DC Tom Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 My theory has never been that the corruption is new. I love history and putting things in historical context. I was a historian in my other life. You do realize that your answer was exactly what he knew you were going to say, and was part of his grand plan to prove something something blah blah blah emoji emoji emoji...?
GG Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 You've still yet to get any of my stances correct... but that doesn't stop you from inventing positions you think I hold. Your deflections would be much more effective if you stick with what I actually said, or theorize, than inventing your own. We're sliding down a slippery slope into totalitarianism. Sliding... not there yet. I've been consistent on this point. There's a war going on, not just here but globally, between totalitarianism and traditional democracy. This is pretty clear if you're willing to look at the facts dispassionately. Or... you could keep making stuff up about other people's positions. Whatever works for you. None of this is true. Trump isn't a real candidate, he's running to clear the field for Hillary which he's done. He's not going to win the election. This also isn't his first time running for office, he may be inept but he's not a novice. Bernie never had a chance -- this has been proven and was something I've said since the beginning. He didn't change the platform by any great measure. Schultz didn't resign because of Bernie. She resigned because the emails got leaked by outside actors... emails exposing the very corruption I've been lamenting for over a year and change now. But again, when you presume to know what it is I'm theorizing rather than actually engaging with what I'm saying, it's easy to make yourself look silly. Something else I've never said. But again, you just can't help yourself. So you don't even want to address the inherent hypocrisy in your original statement? Changing the two party system is too hard because it's incompatible with our political system... but regime change and nation building (also incompatible with our system) are two major planks of your ideology. That's some big cognitive dissonance you got going for you. I'm sorry, I must have you confused with a poster who said this - "So we are stuck with a corrupt system that's eliminated true choice, true democratic representation of the people and their issues in favor of an oligarchical totalitarianism because change would be difficult." So you have to excuse me if I'm inferring something else in what you are implying in that the election process is predetermined from the outset, despite the wildest primary season in over a generation. Unless, we are to believe your inference that it was all staged anyway. And not only that, but all trump supporters are really Hillary stooges.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 I'm sorry, I must have you confused with a poster who said this - "So we are stuck with a corrupt system that's eliminated true choice, true democratic representation of the people and their issues in favor of an oligarchical totalitarianism because change would be difficult." We are, today, living in an oligarchic America which still is operating under at least the pretenses of a democratic republic. We've codified and legalized political corruption, and are seeing the results of that corruption play out today. So you have to excuse me if I'm inferring something else in what you are implying in that the election process is predetermined from the outset, despite the wildest primary season in over a generation. Unless, we are to believe your inference that it was all staged anyway. And not only that, but all trump supporters are really Hillary stooges. I've never said Trump supporters are Hillary stooges. Man, you just can't help yourself from making stuff up when you get on the defensive. It really helps to stick with what's actually been said or argued rather than inventing your own spin. It's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. That aside, still no response to the hypocrisy in your own position? Or are you just not going to comment on that at all?
GG Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) We are, today, living in an oligarchic America which still is operating under at least the pretenses of a democratic republic. We've codified and legalized political corruption, and are seeing the results of that corruption play out today. I've never said Trump supporters are Hillary stooges. Man, you just can't help yourself from making stuff up when you get on the defensive. It really helps to stick with what's actually been said or argued rather than inventing your own spin. It's disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. That aside, still no response to the hypocrisy in your own position? Or are you just not going to comment on that at all? We are living in the exact same republic that's always existed, where the rich & powerful curry favor with the elected officials to obtain favorable legislation. Nothing has changed since the formation, other than the voting rights are actually extended to a far greater proportion of the population. The only difference is that you and the rest of us know a hell of a lot more of what goes on in the background, so you're more outraged. Consider yourself more informed, rather than disenfranchised. If Trump is a set up for Hillary, his supporters are Hillary stooges. Pray tell, how is my position hypocritical? PS - It wasn't even 24 hours ago you were complaining that the powers that be behind the scenes were deleting all mentions of the DNC leak and it would disappear into the night with nobody noticing. How has that one work out? Edited July 25, 2016 by GG
OCinBuffalo Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 My theory has never been that the corruption is new. I love history and putting things in historical context. I was a historian in my other life. No, your theory is that today it is more effective, more pervasive, and is more likely to go unchecked than in the past. History disagrees. The internet disagrees. We are currently witnessing, in real time, corruption being checked. Speaking of checks, I'd say we are seeing the internet throwing a helicopter check on the DNC. See that guy who got checked just sorta not know what to do, sorta go after the ball, then realize he has to get his stick first? That's the DNC right now. You do realize that your answer was exactly what he knew you were going to say, and was part of his grand plan to prove something something blah blah blah emoji emoji emoji...? No Tom, today it's just straight up. See, that's the difference between me, and you, I can think in the abstract. You are linear, so you must always post the same way, every time. Not I. Or, do you deny that you always post the same way, every time?
