. Whether or not the Bible is involved, we're going to have a return to the culture of sexuality, parenthood, and marriage being united concepts, because people would rather be happy than miserable.

Conservatism is on the rise in the younger generation to be sure. But not christian conservatism. They might be influenced by christianity in their talks of abortion issues and morality, but they aren't christian. Atheism or at least secularist non religious thinking is on the rise in pretty much all first world countries. So what you will probably see is more and more atheist conservatives. There are christians saying that the churches are in a crisis right now and at risk of dieing in two generations if current trends keep up.

Based on the numbers I've seen that conservatism is on the rise I'll admit thats true, I don't like it but its true. But I don't like christianity at all and I'm glad to see it fade. Anecdotally the local church gave us hell when it came out my boss/church leader/landlord was a child molester and they knew and protected him. They weren't even catholic just pentacostal but they all protect sex offenders to protect their churches spotless image and keep tithes up. And on a grander note I don't like christianity because it involves so much control, giving up autonomy to your church leaders and god. It's weird how conservative christians are so big on freedom and democracy yet they are still happy to have a 'Lord'.

 

[Saelune]

Just from all that crap I just said, you can probably get a lock on my feelings regarding politics in general. I just want to be left the fuck alone, but nobody can quite grasp such an apparently antiquated concept.

Then why did you vote for someone who refuses to leave people the fuck alone?

 

[tstorm823]

Conservatism is on the rise in the younger generation to be sure. But not christian conservatism. They might be influenced by christianity in their talks of abortion issues and morality, but they aren't christian. Atheism or at least secularist non religious thinking is on the rise in pretty much all first world countries. So what you will probably see is more and more atheist conservatives. There are christians saying that the churches are in a crisis right now and at risk of dieing in two generations if current trends keep up.

Based on the numbers I've seen that conservatism is on the rise I'll admit thats true, I don't like it but its true. But I don't like christianity at all and I'm glad to see it fade. Anecdotally the local church gave us hell when it came out my boss/church leader/landlord was a child molester and they knew and protected him. They weren't even catholic just pentacostal but they all protect sex offenders to protect their churches spotless image and keep tithes up. And on a grander note I don't like christianity because it involves so much control, giving up autonomy to your church leaders and god. It's weird how conservative christians are so big on freedom and democracy yet they are still happy to have a 'Lord'.

Christianity isn't going anywhere. It's not in a good place right now, but that issue's as old as Protestantism. There's a pile of irony in your statement that "They weren't even Catholic." Catholics aren't actually particularly prone to child molestation, the Catholic Church just had the best kept records of it. The atrocity of Clergy Sexual Abuse isn't actually that it was rampant, it's that clergy are supposed meet higher moral standards, And of course the "cover-up" of removing most from their positions, separating victims from predators, and maintaining permanent records for when the crime is reported 50 years later. The truth of the matter is that something like 10% of children are sexually abused in some way and most of the time there is no record made or protection given. Catholic priests are less likely to molest a child than basically any other profession that works with children, especially in this millennium, so while you resent the Church, you happen to be holding it to a higher standard than secular institutions without realizing it.

Atheism has passed its local maximum. The days of the 4 horseman have passed, r/atheism collapsed, the "rational" sphere slowly moved on from complaining about Christians to "defending" either equality or liberty depending on their personal slant, and some time soon they're going to realize something. The champions of equality on the left often seem to have detached themselves from objective reality for the same reason that the champions of free speech on the right often seem like they've lost moral sense. It's not that they're actually crazy or evil, it's just that they've denied Christianity. Both sides have taken perfectly rational philosophies and ripped the foundation out of them, and can't seem to figure out why people don't understand their reasoning. I'm not saying you can't have a coherent worldview without Jesus, but you can't take a coherent worldview built on Jesus, rip the Jesus out, and expect the world to make sense. A lot of my generation is going to have to take a hard look at Christianity, not like a rebellious teenager insistent on being smarter than the authority, but an honest look that seeks to understand what religion really is (the answer to that is mostly gratitude).

