***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[RustyShackleford]

Fam, "stop talking about" and "shut up about" are synonymous, so whatever.

As far as our back and forths, I'm sorry you feel that way. I like to think I engage folks in whatever they say and go from there. If I put words in you or anyone else's mouth or attribute to someone something they don't believe in, that is never my intention. So I don't come in here on some "What liberals don't understand is..." or "One thing I can't stand about liberals is..." I don't expect you or anyone else to answer for what anyone else says or does, so I don't use those categorical descriptors that people in here may fall under the umbrella of.

You, on the other hand, do that very thing when it comes to deriding leftists, Bernie bros, Bernie supporters, etc. Then you throw up your hands and say "I wasn't talking about you, specifically" and act as if myself and others are being ridiculous when we push back on attacks on broad categories with which we identify. So I really don't understand you trying to make yourself out as some kind of victim here.

-So now the Dwalk defense. Either way you are making **** up about my position or what I said today to kick this off.

Again, this is what I said you had an issue with...

M4A, as it is currently proposed is not happening anytime in the near future.

There is zero chance. People need to stop acting like there is.

It had nothing to do with calling M4A impossible, or telling anyone to stop talking about it.

-You kinda act like I have to answer for other liberals. You routinely bring up all these arguments you have issues with, and when I point out I didn't make those arguments, you tell me others made them. Yet you seem to want to always address your objection to said arguments with me. I am up for debate, but I am not gonna answer for something I didn't say. I am not acting like a victim, it just gets annoying having to do the same song and dance over and over.

Even now, you can claim I am just playing victim but I also provided a long detailed post explaining my position. Did I not?

-Bull**** . I usually make a general post, or say something to Rex, and say something about some leftist/Bernie Bros/ supporters. You, Rex or someone else flip out and quote me acting like I called you all out or included you guys in the slander, so I have to say I didn't. I routinely qualify my post by using "some" and saying Bernie Bros=/=Bernie Supporters, but you guys still have an issue. I spell out who I am taking aim at. You quote or subtweet me and act like I said something or hold some position, when I don't. So there is a difference.

In this exchange I said something, you misrepresented what I said, then I called you out on it. Then you include others in mix and say I within the many post I made in the past 6 months, there maybe a couple in there that fit with what you are describing. You say you are responding to attacks and arguments, but can't even show I made them. You can't see how that gets annoying if it is something I have to routinely deal with. I don't I am playing victim, because I always game to return the same energy someone is giving me, so it is whatever. Just pointing out that I have be the avatar for every liberal online you have an issue with.

 

[IATT]

dwalk31

 

[-Red-]

-So now the Dwalk defense. Either way you are making **** up about my position or what I said today to kick this off.

Again, this is what I said you had an issue with...


It had nothing to do with calling M4A impossible, or telling anyone to stop talking about it.

-You kinda act like I have to answer for other liberals. You routinely quote me and point out all these arguments you have issues with, and when I point out I didn't make those arguments, you tell me others made them. Yet you seem to want to always address your objection to said arguments with me. I am up for debate, but I am not gonna answer for something I didn't say. I am not acting like a victim, it just gets annoying having to do the same song and dance over and over.

Even now, you can claim I am just playing victim but I also provided a long detailed post explaining my position. Did I not?

-Bull****. I usually make a general post, or say something to Rex, and say something about some leftist/Bernie Bros/ supporters. You, Rex or someone else flip out and quote me acting like I called you all out or included you guys in the slander, so I have to say I didn't. I routinely qualify my post by using "some" and saying Bernie Bros=/=Bernie Supporters, but you guys still have an issue. I spell out who I am taking aim at. You quote or subtweet me and act like I said something or hold some position, when I don't. So there is a difference.

In this exchange I said something, you misrepresented what I said, then I called you out on it. Then you include others in mix and say I within the many post I made in the past 6 months, there maybe a couple in there that fit with what you are describing. You say you are responding to attacks and arguments, but can't even show I made them. You can't see how that gets annoying if it is something I have to routinely deal with. Like I gotta be the Avatar for every liberal online you have an issue with.

