ActualCornHusker

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

NO, every time someone tries to have a conversation about something you say, you're response is...."I'm not interested in talking about that".  Kind of your MO.

I think you're reading what you want to read instead of what I'm typing. Kind of your MO.

I know what you're referring to though - yesterday when I said something along the lines of "I don't really feel like wasting my evening discussing this" perhaps it meant I wanted to spend the evening with my wife rather than try to have a pointless debate that won't make one iota of difference anyways - not that I was avoiding the debate because I'm being inauthentic or something...

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

You can do all sorts of "he said/she said" accounts of Donald Trump's (at best) improper behavior.

 

Or you can just read his autobiography, listen to him brag on Howard Stern, say creepy things on The View, or confess his harassment MO to Billy Bush, thinking he'd impress the kid. 

 

His crude, entitled behavior is pretty far down my list for his awfulness as President, but it's by no means a creation of the media. 

Nobody is defending Trump's personal baggage here. You're reading what you want to read so you can claim that people who don't agree with your views lock-step are evil so you don't have to have a genuine conversation. It's what the left does every time.

12 minutes ago, commando said:

and you support MTG?     wow.  i've seen enough to make a conclusion about you and your views.

WTF are you talking about?

11 minutes ago, BIG ERN said:

I agree IF we stay healthy. Without Teddy and Turner (I'm sure they will be back and fine) we would be horrible. 

I agree, as we saw in the spring game. Nelson and Tannor wrecked our tackles with those guys out.

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

That's laughable and straight from right wing propaganda.

 

You're right....if you're just going to regurgitate their talking points without an explanation, the conversation is meaningless.

There are literal VIDEOS of officers welcoming people into the Capitol building.... And a federal judge agreed on that point...

Quote

McFadden said it was reasonable for Martin to believe that outnumbered police officers allowed him and others to enter the Capitol through the Rotunda doors on Jan. 6, 2021.

LINK

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

But by all means, keep going. I've long been wondering what kind of person is willing to go on record defending Marjorie Taylor Greene, and there you are. 

I refuse to stand in line with ANY politician, so not sure what you're talking about. I'll acknowledge when ANY politician does something I like and criticize them when they do something that I view as contrary to the interest of Americans. You should try it

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

Please explain.

How about instead I propose this:

You acknowledge that the FBI, Capitol Police, and Pelosi set up the EXACT circumstances that would allow what happened to happen, then provoked the incident and invited protestors into the building - people who are now being held in solitary and having their civil rights violated

And then I'll place blame on Trump for it.

If that's not an admission you'll make, there's no point in even talking about it because your perception of the event has been saturated by leftist garbage talking points.

11 minutes ago, Toe said:

Do we seriously not have any other/better options for O-linemen than a Cavanaugh reject?

I am probably in the minority here, but I'm far more concerned about DL than OL. I thought DL was thin but had potential to be decent, but once Rogers hit the portal, I flipped to the urgent side on that one.

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Circling back on this.  So....you blame everyone but the people who had fed these people lies about a stolen election for months, organized it, spoke at the rally and told them to march to the capital and fight.

Not what I said, and your characterization on multiple points skews reality.

2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Oooops. Bad analysis. You just lost your brief credibility.

Oh no... LOL

46 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Are you saying January 6th didn’t happen?  Or, there was one similar or worse in 2016?

I'm saying the way it's been characterized in the press is nowhere close to reality... To be clear, anybody who assaulted or killed someone that day should be held accountable, including the cop that shot the unarmed girl, I forget her name. 

If those people actually wanted to overturn the election and were serious about it, they would have brought weapons. Most of them were just dummies that walked right into a trap that Democrats, the FBI, and even some Republicans such as the turtle wanted them to fall into so they could use it as political leverage for the next 4 years. 

The main error those people made was thinking that the Capitol is the people's house. It's not. It's the criminals lair.

10 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Oh I don't disagree with that. I'm just saying Donald Trump never had an original idea of his own, or a replacement policy to offer the people. You just told him what his enemy did and he would do the opposite. Plenty of those policies were perfectly reasonable and would have had Republican support back in that simpler time when America was Great. 

 

I guess Trump's most original idea was Build The Wall!, a proposal that was 98% symbolic and did not adhere to any known cost/benefit ratio. Republicans used to hate that kind of Big Governement/Social Engineering boondoggle, but this one came with the kind of anti-immigrant sentiment that has long led empires down a really bad path. 

 

I don't think we can afford to be that stupid, but some folks think it's great fun. 

My explanation would sound similar regarding the excessive spending. It's probably the #1 reason why I didn't vote for him in 2020

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

How much damage was done to the capital during the Hillary insurrection and how many people died?

