Trump Becomes "Lava Level Mad"

[Darth Wedgius]

GreyICE, did you know that caps-lock does not make you honest? I know, I was surprised too! I kept thinking, "Why does Wonder Woman have that lasso? Doesn't she know about caps-lock?"

But, well, here we are. Tell me how saying most Republicans believing in climate change makes me a liar when most Republicans believe in climate change.

Answer my question with a real, logical answer, without moving any goalposts, and I'll be happy to answer yours.

[Captain Crimson]

That's too many people to be wrong? That's your tack? Do you remember how many people fought for the confederacy in the civil war?

As I've said elsewhere, I think the reason so many people latch to Mr. 45 is not they're "evil" or collectively guilty like you might be inclined toward thinking. It is that he gives them license to feel ANGRY. It's okay to be angry. He points the finger in all the wrong places, but at the same time, there is a lot of pain, injustice, suffering, and inequality out there. I know it's hypocrisy since he's one of the top richest movers and shakers in our society, but at the same time, people actually are more simplistic in a group than you might think. They just wanna be given the right to be angry, or given cause to hope.

[GreyICE]

GreyICE, did you know that caps-lock does not make you honest? I know, I was surprised too! I kept thinking, "Why does Wonder Woman have that lasso? Doesn't she know about caps-lock?"

But, well, here we are. Tell me how saying most Republicans believing in climate change makes me a liar when most Republicans believe in climate change.

Answer my question with a real, logical answer, without moving any goalposts, and I'll be happy to answer yours.

Oh come off it, you lying sack of shit. I've been asking this question the entire time, and you've never given me a straight answer.

I've told you repeatedly the answer to my question. You can find it in many of my posts. But, of course, you haven't read it. Why? You're fucking retarded. I told you many times that "oh it's happening but humans didn't cause it" is also denying science. And you have blatantly ignored that. I thought it was because you were doing it as a tactic, but I come to realize you're too fucking stupid to answer a question.

WHAT PERCENTAGE DO HUMANS CONTRIBUTE TO IT? GIVE ME A BALLPARK

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

That's too many people to be wrong? That's your tack? Do you remember how many people fought for the confederacy in the civil war?

As I've said elsewhere, I think the reason so many people latch to Mr. 45 is not they're "evil" or collectively guilty like you might be inclined toward thinking.

You haven't addressed anything I've said. Answer me. Respond to what I say instead of repeating your own talking points.

[Captain Crimson]

That's too many people to be wrong? That's your tack? Do you remember how many people fought for the confederacy in the civil war?

As I've said elsewhere, I think the reason so many people latch to Mr. 45 is not they're "evil" or collectively guilty like you might be inclined toward thinking.

You haven't addressed anything I've said. Answer me. Respond to what I say instead of repeating your own talking points.

Then answer me this. Do you consider a vote for Mr. 45 to be a mark of guilt? Answer me straight. No shifting the goal posts, redirection, or deflection. Do you believe that?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Yep. It fucking is.

Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.
That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore.
― A.R. Moxon

Now are YOU going to finally answer ME? Or are you gonna keep redirecting and shifting and evading, Mr. Projectionist?

[Captain Crimson]

Yep. It fucking is.

Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.
That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore.
― A.R. Moxon

Now are YOU going to finally answer ME? Or are you gonna keep redirecting and shifting and evading, Mr. Projectionist?

I always knew Godwin's Law was going to enter into this equation at some point or another, and I see I wasn't disappointed. It's so ironic that you claim to want to champion progressive values and save the country (and the world), or so you say, when you don't seem to care about a quarter of it anyway.

The question, which we have gotten off-topic to, is this. You plainly compromise on political views the same way everyone else does. So I want to tell you this right now. There is no way Mr. Sanders, a candidate you've supported unflinchingly, would've been able to seriously accomplish half of what he was promising. Not only do all candidates sell to their voters high promises that never pan out, but he also alienates his natural alliances. This has been noted over and over by others in Congress during his tenure and most recent presidential bid. He will not compromise on healthcare and college debts, yet Mr. Sanders will compromise on women's issues.

You've accused me of being no friend to women's issues, yet you support a candidate who went into crackpot essay ramblings in the seventies regarding drugs, cancer, and opinions on women's health in relation to economics which are at odds to reality? How is that fundamentally any different compared to Mr. Biden, who also opposed Roe V Wade, yet you still intend to vote for? How does that work? For someone who boasts "actions speak louder than words," that could also be turned around on you.