Deranged Rhino Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 PS - It wasn't even 24 hours ago you were complaining that the powers that be behind the scenes were deleting all mentions of the DNC leak and it would disappear into the night with nobody noticing. How has that one work out? Are you off your meds? I never said that. Again, it's a more fruitful discussion when you don't invent other people's positions and then argue about those inventions.
GG Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Are you off your meds? I never said that. Again, it's a more fruitful discussion when you don't invent other people's positions and then argue about those inventions. You're right, you never said that. I confused your post with Chan's. Doesn't invalidate the other points where you claim we're in a totalitarian republic that is rigged.
DC Tom Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 No, your theory is that today it is more effective, more pervasive, and is more likely to go unchecked than in the past. History disagrees. The internet disagrees. We are currently witnessing, in real time, corruption being checked. Speaking of checks, I'd say we are seeing the internet throwing a helicopter check on the DNC. See that guy who got checked just sorta not know what to do, sorta go after the ball, then realize he has to get his stick first? That's the DNC right now. No Tom, today it's just straight up. See, that's the difference between me, and you, I can think in the abstract. You are linear, so you must always post the same way, every time. Not I. Or, do you deny that you always post the same way, every time? I have two distinctly different ways of posting, you idiot.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 You're right, you never said that. I confused your post with Chan's. Doesn't invalidate the other points where you claim we're in a totalitarian republic that is rigged. It does since you're still getting it twisted.
GG Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 It does since you're still getting it twisted. Did you ever not claim that we're heading towards totalitarianism? Did you ever not claim that the system is rigged?
Deranged Rhino Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Did you ever not claim that we're heading towards totalitarianism? Did you ever not claim that the system is rigged? Headed towards... not there. And yes, the system is rigged has been my working hypothesis for a good while now. Hypothesis. Which of course is more nuanced than: "we're in a totalitarian republic that is rigged" You're smart enough to understand that. You'd just rather put your own spin on things I say whenever you get defensive. It's been your whole schtick for months now. But back to the original issue you've been running from since this morning: So you don't even want to address the inherent hypocrisy in your original statement? Changing the two party system is too hard because it's incompatible with our political system... but regime change and nation building (also incompatible with our system) are two major planks of your ideology. That's some big cognitive dissonance you got going for you.
GG Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) Headed towards... not there. And yes, the system is rigged has been my working hypothesis for a good while now. Hypothesis. Which of course is more nuanced than: "we're in a totalitarian republic that is rigged" You're smart enough to understand that. You'd just rather put your own spin on things I say whenever you get defensive. It's been your whole schtick for months now. But back to the original issue you've been running from since this morning: Ah, headed there. Despite all the evidence otherwise. But not there yet. Do you have a time frame for the despotic takeover? As for the alleged hypocrisy, why is it so hard to reconcile not wanting to change a system of government that's outlasted any other civilized rule vs trying to improve people's lives under despotic regimes? Edited July 25, 2016 by GG
Deranged Rhino Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Ah, headed there. Despite all the evidence otherwise. But not there yet. I'd argue, and have for over a year now backed with sources, that there is a mountain of evidence that shows you're wrong. Start with the simple fact we have less civil liberties, less constitutional rights today than we did on September 10th, 2001 and work your way forward in the timeline. If you can do that and still say with a straight face that the evidence says "otherwise", well that'd be a neat trick. Do you have a time frame for the despotic takeover? I've never said I have all the answers, let alone time lines. What I have is a working hypothesis backed by hundreds of sources. But I would say we are all currently witnessing the battle. Forget this election, it's theater. Focus on what's happening everywhere else in the world and get back to me. As for the alleged hypocrisy, why is it so hard to reconcile not wanting to change a system of government that's outlasted any other civilized rule vs trying to improve people's lives under despotic regimes? The hypocrisy lies in your logic. You think our system was designed to be exclusively a two party system (which I disagree with, but put that aside) and having more parties is incompatible and thus unworkable. Meanwhile, regime change, a bedrock principle of yours, has been proven beyond all doubt to be incompatible with our political system due to the ebbs and flows of public opinion not allowing for the time required to create true change yet you support it without qualification. That's cognitive dissonance. And for the record, I'm not in any way arguing destroying the system, or even radically changing it, merely restoring it to work in the way it was intended.
