[Albert]

There's a lot of things that can happen. If you don't believe that Scalia was assassinated, people act as if a bunch of men in their 60's and 70's are young but they're practically only young compared to Ginsburg at this point.

And all these liberals freaking out now, as if it wasn't obvious that Trump was going to get a Supreme Court pick, as if replacing conservative justices with conservative justices is so unprecedented... wait if/until he replaces a liberal with a conservative, that would be the smart time to freak out. But as we've seen, they are not thinking ahead these days in terms of picking their fights. There might even be SCOTUS appointment issue fatigue if/when the time comes for a liberal justice to retire.

Ultimately though I do find the hubris that caused this situation amusing. Ginsburg was urged to retire while Obama was President and had the power to set her appointment but she refused to do so. Kennedy is humble enough to retire when Trump can pick his replacement. This is called being humble which can be, you know, smart... liberals act as if they are morally superior to everyone but don't seem capable of the realizing the most basic forms of wisdom if it clashes with their ego at all.

Think about that, Ginsburg is basically their ethical paragon.

My favorite line is: "they blocked Obama's supreme court pick!".

As if that was somehow unfair, Republicans had the senate of coarse they will block the nomination, it is in their interest to do so, they were voted in to do so. If Democrats had the senate they will be blocking everything republicans would put through, especially Trump. Then they have the gal to accuse Trump of lying, these people lie like it is their second nature. Then they go about virtue signaling and pretending that they are somehow morally superior.

Established Democrats are the most lying slimy cut throats if I ever seen one, who wrap themselves up in moral superiority pretense. It is sickening.

[Drlee]

You mean recognizes that corporations are made up of people.

No. Corporate personhood is a real thing. It is the very opposite of recognizing corporations as the group of people who own it.

[Doug64]

No. Corporate personhood is a real thing. It is the very opposite of recognizing corporations as the group of people who own it.

Yes, people working in concert have a right to free speech just as people do individually.

[Godstud]

The GOP, under trump are being fiscally reckless and working against family values.

Start video at 9:00.

[One Degree]

Decided not to watch it. ‘Ambassador to Canada’ sounds like a job you give to your idiot nephew.

[Godstud]

Don't put yourself down, @One Degree, you are probably over-qualified for the position.

Good counter-argument, BTW. Did you get your argument from a 5 year old?

[One Degree]

@One Degree I am sure it is well above your intellect level. I don't expect childish trolls to watch something that might burst their bubble of confirmation bias.

Wrong approach to intimidate me. Fortunately I was born with a great ability to take tests. This allows me to disregard my stupidity and not be intimidated by anyone else’s illusions of intellectual superiority. I am fully armored by the randomness of determining intelligence.

[Godstud]

I don't try to intimidate you. Mock you, yes. You post no arguments, and only dismiss anything that might demonstrate that you are wrong. It's a truly childish way to argue.

You are armoured against intelligence, you mean...

[One Degree]

I don't try to intimidate you. Mock you, yes. You post no arguments, and only dismiss anything that might demonstrate that you are wrong. It's a truly childish way to argue.

You are armoured against intelligence, you mean...

By arguments, I assume you mean the opinions of others instead of my own? Why would I do that?
As soon as we figure out what intelligence is, I will quit mocking those who believe they posses it.

[Godstud]

You dismiss something outright before you even watch it. I even made it easy by telling you where to start watching, so you wouldn't watch the rest, where he lambasted your god emperor Trump. Are your arguments so weak that this is what you have to resort to? Are you so afraid that the GOP has fallen from its once great values, that you choose to stick your head in the sand?

Watch the video. This is an intelligent American who is speaking on something I'd think you'd be interested in. You merely looked at the title, and didn't do anything else, assuming it would be mocking Trump. That's not why I told you to watch at the 9 minute mark.

[One Degree]

You dismiss something outright before you even watch it. I even made it easy by telling you where to start watching, so you wouldn't watch the rest, where he lambasted your god emperor Trump. Are your arguments so weak that this is what you have to resort to? Are you so afraid that the GOP has fallen from its once great values, so you stick your head in the sand?

There are no ‘GOP values’. I am an independent. Remember, I don’t believe in joining groups. The religious right scares me just as much as the lunatic left. I don’t care what his opinions are. They are obviously biased or you would not be posting them.

[Godstud]

Biased, how? Your argument is childish. Are you afraid you might learn something?

Bruce Heyman is hardly an idiot by any stretch of the imagination. I'm pretty sure the USA doesn't hire idiots to be Ambassadors to other countries, particularly to one of their most valued trading partners, and ally.

I suppose you can just dismiss anything that doesn't conform to your predetermined bias, and you appear to not want to argue anything, just have people agree with your myopic childish views.