Once again, I really don't want to spend my evening dispelling this nonsense

3 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

You can put Biden and Trump side by side in both prepared and extemporaneous speeches and Joe is by far the more sentient. But whatever. Corruption and immorality? I personally think Trump and his entire cabinet, entourage and enablers are among the worst in history, but if it's that important to you,  I'll give you a wash. If it's a contest between the creepiest incest story, everyone loses, right? 

 

Now if you look at the policies -- the part that really counts -- Donald Trump's rescinding every Obama era action is based almost entirely on spite. Biden's re-instatement of these policies are what he was elected to do. Funny part is, these are not the policies of the radical left. That's the bait you guys keep swallowing. They are generally middle-of-the-road policies that used to get bipartisan support because they reached down to assist the the lower tiers of society (more voters) without threatening the business class (more money.)  That's really the uni-party of which you speak. 

 

It's an old-school Big Government/Pro Business formula that absolutely plays both sides against the middle, and because it's defined America for about 80 years, it's easy to see why people would vote for Biden -- the closest thing to Obama -- rather than the party willing to set the whole house on fire to settle personal scores while inviting some of the most idiotic, anti-science, anti-evidence, bats#!t conspiracy theorists into the tent.  Last year, they officially became The Base. 

 

I think we're overdue for a disruption of our two-party system, but Donald Trump -- and frankly Ron DeSantis -- mobilizing an ugly, ill-informed, nationalist crowd that now feels entitled to reject any election that doesn't go their way is going to be a different and worse one-party rule. 

Regarding the bolded: You don't feel like that's what Trump was elected to do?.... Basically his entire campaign made it perfectly clear that he was going to get rid of as much Obama policy as possible, and that's what the voters elected him to do... And IMO he didn't do NEAR enough...

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

If Joe loses in 2024 (which we both hope is done by someone better than both Trump or Biden), let's see how Joe reacts.

There's so much here embedded within your last 2 posts that I really don't feel like spending time going back and forth about, so I'll just point this out:

I think it's hilarious how Hillary lost and has claimed ever since that Trump's victory in 2016 was illegitimate, and that complete fabrication was accepted as fact and reported on with glee non-stop for much of the entirety of Trump's presidency, even after it was shown to be BS. 

Then Trump makes a similar claim in 2020 about why he lost, and all of a sudden the corporate media, govt officials, and anti-trumpers are concerned about "disinformation" and "democracy being in peril"

What's MORE hilarious: there were MORE Democrats who objected to certifying MORE states for the 2016 election than Republicans did in 2020. Somehow their concern for "democracy" were irrelevant just 4 years earlier. 

But y'know, facts and feelings and such.... 

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I don't see them as equal.  When Joe does everything Trump has done to tear apart our form of government...then we can talk about being equal.

sheesh...

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

It's the first time I've ever voted for a Democrat for President.  But, Trump and the ilk he ushered into Washington needed to be purged.

I can understand your sentiment about Trump, but to vote for Biden... He's corrupt and immoral in every way they claimed Trump was with hordes of evidence to prove it, and isn't even sentient. That's the part I really do not understand...

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Why would you want him to exit the public arena and never come back if he's so great for policy that you voted for him twice (assuming) and all the other BS that comes with him doesn't matter?

Oh yeah, was just skimming and wanted to authentically reply to this:

The reason Trump should step aside is because the Republican party has a rising leader in Desantis that is wildly popular that is FAR better at politics than Trump, has the fortitude not to be pushed around that the Rep base finds appealing about Trump but does so with tact, and doesn't have the personal baggage that Trump has. But of course 2024 will be another run for Trump's ego...

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm not "arguing" anything.  I'm simply saying that pointing that out (if true) about a person in power of our government, doesn't make someone crazy or...whatever like you're implying about never Trumpers.  

 

That's the attitude I took in the first Trump election against Hillary.  After 4 years of Trump, I couldn't just throw my vote away again.  Sometimes a change needs to be had.

Agree.  But, the two parties will never allow that on the national stage.

Exactly.

Edit to add: On your point about voting for Trump, I was in the same place. But Democrats are utterly unworthy of votes in my view so there was absolutely no way in hell I was checking the box for Biden.

3 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

I voted for Biden because he wasn't Trump, and wasn't as bad as Trump. Outside of that, I'm completely apolitical about the guy other than a general hope for whoever's in the office to not f#&% s#!t up too bad, which I share equally across all Presidents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This will never happen, but here's one interesting way that you could theoretically inject this idea:

 

https://bigthink.com/the-present/malcolm-gladwell/

I actually think Andrew Yang's idea of rank-choice voting would be far better than the system we have now. It could allow a 3rd party (maybe 4th & 5th) to really shake things up.

20 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Fine....I've said I'm not a fan of Biden and hope someone else is President after 2024.  If true, is it bad to be pointing that out?  Or, does that just make people sound like a psychopath?

I'm sorry, I literally have no idea what you're even arguing.

16 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Would it be so bad if politicians had to explain what they intended to do and strongly communicate those ideas instead of how much their opponents don't fit the party?

