Conservative values

Discussion in 'Politics' started by GeneWright, Aug 17, 2020.

  1. JoeNation

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    Again, those in the smallest towns have the most grandiose opinions. "A significant number" based completely on opinion. The phony silent majority BS again. Never gets old with this ilk.
  2. SmalltownMN

    SmalltownMN Active Member

    You seem to forget who our President is and how many people did vote for him. I don't call almost 63 million people an insignificant amount. Do you honestly think that any of those people have been swayed to vote differently this year? I suspect that the number will be larger this time around.
  3. GeneWright

    GeneWright Well-Known Member

    I highly doubt it will be larger when normalized for turnout. So many people have turned against him or realized a"buffoon" just isn't fit for office.

    To your other post, what do you consider "right" and "wrong" right now? I like to think the average American can at least see that Trump is guilty. Per 538, between 9 and 12 percent of Republicans even thought he should be removed from office by the Senate. Much higher proportions of independents.

    There's also far less undecided people this time around, and polling is still rock solid in Biden's favor vs. 2016. Chart last updated August 24, 2020

  4. FryDaddyJr

    FryDaddyJr Well-Known Member

    you don't read much. independents, women and the educated who voted for him last time are leaving in droves
  5. SmalltownMN

    SmalltownMN Active Member

    Guilty of what?? Acting like a amateur politician?

    The average American can see that Hillary is guilty, Comey is guilty...........

    Polls, the same polls that said Hillary was going to be President? In fact, if I recall correctly, this 538 initially called out that Trump wasn't even a real candidate. I don't waste my time looking at polls, because most of the time they are wrong.

    In a lot of your posts, you're for all of these protests and after they have turned into violent riots you continue to defend it and downplay the violence and destruction. That is wrong...........and most people will tell you that if you'd stray away from the college campus. I don't give a damn what side of the political aisle the violence is coming from or what the protest was even about to start with - when ANY laws begin to be broken, it is wrong.
  6. FryDaddyJr

    FryDaddyJr Well-Known Member

    "you're for the riots". lol
  7. GeneWright

    GeneWright Well-Known Member

    Now THIS is elucidating. Consider Kohlberg's theory on moral development pictured below. Somehow or another you've become trapped in the mindset that law=morality (the 2nd piece of section II, authority and social order). I suppose that means you hear the story of Robinhood and only see a crook ripping off the well prepared?

  8. SmalltownMN

    SmalltownMN Active Member

    Seriously, are you mentally challenged? From almost all of your postings, I believe that you must be. It's scary that your caregivers grant you internet access.
  9. FryDaddyJr

    FryDaddyJr Well-Known Member

  10. FryDaddyJr

    FryDaddyJr Well-Known Member


    "In a lot of your posts, you're for all of these protests and after they have turned into violent riots you continue to defend it and downplay the violence and destruction.
  11. GeneWright

    GeneWright Well-Known Member

    Also 538 became famous for being the only major polling aggregators to predict Trump's win just before the election. Their methodology of weighted averages for polls based on past accuracy is solid.
  12. Mopar Dude

    Mopar Dude Well-Known Member

    What about this represents tolerance and equality for all? How can this not be portrayed as anything other than it is? This is name calling, labeling and intolerance for a human that has a different perspective on life than his. Please, please, please make me understand why conservatives are labeled repeatedly as intolerant bigots when WE are those that are under attack? This person repeatedly posts unflattering photos of those people he wants the rest of us to laugh at and be ashamed of. How are his actions any different than me posting photos of African-Americans eating watermelons? This is Liberal tolerance? This is acceptance? How can one rationalize non-violence while I am being punched in the nose??..... I sat quietly and politely as my Christian principals were shoved into a nice quiet box so as not to offend the noisy among us. Now I have to be constantly prodded and made fun for my conservative values? And I am the intolerant one here? If this is the tolerance and acceptance as defined by liberals, I want no part of it.
    toughcoins and JohnHamilton like this.
  13. SmalltownMN

