Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

gtbritishskull

Subscribe to gtbritishskull's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Comments

I guess you'll be pleased with at least yourself as they walk you up the stairs to the gallows.
You're still thinking with a mindset of ensured comfort and a lack of real consequences.
Sorry, but that's not our reality anymore. A smug sense of self satisfaction is going to get people killed.

#40 | POSTED BY JPW

You act like you know what the answer is... how to "win". But you don't. You just think you might know what it is. So you might lose anyways, and have sacrificed your morals and values in the process. Or, we could choose to follow my ideology and might still win without becoming something reprehensible.

If you could say that following your path would succeed with 100% certainty then you might be able to convince me. But you have absolutely no certainty that your path will succeed. For one, because sacrificing your morals and values might win you marginally more Trumpers, but will probably end up depressing the turnout of the people that you would respect for their values and morals, and you don't know whether you will gain more of the deplorables than you lose in people who actually care.

I am all for realism, for working within the constraints of the system and voting for people who can win (though, I would MUCH PREFER a STV system so that you could vote for your morals AND make sure your vote is not wasted). And it is a point that doing the right thing could energize the people that are invested in perpetrating racism and inequality. But berating people for choosing to support the right thing, because you think pandering to people who don't deserve our respect is more likely (but that is only your opinion) to succeed crosses a line for me. If you don't have any real values guiding you (because you are BERATING people for having those values) then what is there to actually keep you off that slippery slope? They also thought pandering to the Nazis (and giving them Austria) would give them the "win". Do you happen to know how that turned out?

Democrats - do you think this well help you win elections and keep fascist from ending the country?
Or will it just make you feel woke while pushing more swing voters to the right?
Is his worth losing democracy over?

#18 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Yes. Very much so. Conservatives sacrifice their values, their morals, and their ethics in order to win elections. I can't even tell you what the "conservative" ideology is anymore because conservatives have shredded it so often when it is convenient (their reaction to "fast and furious" made it clear they think that "guns kill people", governors banning local mask mandates is the opposite of "small government", and let's not even start on their complete lack of any sort of "fiscal responsibility" when they can spend the money on what they want).

But I choose to do the right thing. It is not just for selfish gain, because I want "my guys" to win elections. It is because I think that doing the right thing has value in and of itself, that treating all people with dignity and respect is a worthy goal. You can try to play the fads and populism if you want, ride the tiger just like the Republican party, try to become the next Trump. But I will not support your effort. Regardless of short term consequences, I believe that doing the right thing, being a moral person will win out in the end. I may be naive in that, but I also think that one party needs to differentiate itself by being a moral leader. If that makes you go vote for Trump, that is your choice, and in my mind worth the cost of being true to myself and being able to face myself in the mirror.

Dems are just ticked they couldn't do it and there is no question that if they could they would have.

#5 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Yes there is. You just choose to remain ignorant so you can continue with your "well the people that I support are complete --------, so I will try to convince myself that the people I don't support are -------- too so I don't have to acknowledge that me supporting -------- makes me a ------- as well" schtick.

www.azavea.com

This analysis shows that two states have (or had in 2017) a 3-seat Republican gerrymandering advantage, 3 states have a 2-seat Republican gerrymandering advantage and 13 of the 21 1-seat advantages go to Republicans.

California (a "Dem" state) CHOSE to have an independent redistricting commission to try to ensure that their redistricting process was fair. Texas just makes their redistricting process (and tilt in the favor of conservatives) as unfair as possible.

Just because you, as a conservative, have no morals so would use whatever immoral advantage you had if given the choice, does not mean that everyone else has the same lack. As demonstrated by the fact that liberals have CHOSEN in some of their states to try to be FAIR over trying to get the advantage.

But, you will never believe that, regardless of the facts, because you cannot empathize with or understand someone who is not also self-centered. So you will always believe that there must be a catch, that it is impossible for someone to actually do the right thing for the right reasons when it might also disadvantage them.

#11 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

Lol... the only "logic" that you used was the logical fallacy of "two wrongs make a right" (you are justifying conservatives being hypocrites because you believe that liberals are hypocrites).

And I don't support people burning cities. Neither does Biden, or the majority of liberals. So will just go ahead and knock that strawman down. Anyone who actually engaged in a crime (such as arson) should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But, some people acting badly does not justify infringing on the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of the protesters. So I will support the protesters having the right to assemble peacefully AT THE SAME TIME that I support any ACTUAL rioters (not just people who happened to be in the vicinity) being prosecuted.

And I didn't specifically advocate for the filibuster being overturned (though, just like there is no point in having nuclear weapons if you are not willing to use them, there is no point in having the "nuclear option" if you are not willing to follow through with it if the other side does not negotiate in good faith). But, Fish said that Democrats had control over the government and should be able to push through their agenda. I was just pointing out the falsehood of that reasoning with the filibuster still in place.

There is a LOGICAL refutation of your post pointing out the actual LOGICAL FALLACIES that you used. I look forward to you actually making some real points in the future that are not based on false logic so that we may in fact have an intelligent debate.

And I have plenty of constructive ideas. Single Transferrable Vote is one of them. But also the Freedom to Vote act sounds like a pretty good idea. I asked in the first post in that thread for ANY conservatives to give any justifiable reason why they would not support it, or would be fine with their representatives not supporting it. But so far... crickets. If you ACTUALLY want to have a debate based on ideas, maybe you should mosey over there and try to find something other than "both of them do it" to post.

It's not that the Republicans have become less reasonable it's that the Democrats have become more unhinged. Afterall it's their own party because of the progressive wing not willing to bend that can't get anything done even though they control the three branches.

#4 | POSTED BY FISHPAW AT 2021-09-30 11:28 AM

It surprises me HOW MANY conservatives don't know something as basic as "what the three branches of government are". Well actually it doesn't surprise me anymore. Since they also wave around the constitution but have no problem violating and contradicting it when it is in their best interest. And generally just don't know what is in it (or pretend phrases, like "a well regulated militia", just aren't in there).

Fish... what do you think the three branches of government are? "Executive", "Senate", and "House"?

Because liberals, who actually know how our government works, realize that it is "Executive", "Legislature", and "Judicial". And it is widely know that liberals DO NOT control the judicial branch. In fact, conservatives have packed it full of activist conservative judges (which is why, if you ever actually read any real news, you would know that the Supreme Court is going to be considering overturning Roe v. Wade in contravention of all established precedents).

But, if you actually do want Democrats to own what they are or are not "able to get done", does that mean that you are in favor of getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate. Because otherwise conservatives have veto power over any legislation.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable