Isn't Trump, the evidence that America can become Tyrannical at any moment?

[waiguoren]

. OK, I think I'm talking to one of the people who are willing to put aside values in the name of partisanship.

Pruitt and Ross alone would have sunk any previous president.

I don't think you're right about me. I like Trump on immigration, judicial nominations, and trade. I dislike Trump on military spending and family values. I voted for Darrell Castle over Trump.

I haven't dug into many of the allegations against Pruitt or any of the allegations against Ross, so it's possible that I will agree with you on the corruption allegation.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Something about Fascism coming wearing a cross and wrapped in the flag, seems pretty accurate.

Point of order; afaik, the quote you're referring to was never uttered or published.

Sinclair Lewis was the first American author to win the Nobel for literature, for his first five novels including ICHH.
Unappreciated author IMO

 

[Jack V Savage]

I only agree on game theoretical terms.

But oh how tunes would change if "the left" started their own NRA to arm themselves to the teeth against the threat of "right wing extremists."

Yep. Black Panthers showed that in a previous era. Right now, I think people think of any attempts to address the issue as being a call for unilateral disarmament, and it becomes a matter of really passionate partisan controversy, with the right pushed to an extreme that they probably wouldn't be at otherwise (the left seems very divided on the issue, with a strong pro-gun contingent, and a kind of nutty anti-gun contingent that has no sway at the power level but is popular on the entertainment level). If there's a broad understanding that we all love our guns and we all want to limit gun violence (including suicide), we can have a more-productive discussion.

I don't think you're right about me. I like Trump on immigration, judicial nominations, and trade. I dislike Trump on military spending and family values. I voted for Darrell Castle over Trump.

I haven't dug into many of the allegations against Pruitt or any of the allegations against Ross, so it's possible that I will agree with you on the corruption allegation.

His positions on immigration and trade seem comically stupid to me and completely indefensible on rational grounds, and judging by his own comments, they are based on objectively false beliefs. His judicial nominations are bad, but in a way that I'd expect right-wingers to like.

Look into them, but note that my point in bringing them up was precisely that they are relatively under the radar because they are swamped by so much else. Who would have thought a few years ago that we'd see conservatives defending gov't officials spending public money on luxuries or the president owning hotels that foreign dignitaries stay at to curry favor? Or the president flipping on a national security issue after China invested in his project?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Point of order; afaik, the quote you're referring to was never uttered or published.

By Lewis, yeah.

This one is real:

But he saw too that in America the struggle was befogged by the fact that the worst Fascists were they who disowned the word ‘Fascism’ and preached enslavement to Capitalism under the style of Constitutional and Traditional Native American Liberty.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I see it as the opposite. Kids need to be kids and not get involved with stuff like that because invariably they are not doing it based on critical thought and typically they are just following what they think is popular or are being manipulated (most by the left) with appeals to emotion devoid of content and context.

Most of those kids are smarter than the gun loving low IQ rubes from down south.

Why shouldn’t they have a say in this world.

 

[Fawlty]

Yep. Black Panthers showed that in a previous era. Right now, I think people think of any attempts to address the issue as being a call for unilateral disarmament, and it becomes a matter of really passionate partisan controversy, with the right pushed to an extreme that they probably wouldn't be at otherwise (the left seems very divided on the issue, with a strong pro-gun contingent, and a kind of nutty anti-gun contingent that has no sway at the power level but is popular on the entertainment level). If there's a broad understanding that we all love our guns and we all want to limit gun violence (including suicide), we can have a more-productive discussion.

I want to believe this and it may be true. But my issue with that is how that works similarly to an arms race. A faction, in this case probably made of moderates and redneck hippies, would start to catch up with the gun nut right and send our ownership levels way up. That would definitely increase the number of gun homicides and suicides (even if people buy the idea that "legal" guns don't increase murders, legal guns increase "illegal" guns, which does increase murders), which would definitely increase political pressure, which should lead to more defensive propaganda and gun buying (as opposed to the status quo, where people on average have been rejecting gun ownership in response to the rising deaths and the propaganda). This will continue until an equilibrium is found, at which point increased gun ownership will not significantly increase the gun homicide/suicide rate. The only thing that could stop that is if the moderates and redneck hippies change their minds again.