I stated a handful of posts ago that if you hadn't said something like what I was attributing to you I'd drop it. You said you probably had. And I was still willing to drop it, especially since you pointed out that wasn't what you said that kicked this exchange off. You are justified in pointing that out, and I will admit responding to a point you were not making in this exchange. If that is part of a broader pattern from me, I'm certainly not cognizant of it but apologize nonetheless and will try to be more vigilant.

On the other hand, if I came in here routinely bashing "these liberals," "some Warren supporters," "many Democrats," etc. I doubt you'd feel as though you had no basis for responding to any such comments. But that is mostly conjecture, I concede, since I don't do that.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I would think you were talking about some group of people, not me.

I insult a wide variety of of people on the left. From ****ty centrist to ****ty liberals to ****ty leftist. The Bernie supporters in here are the only ones that act like I am talking about them.

Furthermore, I also think that given my post history it is clear I have no problem telling a specific poster what I think about them. So I don't know why you keep thinking I am sneak dissing. If I disliked you, or want to slander you, I would say it to you directly. I mean I tell Dwalk he is trash directly.

I don't do that, because we famb, and I don't have an issue with you like that.

Hell if every leftist I met was like you, I would probably be one too.

 

[-Red-]

**** it fam

 

[-Red-]

I would think you were talking about some group of people, not me.

I insult a wide variety of of people on the left. From ****ty centrist to ****ty liberals to ****ty leftist. The Bernie supporters are the only one that act like I am talking about them.

Furthermore, I also think that given my post history it is clear I have no problem telling a specific poster what I think about them. So I don't know why you keep thinking I am sneak dissing. If I disliked you, or want to slander you, I would say it to you directly.

I don't do that, because we famb, and I don't have an issue with you like that.

Hell if every leftist I met was like you, I would probably be one too.

I wanna be clear, too. I've got major love for you and the NT fam. If I didn't I wouldn't be in here. This is the only message board I'm a part of. I have a Facebook that I rarely ever use, and I don't have any other social media. This is it for me as far as online discussion, and I appreciate the discourse and insights I get from my brethren in here, even when we don't see exactly eye-to-eye.

If you or anyone else ever in STL, let me know and we can grab some drinks and kick it

 

[obeahmyal7]

I wanna be clear, too. I've got major love for you and the NT fam. If I didn't I wouldn't be in here. This is the only message board I'm a part of. I have a Facebook that I rarely ever use, and I don't have any other social media. This is it for me as far as online discussion, and I appreciate the discourse and insights I get from my brethren in here, even when we don't see exactly eye-to-eye.

If you or anyone else ever in STL, let me know and we can grab some drinks and kick it

Look at all this damn solidarity. Respect to you both.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I wanna be clear, too. I've got major love for you and the NT fam. If I didn't I wouldn't be in here. This is the only message board I'm a part of. I have a Facebook that I rarely ever use, and I don't have any other social media. This is it for me as far as online discussion, and I appreciate the discourse and insights I get from my brethren in here, even when we don't see exactly eye-to-eye.

If you or anyone else ever in STL, let me know and we can grab some drinks and kick it

Sounds like a plan...

 

[dragicon]

dwalk31

why would they even lie about this? They are so incompetent.

 

[IATT]

why would they even lie about this? They are so incompetent.

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[Belgium]

...But it didn’t snow in DC though.
At least this time, a falsified weather report to support the falsehood wasn’t included.
I guess there’s a big snowflake in the Oval Office but that’s been the case for a few years now.

 

[$tatus $ymbol]

Obviously code for snowfall in the Oval Office right now.

 

[Belgium]

To your last point, I think they are very much mutually exclusive at this point in the process. This is the time when you lay out your political vision and try to build public support for it. It is not the time to equivocate or negotiate—unless you don't really have the moral conviction of your vision. Then I suppose equivocating and negotiating at this stage is no big deal.

I’m not really following on how these things are mutually exclusive.