GG Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 I'd argue, and have for over a year now backed with sources, that there is a mountain of evidence that shows you're wrong. Start with the simple fact we have less civil liberties, less constitutional rights today than we did on September 10th, 2001 and work your way forward in the timeline. If you can do that and still say with a straight face that the evidence says "otherwise", well that'd be a neat trick. - Then, I'm sure you can enumerate the loss of liberties that we've suffered since 9/11/01. I'll give you a head start, most of PATRIOT Act provisions were simply amendments of existing laws that consolidated various regulations and provisions into a single Act. I've never said I have all the answers, let alone time lines. What I have is a working hypothesis backed by hundreds of sources. - The sources all trace back to a singular locus that there's an ongoing conspiracy in the US by the illuminati to wrest control and impose martial law? But I would say we are all currently witnessing the battle. Forget this election, it's theater. Focus on what's happening everywhere else in the world and get back to me. - On this related matter, how's your search for the multiple gunmen in Munich coming along? Or could this simply be a regular clash of civilizations that's been consistent across human history and authorities are scrambling to reign it in? The hypocrisy lies in your logic. You think our system was designed to be exclusively a two party system (which I disagree with, but put that aside) and having more parties is incompatible and thus unworkable. Meanwhile, regime change, a bedrock principle of yours, has been proven beyond all doubt to be incompatible with our political system due to the ebbs and flows of public opinion not allowing for the time required to create true change yet you support it without qualification. That's cognitive dissonance. - Talk about a leap of logic. I'll repeat again. How in the world do you equate not wanting to break up a system that's worked with wishing a better life for people who live in a system that hasn't worked? And to make it clear, our system wasn't designed for a two-party system, per se. But in the way it was designed, a two-party system is the inevitable outcome. If you are a history buff, you should appreciate the difference. And for the record, I'm not in any way arguing destroying the system, or even radically changing it, merely restoring it to work in the way it was intended. - The system is working as intended, because it's meant to survive periodic shocks as long as people don't go nuts and start shooting from barricades. But like most people in this election, you don't like getting caught up in the whirlwind of the perpetual change. Please tell me how today's parties resemble the parties from 30, 60, 90, 120 years ago?
Deranged Rhino Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 - Then, I'm sure you can enumerate the loss of liberties that we've suffered since 9/11/01. I'll give you a head start, most of PATRIOT Act provisions were simply amendments of existing laws that consolidated various regulations and provisions into a single Act. That's been done by me for months. Feel free to go back through any of the numerous threads on this issue. There's literally hundreds of pages on these issues and more to be found in the archives. - The sources all trace back to a singular locus that there's an ongoing conspiracy in the US by the illuminati to wrest control and impose martial law? False. Again, nothing I've ever said. Ever. You're too smart of a guy and too good of a poster to continue being this blatantly dishonest. I get that what I'm saying is uncomfortable to someone who's so clearly living inside a bubble, but stick with what's said. Not what you invent. We can at least have a conversation that way. - On this related matter, how's your search for the multiple gunmen in Munich coming along? Relevance? I laid out, in real time, what was on the web as it was happening -- with links. Now some of those links are gone. Vanished. I didn't make any conclusions and admitted the possibility of chaos on the ground resulting in conflicting testimony from eye witnesses. I just said something stinks. How you chose to interpret that is up to you, clearly you've decided to just make shite up and pass it off as fact. You've been doing it throughout these discussions. Or could this simply be a regular clash of civilizations that's been consistent across human history and authorities are scrambling to reign it in? Sure. Never said that wasn't a possibility. Of course I'd argue that's a very simplistic, almost too reductive analysis considering all the factors. But that's kind of your thing these days. - Talk about a leap of logic. I'll repeat again. How in the world do you equate not wanting to break up a system that's worked with wishing a better life for people who live in a system that hasn't worked? And to make it clear, our system wasn't designed for a two-party system, per se. But in the way it was designed, a two-party system is the inevitable outcome. If you are a history buff, you should appreciate the difference. Wishing a better life for people living in despotic systems isn't regime change and you know it. You're being disingenuous. Regime change requires boots on the ground and usually bombs from the sky. It requires vast amounts of national treasure and usually results in loss of life and instability. Regime change requires time and large amounts of spending to do right -- things our political system don't digest well and has proven time and time again not to have the patience for -- yet you think it's a viable strategy despite history proving otherwise. I say that's cognitive dissonance of the most dangerous kind. It's that kind of thinking, "this time it'll be different, we'll get it right" that's landed us in the spot we're in today. If you don't learn from your mistakes, you'll keep repeating them. - The system is working as intended, We were never designed to be an oligarchy. We were never designed to be a surveillance state where our rights to free thought, speech, due process, and privacy were cast aside in the name of "national security". Those things stifle individual growth and accomplishment as well as freedom. You say the system is working as intended -- I say you're wrong. The thing is, I call your stance out for what it is and what you actually say. You invent my positions and then argue against those. Disagreement is fine and to be expected, certainly on issues such as this. But you continue a really infantile and dishonest approach to this topic which to me, exposes not only your ignorance but your fear that you're wrong.
reddogblitz Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 Yes, but his actions confirmed it. Everything Trump suggests and discusses is true to Democratic principles. He just does it in a brash way that makes non-thinking people feel happy and warm in their skinny jeans, but all you hear is more spending, more government, more red tape, more "I alone can fix the problems of this country." You should listen to some of Reagan's speeches and you'd understand how ridiculous your comment is. So Reagan WASN'T a Democrat?
Azalin Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 Get a room please. You tell'em - I mean who in hell wants to see a bunch of political debate in a politics forum?
Recommended Posts