At that point, political division could very well increase. I say that because I think singing Kumbaya around the fire with AKs is not really a thing; it's not going to make us like each other. Political division leads to more gun ownership and then things could get really interesting. I just don't see enough space for upside here, it all seems neutral-to-downside if we join the gun nut right in their bad habit of buying guns to make themselves feel good.

Regardless, in the meantime my guns are where I need them, locked up.

I'm convinced we need to repeal & replace the second amendment, and take the cue from our move toward self defense being an inalienable right. That way the gun is not the thing, and future generations will be able to make the decision to get rid of guns when the time comes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I want to believe this and it may be true. But my issue with that is how that works similarly to an arms race. A faction, in this case probably made of moderates and redneck hippies, would start to catch up with the gun nut right and send our ownership levels way up. That would definitely increase the number of gun homicides and suicides (even if people buy the idea that "legal" guns don't increase murders, legal guns increase "illegal" guns, which does increase murders), which would definitely increase political pressure, which should lead to more defensive propaganda and gun buying (as opposed to the status quo, where people on average have been rejecting gun ownership in response to the rising deaths and the propaganda). This will continue until an equilibrium is found, at which point increased gun ownership will not significantly increase the gun homicide/suicide rate. The only thing that could stop that is if the moderates and redneck hippies change their minds again.

At that point, political division could very well increase. I say that because I think singing Kumbaya around the fire with AKs is not really a thing; it's not going to make us like each other. Political division leads to more gun ownership and then things could get really interesting. I just don't see enough space for upside here, it all seems neutral-to-downside if we join the gun nut right in their bad habit of buying guns to make themselves feel good.

Regardless, in the meantime my guns are where I need them, locked up.

I think that this is possible, too, but I'm more optimistic.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I don't think you're right about me. I like Trump on immigration, judicial nominations, and trade. I dislike Trump on military spending and family values. I voted for Darrell Castle over Trump.

I haven't dug into many of the allegations against Pruitt or any of the allegations against Ross, so it's possible that I will agree with you on the corruption allegation.

It's funny how often we see Trump supporters criticize him or otherwise state that their support for him is limited. And yet it is a matter of faith that support for Trump is monolithic and unwavering or somehow fanatical. It was also quite common to see people who voted for Trump explain their vote negatively: "I didn't want Hillary to win". And now that he's exceeded the low expectations of those who only voted for him because they felt backed into a corner, there's some enthusiasm about him. But not at all like the cult-like being alleged.

There was just a thread about whether conservatives would criticize Trump for his deficit spending, and those that criticized him for deficit spending were castigated for not taking a full blown liberal viewpoint. It was hilarious. And then these knuckleheads want to act as if Trump supporters are the ones being hyper-partisan.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

no....

you have to do tyrannical stuff to be you know considered Tyrannical....

 

[Jack V Savage]

There was just a thread about whether conservatives would criticize Trump for his deficit spending, and those that criticized him for deficit spending were castigated for not taking a full blown liberal viewpoint. It was hilarious. And then these knuckleheads want to act as if Trump supporters are the ones being hyper-partisan.

Wow is that a dishonest characterization. I keep seeing you do stuff like that, and it's kind of fascinating (my expectation is that most people have some kind of inner voice that stops them from that kind of thing).

What I said was that saying "everyone raises the deficit and it's all bad" is not any kind of denunciation, which I think is pretty obviously true. You make no distinction between presidents who actively and effectively fought to reduce deficits and put us on a long-term path to stability and presidents who have been indifferent to deficits and put us on an unsustainable fiscal path. In effect, the kind of indiscriminate and unthinkingly hackish response you gave is supporting higher debt.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Wow is that a dishonest characterization. I keep seeing you do stuff like that, and it's kind of fascinating (my expectation is that most people have some kind of inner voice that stops them from that kind of thing).

What I said was that saying "everyone raises the deficit and it's all bad" is not any kind of denunciation, which I think is pretty obviously true. You make no distinction between presidents who actively and effective fought to reduce deficits and put us on a long-term path to stability and presidents who have been indifferent to deficits and put us on an unsustainable fiscal path. In effect, the kind of indiscriminate and unthinkingly hackish response you gave is supporting higher debt.