Warren has been pushing M4A since early on in the campaign and has said she will fight for it.
I disagreed with Rusty earlier when he said he saw it as a mistake that Warren signed up to push M4A from early on. I disagreed because I vaguely recalled a poll showing pretty M4A was pretty popular amongst Democrats, though I might have been wrong. A second reason I disagreed is that I believe every campaign needs a good dose of idealism.
Having a plan B is exactly what it sounds like; a contingency plan in case plan A is unworkable.


Let me illustrate my point about mutual exclusivity with the following example.
When you sell something valuable, you generally set up 2 price options. The non-public ‘real’ price you’re looking to get at minimum and the significantly higher price you demand publicly. Not too high that it turns off the customers but high enough to still be overcharging them when they think they successfully haggled down the price. Ideally the non-public price never enters the eventual negotiations.
It is simply an option to fall back to if necessary, one that is still a successful deal.

Does having those 2 options mean you’re not committed to fighting for the best price?

I probably didn’t pick the greatest example but it’s what came to mind. I’m sure the logic can be applied to plenty of other scenarios to illustrate the point I wanted to make.

Shoot for the stars but work out contingency plans in case you have to settle for the moon in spite of your best efforts.

 

[aepps20]

I wanna be clear, too. I've got major love for you and the NT fam. If I didn't I wouldn't be in here. This is the only message board I'm a part of. I have a Facebook that I rarely ever use, and I don't have any other social media. This is it for me as far as online discussion, and I appreciate the discourse and insights I get from my brethren in here, even when we don't see exactly eye-to-eye.

If you or anyone else ever in STL, let me know and we can grab some drinks and kick it

I want to be clear that when we meet up no liberal conjecture and innuendo.

 

[IATT]

 

[Sharpshoeter13]

I want to be clear that when we meet up no liberal conjecture and innuendo.

... only smash mouth politics

 

[-Red-]

I’m not really following on how these things are mutually exclusive.

Warren has been pushing M4A since early on in the campaign and has said she will fight for it.
I disagreed with Rusty earlier when he said he saw it as a mistake that Warren signed up to push M4A from early on. I disagreed because I vaguely recalled a poll showing pretty M4A was pretty popular amongst Democrats, though I might have been wrong. A second reason I disagreed is that I believe every campaign needs a good dose of idealism.
Having a plan B is exactly what it sounds like; a contingency plan in case plan A is unworkable.


Let me illustrate my point about mutual exclusivity with the following example.
When you sell something valuable, you generally set up 2 price options. The non-public ‘real’ price you’re looking to get at minimum and the significantly higher price you demand publicly. Not too high that it turns off the customers but high enough to still be overcharging them when they think they successfully haggled down the price. Ideally the non-public price never enters the eventual negotiations.
It is simply an option to fall back to if necessary, one that is still a successful deal.

Does having those 2 options mean you’re not committed to fighting for the best price?

I probably didn’t pick the greatest example but it’s what came to mind. I’m sure the logic can be applied to plenty of other scenarios to illustrate the point I wanted to make.

Shoot for the stars but work out contingency plans in case you have to settle for the moon in spite of your best efforts.

So to use your analogy, why would you throw out the lower price that you don't want but could live with long before negotiations have even begun? You're just willingly undermining your own position.

 

[IATT]

 

[whywesteppin]

who is this Sander he speaks of? Adam Sandler maybe?

 

[Belgium]

So to use your analogy, why would you throw out the lower price that you don't want but could live with long before negotiations have even begun? You're just willingly undermining your own position.

My apologies, it's not entirely comparable with the M4A matter. Specifically because in this example, the non-public price is something you don't want your customer to know. In the M4A case, the next best option is something you can disclose.

I'll simplify the point I wanted to make:
I do not believe there is a mutual exclusivity between fighting for the best possible ideal and keeping your options open in case that best option is unobtainable.

 

[Belgium]

Completely unrelated but by the way, Belgium is now already up to 232 days without a functioning federal government since the election in May.

We're still far away from beating the current Guinness World Record of 541 days.
That record is currently held by

Spoiler

Belgium

 

[IATT]

 

[Present]

 

[sonoftony]

Corporate Corey out the race