Trump has moved the GOP away from their core values. He has not restored anything.

[One Degree]

Biased, how? Your argument is childish. Are you afraid you might learn something?

Bruce Heyman is hardly an idiot by any stretch of the imagination. I'm pretty sure the USA doesn't hire idiots to be Ambassadors to other countries, particularly to one of their most valued trading partners, and ally.

I suppose you can just dismiss anything that doesn't conform to your predetermined bias, and you appear to not want to argue anything, just have people agree with your myopic childish views.

Trump has moved the GOP away from their core values. He has not restored anything.

Yeah, I am pretty sure some idiots are given ambassadorships. Yes, I dismiss things that are fallacious. What exactly are GOP ‘core values’ in your opinion? Your own arguments are childish for being based upon Trump being a Republican. His opinion and yours are based upon an erroneous premise. We want Trump to challenge the traditional GOP.

[Godstud]

You have absolutely no evidence that anything Heyman said was fallacious, as you never even watched it. Your argument is vacuous.

trump is leader of the GOP. It'd be hard not to include him. They are based on what the GOP is doing with Trump at the head. GOP is right behind Trump, all the way.

Trump isn't challenging the traditional GOP, he's destroying its core values. Is that what you wanted? Fuck family values? Fuck fiscal responsibility? Fuck tradition? That doesn't sound very Republican.

Trump’s False Conservatism and the Implosion of the Republican Party in America
Donald Trump has contradicted the conservative affirmation of morality and its support for the traditional American institutions. He remains a true reactionary, not a conservative, who would turn back the clock to a xenophobic nationalism that is no longer viable.

Trump: a Fake Conservative

Conservatives profess reverence for the time-tested institutions that have sustained America’s free and stable republic for more than two centuries. The Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal notes in its mission statement that dating back to their eighteenth century intellectual godfather, Edmund Burke, conservatives have respected “the accumulated wisdom within existing institutions.”

Yet Trump has been a one-man wrecking crew for America’s most precious institutions. He has attacked without basis the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the American intelligence agencies. He has demeaned federal judges for daring to question his unilateral decrees. When Federal Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, temporarily halted Trump’s now defunct first travel ban, Trump called him a “so-called judge,” said he had made a “ridiculous: and “terrible decision” that essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country.” As a result of Judge Robart’s decision, Trump warned, “many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country.

Trump has relentlessly assaulted the free press. Although not a formal branch of government, the press has long stood as a necessary pillar of American freedom and democracy. Thomas Jefferson said, “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” “Attacks on the press by Donald Trump as enemies of the people [are] more treacherous than Nixon’s,” concluded Carl Bernstein. Along with Bob Woodward, Bernstein was one of the two reporters who broke the story of Nixon’s Watergate scandal. Republican senator John McCain of Arizona said that the suppression of the free press is “how dictators get started,” and “if you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free—and many times adversarial—press.”

Conservatives have been careful to insist that they are not reactionaries seeking to turn back the clock to some earlier time. Conservative commentator Jennifer Rubin explained that, “A reactionary is one who seeks to return to a previous state of affairs. It is not a conservative outlook, which in the Burkean sense looks to people as they are, prefers modest over the radical solutions and builds on the existing morals and habits of the society.”

Donald Trump, however, is a reactionary, who would revert the United States to an era of xenophobic nationalism, a vision shared by the most backward-looking of Americans, the neo-Nazis and the white supremacists. Like Trump, these reactionaries yearn for a return to an America dominated by white men and guided by a narrow conception of traditional culture, an America insulated from the world by tariff walls, restrictive immigration quotas, and isolationist policies. “We are determined to take our country back,” announced David Duke from the far-right rally August 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia. “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump.”
http://studies.aljazeera.net/en/reports ... 15539.html

[One Degree]

Thanks @Godstud . That gave me some good laughs. Conservatives portrayed as representing 18th century values that Trump is destroying. Trump is ‘realism’ confronting this type of reasoning based upon outdated idealistic concepts. All you demonstrated was either a total ignorance of current populism or a deliberate ignorance so you can attack an imaginary foe instead of the real one you have no arguments that hold up. This seems to be the DNC’s battle plan. They have no policies to confront Trump with, so they invent an imaginary Trump and conservatives to battle. This is why your arguments are limited to ‘Nazis’ and ‘racists’.

[Crantag]

One Degree, you are the forum's top idealist, in actuality.

You even have your fantasy in your sig, from which you apparently derive your username. Well and good; but then you use this fantasy to construct arguments, frequently. That is idealism through and through.

At the same time, you constantly contrive arguments which are based not in critical thought, but rather which are plainly and transparently molded to support whatever it is Trump is doing. Therefore, you are a sycophant, to boot.