6 or 7 years ago, I said on this website that New Atheism was a dying fad. I'm willing to make a bolder claim now, I think we'll have a major surge in Catholicism in the west in like a decade.

 

[Leg End]

Then why did you vote for someone who refuses to leave people the fuck alone?

Because Gary Johnson was/is shit, so I voted for the guy that was most oriented to leaving me and everyone else the fuck alone, over the woman promising to not leave me alone, as well as probably put my ass on a watchlist and rip my rights away from me because I have my own opinions.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Then why did you vote for someone who refuses to leave people the fuck alone?

Because Gary Johnson was/is shit, so I voted for the guy that was most oriented to leaving me and everyone else the fuck alone, over the woman promising to not leave me alone, as well as probably put my ass on a watchlist and rip my rights away from me because I have my own opinions.

[Citation needed] I have yet to hear of anyone saying they will put you on a watch list and rip your rights from you because you have your own opinions.

I wasn't aware there were any candidates in memory who were actually going to leave anyone alone. That ceased long ago when all property became owned by someone.

 

[Saelune]

Then why did you vote for someone who refuses to leave people the fuck alone?

Because Gary Johnson was/is shit, so I voted for the guy that was most oriented to leaving me and everyone else the fuck alone, over the woman promising to not leave me alone, as well as probably put my ass on a watchlist and rip my rights away from me because I have my own opinions.

But you didn't vote for the guy who would leave people alone. You explicitly voted for a guy who promised to pester the fuck out of people.

If you genuinely believe that Trump was the person you say, well for one, I don't believe you genuinely believe that, but if you did, you were really really really wrong.

You could always just admit you were wrong and work with those who actually want to leave people alone instead though.

 

[Saelune]

Then why did you vote for someone who refuses to leave people the fuck alone?

Because Gary Johnson was/is shit, so I voted for the guy that was most oriented to leaving me and everyone else the fuck alone, over the woman promising to not leave me alone, as well as probably put my ass on a watchlist and rip my rights away from me because I have my own opinions.

[Citation needed] I have yet to hear of anyone saying they will put you on a watch list and rip your rights from you because you have your own opinions.

I wasn't aware there were any candidates in memory who were actually going to leave anyone alone. That ceased long ago when all property became owned by someone.

Republicans created the Patriot Act. But that's just another example of how Leg End votes for the people who do the opposite of what Leg End claims to want.

 

[Agema]

Unfortunately for you, I know you know this isn't true.

Unfortunately for me, I can't prove it because R&P got nuked.

But you have personally backed me up in a thread before on the fact that at least relative to the fluctuations of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party has been roughly stable on most positions for 100+ years.

I think they're both true.

There are consistent ideological strains throughout the Republican Party over the years - chiefly things like inclination towards individualism and pro-business policies. But it's also true that this has been supplemented over the decades by co-opting new groups. It chose to take over the South, so took all their attitudes, including anti-abortion and evangelical attitudes. Then it took massively increased extremism - from fiscal responsibility to Norquist's absolutist tax reduction at any cost, the Tea Party, and now white nationalism to bolster its flagging appeal.

Donald Trump is the logical consequence of where Republicans have been moving the last few decades. Yes, core values still ruumbling away there, but now merged with its embrace of very new ideas that a Republican of the 1950s might not recognise or like. And in fact, I'd suggest plenty of people like them in the modern day are now Democrats.

 

[Leg End]

But you didn't vote for the guy who would leave people alone. You explicitly voted for a guy who promised to pester the fuck out of people.

To me, that was Clinton.

If you genuinely believe that Trump was the person you say, well for one, I don't believe you genuinely believe that,

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

but if you did, you were really really really wrong.

Or on an inverse, suspicions during the debates were right. Did you really think I wasn't wary of statements made? Particularly any he agreed with Clinton on.

You could always just admit you were wrong and work with those who actually want to leave people alone instead though.

Libertarians? Already a member.

Republicans created the Patriot Act. But that's just another example of how Leg End votes for the people who do the opposite of what Leg End claims to want.

And Democrats largely approved of it. And don't forget that Obama effectively renewed it twice.