Not dishonest at all except in the Jack Savage sense where dishonest means merely disagreeing with Jack. That thread was a call out for conservatives to criticize Trump for deficit spending. I and others did so, but we didn't do so in a way that made Obama's deficit spending seem superior to Trump's, so you characterized it as vapid or intellectually empty.

The reason this is relevant here is that in threads like this people are implying that Trump's supporters are unwavering and unquestioning, but that's only because they aren't criticizing him in liberal terms that narrow partisans like yourself are willing to accept.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not dishonest at all.

How can you say that? Compare the actual thread to your characterization of it.

That thread was a call out for conservatives to criticize Trump for deficit spending. I and others did so, but we didn't do so in a way that made Obama's deficit spending seem superior to Trump's, so you characterized it as vapid or intellectually empty.

Presidents don't control the deficits. But you're saying that a president who spear-headed policies that reduce debt to the point that it was long-term stable is the same as one who spear-headed a policy that drastically increases deficits. Clearly that's a meaningless denunciation.

You can oppose liberal spending priorities or taxation approaches while still acknowledging that Obama and Clinton both successfully promoted policy with the effect of reducing deficits, and you can support right-wing policy while still acknowledging that W and Trump have greatly altered the fiscal-sustainability path for the worse.

The reason this is relevant here is that in threads like this people are implying that Trump's supporters are unwavering and unquestioning, but that's only because they aren't criticizing him in liberal terms that narrow partisans like yourself are willing to accept.

Of course I'm not a partisan at all, and you're only shifting to dumb personal attacks because you have no legitimate point. And, in fact, you provide a perfect example of unquestioning support of Trump with your selective application of your supposed fiscal conservatism. If it's a value you actually hold, you're showing a willingness to ditch it when Trump is in power. That kind of inconsistency and blind tribalism is exactly what the OP is about.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

How can you say that? Compare the actual thread to your characterization of it.

Because it is true. You don't mean anything by dishonest other than to mean you don't like something. It's a debate trick you use when you are on shaky ground; you begin to resort to consistent smears.

Presidents don't control the deficits. But you're saying that a president who spear-headed policies that reduce debt to the point that it was long-term stable is the same as one who spear-headed a policy that drastically increases deficits. Clearly that's a meaningless denunciation.

You can oppose liberal spending priorities or taxation approaches while still acknowledging that Obama and Clinton both successfully promoted policy with the effect of reducing deficits, and you can support right-wing policy while still acknowledging that W and Trump have greatly altered the fiscal-sustainability path for the worse.

So what? I don't have to agree that a president whose tenure saw 10 trillion+ added to our debt did a good job putting us on a path to sustainability in order to criticize Trump meaningfully for deficit spending. Thus my claim, which you dishonestly called dishonest, that you castigated me for criticizing Trump but doing so without fully adhering to a liberal viewpoint. That's what you're doing right here. Do you really lack self-awareness to see it?

Of course I'm not a partisan at all, and you're only shifting to dumb personal attacks because you have no legitimate point. And, in fact, you provide a perfect example of unquestioning support of Trump with your selective application of your supposed fiscal conservatism. If it's a value you actually hold, you're showing a willingness to ditch it when Trump is in power. That kind of inconsistency and blind tribalism is exactly what the OP is about.

I love you Jack, and I admire much of your commentary, but you are the most zealous partisan in the War Room among the major commenters and have been consistently throughout my tenure here. It is ironic in the extreme that you consistently complain that others are being tribal.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Because it is true. You don't mean anything by dishonest other than to mean you don't like something.

You're just lying again. It's pretty amazing (I've never before encountered someone as shamelessly dishonest as you are). Link the thread.

So what? I don't have to agree that a president whose tenure saw 10 trillion+ added to our debt did a good job putting us on a path to sustainability in order to criticize Trump meaningfully for deficit spending. Thus my claim, which you dishonestly called dishonest, that you castigated me for criticizing Trump but doing so without fully adhering to a liberal viewpoint. That's what you're doing right here. Do you really lack self-awareness to see it?

I pointed out to you that acknowledging objective facts about debt doesn't require any viewpoint at all. You can dislike Obama's emphasis on debt reduction or like it for reasons that relate to a liberal viewpoint or for other reasons. The successful attempt to stabilize the debt picture, however, is a matter of fact. And to "denounce" Trump, who has drastically altered the debt picture in the direction of increasing it by saying that everyone is bad reflects an abandonment of your stated opposition to debt increases.