I'm not sure what the root of your question is - I'd say that happens somewhat right now. Within the 2 parties you have various views on different topics, Yang being the most obvious example. 

14 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Open your mind and look closer. 

 

btw....who did you end up voting for? 

After the debates especially, there was no way I was voting for Trump or Biden, so I checked the box for Jorgensen although I'm not an enormous fan. I just couldn't bring myself to check the box for the "lesser of 2 evils."

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Let me know when Joe incites an insurrection against our government and spends the rest of his time since holding rallies around the country trying to convince everyone of a lie that is tearing apart our political system....then we can talk about that.

Since you're so concerned about personal scandal in politicians, here's a fun one for you. Our depends-wearing president's daughter has excerpts in her diary saying that her father took showers with her that "were probably inappropriate" and that she admits to being sexually abused as a child. You should check that out.

1 minute ago, Enhance said:

That's a great question, but I'm not sure if I have a definitive answer. So I'd be interested in your thoughts as well.

 

I think the average voter and elected officials have the tools to be informed about policies and their impact, but do they use those tools to their advantage? Ehh... that's tough to say. I think back to some of those infamous Congressional hearings regarding Facebook and Google a few years ago. We had elected officials fundamentally misunderstanding even the simplest web analytics concepts despite multiple explanations, and yet they were going to be the ones responsible for determining policy that might impact it? And web analytics is one of my areas of expertise... so it had me thinking... if these people can't even understand the basics of something like that, how in the hell are they going to understand any number of other issues? It was one of the first personal examples of a time where I felt our elected officials had no freaking clue what they were talking about and it was unnerving.

 

Ultimately, though, I tend to have faith in people as a whole. I think we have a lot of capable voters and elected officials. I just think we also have too many people that get caught up in binarism and partisanship... powerful people. And it makes it incredibly difficult to get the honest work done.

 

I have no idea if that was answer .

Yeah I think that's a good example. I also think there are countless examples I could point to where the "unintended consequences" of policy (I use quotations because you could argue in many cases that the politicians are getting the EXACT outcome they wanted or hoped for) completely outweighed any problem that it was trying to solve.

*The best example is the prohibition of marjuana and many of the sentencing laws around other drugs. Do I wish that no one would ever do drugs? Yes. But when the consequence of that policy is that tons of innocent people (which consists heavily of black and brown populations) end up serving long jail sentences when they've not harmed anyone else, that's a horrendous failure in policy.

*TARP & Covid relief - We were told in each of these instances that the world economy was going to collapse if nothing was done, and so we HAD to print trillions of dollars to bail out the banks, airlines, performing arts centers, etc. Then what happened with the money? A HUGE portion of it was used to facilitate corruption and fraud.

Those are just a couple off the top of my head, but you could go back and find countless examples of government setting out to solve a problem but making it worse and wasting billions or trillions of dollars. And do the politicians or bureaucrats ever get hit with the impact of those failures? No, the average American citizen does, and still somehow tens of millions of people become convinced that we should give MORE money to the most corrupt, wasteful, abusive organization in the world because that's somehow virtuous.

So TLDR version is: Government is inherently evil, and the types of people who seek positions of power within the government are almost always the types people you'd LEAST want to have that power. So no, I don't think that politicians, voters, bureaucrats, or the people at the top levels of any agency within government have the mental ability to make major policy decisions that benefit the populace without HORRENDOUS consequences.

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Pardon me....who is "sounding" like a freaking psychopath?

Are you showing an example that I didn't call anyone a name? And even if I had, are you really going to just reply with crocodile tears about it? You're literally not arguing with anyone or making any points - you've devolved into an argument on semantics, and I'm not interested. 

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Maybe you should point out the "freaking psychopath" you're talking about.  Careful...personal attacks are against board rules.

 

Your comments are confusing.

I don't believe I said the word psychopath nor called anyone that - I referred to the psychosis / psychotic rage that possesses never-trumpers - a psychosis that I don't see as a wide-spread problem within Trump loyalists, or at least nowhere near as pervasive.

8 minutes ago, Enhance said:

As a person who also considers themselves detached from either party, I think the only real difference between Republicans and Democrats (as far as statism is concerned) is that Democrats just tend to be more honest about it. Republicans will lurk behind the notion of rugged individualism until being statist benefits their agenda.

 

Ultimately, though, I do agree with you. I think the two party systems need to disappear. Too many people let the parties define their politics rather than their politics define their party. Humans barely agree on anything and yet we're supposed to believe these two parties represent the two largest philosophical segmentations of our country? It's nonsense.

I think your 1st paragraph pretty much nails why both parties are complete and total a$$.

I also agree completely with your 2nd paragraph, but that begs the question: do you feel that the populace at-large, or the people who get elected, are both informed enough to form policy positions on major issues, or intelligent enough to understand the consequences of those decisions (both intended and unintended)?