It seems as if you're judging someone else's orthodoxy and dogmatic opinions while refusing to see your own staring you in the face. Those people who voted for Mr. 45 made a choice on what political issues to compromise on, and you're doing the same thing. Doesn't mean they disliked all those other political issues, even when confronted with people on this messageboard you might think are walking avatars to the other side. It merely amounts to the fact they think other concerns are more pressing. Which is a totally valid way to think. Do you, for example, believe we should compromise on women's healthcare issues and a dedication to try and combat assault or harassment? Because your support of these candidates directly contradict that view. That was why I'd linked that clip. It's entirely relevant that you've devolved into "my side, your side, my side, your side, my side, your side!"

[Darth Wedgius]

GreyICE, did you know that caps-lock does not make you honest? I know, I was surprised too! I kept thinking, "Why does Wonder Woman have that lasso? Doesn't she know about caps-lock?"

But, well, here we are. Tell me how saying most Republicans believing in climate change makes me a liar when most Republicans believe in climate change.

Answer my question with a real, logical answer, without moving any goalposts, and I'll be happy to answer yours.

Oh come off it, you lying sack of shit. I've been asking this question the entire time, and you've never given me a straight answer.

I've told you repeatedly the answer to my question. You can find it in many of my posts. But, of course, you haven't read it. Why? You're fucking retarded. I told you many times that "oh it's happening but humans didn't cause it" is also denying science. And you have blatantly ignored that. I thought it was because you were doing it as a tactic, but I come to realize you're too fucking stupid to answer a question.

WHAT PERCENTAGE DO HUMANS CONTRIBUTE TO IT? GIVE ME A BALLPARK

OK, so you won't be honest. I've given you more than a fair chance. I see no further reason to waste more time trying to argue with someone so untrustworthy.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

It's not Godwin's law when one party has actual nazis and nazi apologists.

Alright, I make some compromises on some issues. I'm still going to criticize the candidates on my side.

What are these hypothetical good people who voted for 45 compromising for? I am willing to compromise to vote for a mixed bag candidate with good and bad traits, good and bad policies, if I think there are more good than bad.

If this president isn't all bad, then the amount of good in him is less than the percentage of rodent hair allowed by FDA in the average ballpark hot dog. On every level, from his platform and his rhetoric to the things he does in dressing rooms or the way he eats his food, he is fundamentally execrable and loathsome.

I'm not foreign to the concept of sacrificing things for the greater good. All I see here is lesser evils for the sake of an even bigger evil.

[Captain Crimson]

It's not Godwin's law when one party has actual nazis and nazi apologists.

It's Godwin's Law because the myth of collectively guilty victims of an authoritarian police state dictatorship has already been played out. I cannot, for the life of me, see how people still cling to that other than, perhaps, we feel deeply uncomfortable with the idea since it's an all-too prescient reminder how to easily it could overtake all our societies. And it is probably the exact same reason that we got Holocaust denial, which is just facepalming.

Alright, I make some compromises on some issues. I'm still going to criticize the candidates on my side.

What are these hypothetical good people who voted for 45 compromising for? I am willing to compromise to vote for a mixed bag candidate with good and bad traits, good and bad policies, if I think there are more good than bad.

That's the point. I literally cannot speak to the motivations of sixty million people. I could speculate. I'd suspect it has to do with the anarchistic popularity which has recently surged through the country. As it's extremely telling when the radically divergent camps of Ms. Clinton, Mr. Sanders, and Mr. 45 all agree that they don't trust the media. That is a VERY bad omen indeed, or a flawed methodology that backs up the first point in the end anyway.

If this president isn't all bad, then the amount of good in him is less than the percentage of rodent hair allowed by FDA in the average ballpark hot dog. On every level, from his platform and his rhetoric to the things he does in dressing rooms or the way he eats his food, he is fundamentally execrable and loathsome.

I don't think he's a good person. He's a bully and a blowhard. He's an a$%^&*@ who was let into a position of power he never belonged in. And he's arguably a monster. But the world is full of them. I just happen to agree with him on a few issues, and that's the limit, and yet even if you were to admit that near other people you'd get labeled a KKK bigot. It's probably why most of his voters keep silent, and it's that unknown factor which throws the polling methodology out of whack.

I'm not foreign to the concept of sacrificing things for the greater good. All I see here is lesser evils for the sake of an even bigger evil.

It's only temporary, though. Four years, eight years? Change is so slow, I don't think most truly comprehend just what is required for actual meaningful change. Since we're still paying for the effects of radical social upheavals done decades or centuries ago. Marginally better just means how it's more of the same old, same old. It's why you gotta try and play the long game, but both sides just don't have the patience for it. We want instant results. The only way you get that is with revolution, which is as equally undesirable with how much blood, bodies, burned buildings, and shattered souls they invariably always leave in their wake.