Finally, you have a vitriolic hatred of political liberalism, which is one of the cornerstones of your personal ideology. That is why you bring up idealism now, as it is something political liberals are often associated with (and with some justification). Fine and well; but your reasoning is not pure, but is rather grounded in spite. At the same time, as I have pointed out, you are yourself an idealist of a different brand. Therefore, you are intellectually inconsistent and hypocritical.

[Hong Wu]

^^ This is like, three or four strawmen layered on top of each other. If his arguments are idealism etc. they should be fairly easy to deconstruct but instead you're using a bunch of labels.

Regarding Trump not being completely conservative, that's exactly why he's so great at embarrassing certain kinds of liberals.

Perhaps classic liberalism is considered reactionary now by some leftists?

[Crantag]

^^ This is like, three or four strawmen layered on top of each other. If his arguments are idealism etc. they should be fairly easy to deconstruct but instead you're using a bunch of labels.

No, I'm afraid it isn't. I explained the reasoning in a pretty straightforward manner, in fact. Maybe you could fairly easily deconstruct my arguments, otherwise.

I didn't merely use a bunch of labels. I used words which have meaning based on what these words mean.

[One Degree]

One Degree, you are the forum's top idealist, in actuality.

Thank you for the compliment. Without the idealist, change would not happen.

You even have your fantasy in your sig, from which you apparently derive your username. Well and good; but then you use this fantasy to construct arguments, frequently. That is idealism through and through.

The fantasy is believing my view is a fantasy. As I have pointed out many times, I am only offering structure for what is already happening. People will have autonomy.

At the same time, you constantly contrive arguments which are based not in critical thought, but rather which are plainly and transparently molded to support whatever it is Trump is doing. Therefore, you are a sycophant, to boot.

Some of the arguments may be contrived but not due to being a synchopant. I support ‘paths’. The path of liberal globalism is an abomination I choose to fight by any means.

Finally, you have a vitriolic hatred of political liberalism, which is one of the cornerstones of your personal ideology. That is why you bring up idealism now, as it is something political liberals are often associated with (and with some justification). Fine and well; but your reasoning is not pure, but is rather grounded in spite. At the same time, as I have pointed out, you are yourself an idealist of a different brand. Therefore, you are intellectually inconsistent and hypocritical.

Wrong again. I have an aversion to all self righteousness that assumes moral superiority over others. I accept all political ideologies that are willing to place limits on who they should apply to.

All you have actually said is my refusal to support one of many ideologies that profess they are the right ideology is being idealistic and unrealistic. The domination of the right ideology has been refuted throughout history, but I am unrealistic because I see the absurdity of pursuing the same path over and over again that leads to violence and death? You advocate continuous conflict and proven failure as ‘realistic’.
I will choose to be an idealist rather than support your view of ‘realistic’.

[Hong Wu]

One Degree, you are the forum's top idealist, in actuality.

You even have your fantasy in your sig, from which you apparently derive your username. Well and good; but then you use this fantasy to construct arguments, frequently. That is idealism through and through.

At the same time, you constantly contrive arguments which are based not in critical thought, but rather which are plainly and transparently molded to support whatever it is Trump is doing. Therefore, you are a sycophant, to boot.

Finally, you have a vitriolic hatred of political liberalism, which is one of the cornerstones of your personal ideology. That is why you bring up idealism now, as it is something political liberals are often associated with (and with some justification). Fine and well; but your reasoning is not pure, but is rather grounded in spite. At the same time, as I have pointed out, you are yourself an idealist of a different brand. Therefore, you are intellectually inconsistent and hypocritical.

OK since you asked.

The first label you used is "idealism". He's pretty specific about what his ideal is (that "one degree" thing), so you could have delved into that and criticized it specifically but you didn't. You just called it idealism and dismissed it. This is what we call using a label. To be fair, I don't think it's a very good idea either because different places have better geography, natural resources and so on... but if you see what I did there, I was just specific, the thing you claim you had been doing.

Second, you said that he always supports Trump and that makes him a sycophant. This is another label. Literally anyone can call anyone else a sycophant if they support someone. Proving something like that is another matter

Third, you said that liberalism is a cornerstone of his political ideology (which appears to be the one degree thing, which has nothing on its face to do with liberalism) but you didn't explain how/why that is. The only connection you made was that liberals are idealistic and you said he's idealistic, therefore he's now a liberal, which is a basic association fallacy.

Fourth, you said he's acting out of spite but give no explanation for this, aside from the previous presumptions that he's an idealist, although I'm not sure that acting out of idealism and acting out of spite are necessarily the same thing to begin with.

So by the time we reach your conclusion there appear to be four straw man arguments based upon labels.