    SmalltownMN Active Member

    You should really come out of your momma's basement once in a while. I think you need sunlight.
    Mopar Dude likes this.
  14. SmalltownMN

    SmalltownMN Active Member

    Let me get this straight. You are okay with these protests turning into people getting hurt or killed? You are okay with businesses being looted or burned? You are okay with private and public property being destroyed? You are okay with all of this so long as the start of it, in your mind, was for a good cause?
    Mopar Dude likes this.
  15. toughcoins

    toughcoins Rarely is the liberal viewpoint tainted by realism

    No, it's not. It's common sense put to paper. There's absolutely nothing exclusive to liberalism here.

    Our form of government directly obviates the need for the outlawed acts of a Robin Hood by empowering the people to legislate change through their representatives, and not by extorting change with the tantrums / illegal acts of the disenfranchised few.
    Mopar Dude likes this.
  16. GeneWright

    GeneWright Well-Known Member

    Legitimately, the answer is *sometimes*

    There's lines not to cross in my mind like murder, but that's the point of higher moral reasoning than lawfulness=morality. There is no objective morality, you have to decide for yourself what right and wrong is. The higher into moral reasoning you go, the more grey things get. It's more challenging, but it's supposed to challenge one to think critically about what's at stake and what's truly best.

    Let's take this to the extreme, in the early U.S. was it morally correct to return slaves to their owners because they were considered property? It would be totally in line with the law to do so. We're the Nazi party members "just following orders" morally right because it was the law that they do so?

    It would seem that liberalism recognizes that today the U.S. is not perfect, and still needs work to be made better. The work was painful when the slaves were freed, the work was painful during the civil rights movement, and it's painful now. We can only hope it leads to a brighter tomorrow for all Americans, because we can do better than what we have now.
  17. GeneWright

    GeneWright Well-Known Member

    I didn't say it was exclusive to liberalism, just that he personally believed law=morality and it was elucidating to how he perceives current events.

    As to your second point, please name 1 major civil rights victory that was won without any law breaking. That's often the point of civil rights movements, the law is impeding it by design and the disenfranchised people/causes aren't given equal, direct, or meaningful access to legislative change.
  18. toughcoins

    toughcoins Rarely is the liberal viewpoint tainted by realism

    If you endorse violence to make a point, then you must accept violence from those with opposing views, whether right or wrong.

    The law is not impeding demonstrations by design . . . it is impeding violence by design. Accept the difference and move on.

    The people are lazy, and surrendered equal, direct, or meaningful access to legislative change to the power brokers and lobbyists of industry and of the special interest groups.

    The solution to that problem? I've written this elsewhere before, and will repeat myself . . .

    Mike's top 10 reasons to make our Senators and Representatives part-time employees of their respective states, and not full-time employees of the federal government:

    (1) They could not vote on their own compensation.

    (2) They could not exempt themselves from what applies to us.

    (3) They would be more accessible to their constituents.

    (4) They would be more intimate with issues affecting us.

    (5) Keeping normal jobs in their home states, they would work only part-time in Washington, and only when called upon.

    (6) They would no longer meddle in trivial matters in between the important ones, simply to justify their positions.

    (7) This would supplant career politicians with more passionate, dedicated representatives.

    (8) This would substantially curb vote-trading between representatives.

    (9) This would de-centralize our representation, robbing lobbyists of the convenience and economies of scale they presently enjoy, swinging the balance of power back to the people.

    (10) Our representatives would regain the people's trust.
  19. GeneWright

    GeneWright Well-Known Member

    You do realize this is literally protests against police brutality right? Police using excessive violence against people sparked this, so do you accept all that comes from it?
  20. toughcoins

    toughcoins Rarely is the liberal viewpoint tainted by realism

    No, I abhor both the violence on behalf of / in concert with protesters, and violence on the part of the police/ vigilanties.

    What I'm saying is that, if you accept violence on behalf of / in concert with protesters, then you must accept violence on the part of the police/ vigilanties in response . . . you are the one in the wrong here, not me.

Share This Page