I love you Jack, and I admire much of your commentary, but you are the most zealous partisan in the War Room among the major commenters and have been consistently throughout my tenure here. It is ironic in the extreme that you consistently complain that others are being tribal.

So here we have a concrete example of you abandoning a principle because of partisanship, right? Up until Trump was elected, you opposed debt increases as a matter of some kind of principle, but once your "team" is in the WH, you suddenly stop caring. I could have also cited your defenses of gov't corruption. You will not be able to ever cite an example of me ditching principle like that because I am not a partisan at all.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Most of those kids are smarter than the gun loving low IQ rubes from down south.

Why shouldn’t they have a say in this world.

the less non-informed people voting the better. The vast, vast majority of kids would never take the time to understand the issues and would vote on popularity and emotion. We do not need more of that imo.

 

[TheGreatA]

The United States has always been capable of turning tyrannical at any moment, because of their unshakeable belief in American exceptionalism, and in their position as the last bastion of freedom against hostile, repressive influences.

Other nations defend themselves and their own interests. The U.S. defends, what it believes, are universal interests. Ideals that are divine and universal, rather than practical. That is what makes them potentially the most destructive and tyrannical force on Earth, capable of repressing and destroying all in the name of its own sense of "liberty".

If anyone ever presses the "apocalypse" button, it will be the United States, because it is the only country that may truly convince itself that death and destruction is preferable to submission, in a cult-ish, apocalyptic end-time vision.

You'll continuously see the Russians and the Chinese eat shit in form of U.S. military bases up their ass from every compass point, despite talking up a big game about ultra-patriotism and strong-man leadership, meek shows of strength to satisfy their own populations. You will never, ever see America giving up a single military advantage whatsoever to its adversaries, without risking total annihilation of themselves and their enemies. The United States is founded on a belief of absolute, unchallenged moral superiority over the world's affairs, and if this view every truly, legitimately gets challenged by anyone outside of their submissive proxies, there will be hell to pay.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Im pretty sure theres nothing to worry about.... all the guys with guns told me that if the government ever became tyrannical they would revolt. So I expect them to swoop in to save the day anytime now

I mean theyve got guns, nothing could possibly go wrong could it?

 

[Jack V Savage]

The United States has always been capable of turning tyrannical at any moment, because of their unshakeable belief in American exceptionalism, and in their position as the last bastion of freedom against hostile, repressive influences.

Other nations defend themselves and their own interests. The U.S. defends, what it believes, are universal interests. Ideals that are divine and universal, rather than practical. That is what makes them potentially the most destructive and tyrannical force on Earth, capable of repressing all in the name of its own sense of "liberty".

That's dumb. Belief in knowable objective truth has an anti-tyranny effect because it undermines all claims to authority aside from reason. That's the basis of liberalism, and it's under attack now. A large portion of the country (and a larger portion of this group!) will literally profess to believe anything the right-wing media claims.

 

[MikeMcMann]

...


I love you Jack, and I admire much of your commentary, but you are the most zealous partisan in the War Room among the major commenters and have been consistently throughout my tenure here. It is ironic in the extreme that you consistently complain that others are being tribal.

You and I don't always agree and are not in this thread specifically but on that last point we entirely agree.

It is, and has always been my view that Jack is arguably amongst the most (if not the singular most) partisan poster on this forum. There are guys more loud and nutty in their partisanship but who do not show the true underlying ideological bent that Jack shows across the board. it would be interesting to see a poll on that in the forums but then people would vote along partisan lines and not respond honestly as this is the War Room.

 

[TheGreatA]

That's dumb. Belief in knowable objective truth has an anti-tyranny effect because it undermines all claims to authority aside from reason. That's the basis of liberalism, and it's under attack now. A large portion of the country (and a larger portion of this group!) will literally profess to believe anything the right-wing media claims.

Belief in knowable objective truth can always be suspended in the name of a staunch defense of the people who claim to possess the sole rights to that knowable, objective truth.

The Bible was always put aside by the Crusaders when Christianity needed to be defended against its enemies. The "objective truth" will also be put aside when liberty needs to be defended against its deemed enemies.

We've already seen that.