Jump to content

Random Political Thoughts Inc.


T&C

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

                          

 

                                      Fz4rPm9XwAEt08w-730x730.jpeg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lol... first thought was the Grand Funk song.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holder is absolutely correct:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4078190-former-ag-eric-holder-praises-supreme-court-decisions-on-voting-districts-in-alabama-north-carolina/

 

“It makes me a lot more confident that we’re going to have a fair election come 2024 and that this ridiculous notion of independent state legislature theory will hopefully just go away,” Holder said. “That was a as fringe a theory as has ever been heard by the United States Supreme Court. The only disappointment I had in that decision is that it was not a nine to zero decision.”

Edited by redtail hawk
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

And you think a grifter scotus judge should have more power than the president?  How wonderfully unconstitutional of you.


 

Holy mackerel. !!

 

Hawk you are dumber than I thought!

 

You consistently misinterpret every political cartoon. 
 

Do yourself a favor and stay quiet in the future 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have had multiple events with people at house over past few weeks and politics has come up briefly on several occasions and a couple of things that came up that surprised me.

1) people who are "well informed" but only by MSM and NPR did not know that the Hunter laptop was real, several stated it was Disinformation repeatedly until I showed them a liberal source. 

2) the more liberal you are the more in favor of Ukraine war and the less you think it has cost us so far. Though to be fair I had a conservative friend who though it was approaching a trillion. 

3) the more you hate Trump the less likely you are to care that Joe Biden denies the existence of his grand child in Arkansas, which to me is the most horrendous thing he has done. 

 

No discussions have gone too deep because of the events but thought those 3 points were interesting 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orlando Tim said:

Have had multiple events with people at house over past few weeks and politics has come up briefly on several occasions and a couple of things that came up that surprised me.

1) people who are "well informed" but only by MSM and NPR did not know that the Hunter laptop was real, several stated it was Disinformation repeatedly until I showed them a liberal source. 

2) the more liberal you are the more in favor of Ukraine war and the less you think it has cost us so far. Though to be fair I had a conservative friend who though it was approaching a trillion. 

3) the more you hate Trump the less likely you are to care that Joe Biden denies the existence of his grand child in Arkansas, which to me is the most horrendous thing he has done. 

 

No discussions have gone too deep because of the events but thought those 3 points were interesting 

I prefer to break things down by defining the battle as a contest between objective thinkers vs. subjective thinkers.  And not so much left and right

With that in mind I'd like to add a #4.

4) The belief that speech requires regulation and censorship to fight "hate speech". 

While I accept the concept that some objective criteria can define "hate" its use is currently defined subjectively.  Somebody feeling '"threatened" by what you might say is highly subjective yet requires you to be silenced and censored.  Threatened in what way?  Physically, mentally, emotionally?   The issue of subjectivity is observable simply by how one person feeling threatened and others are not.  It's an argument consistent with beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  There's no defined standard.

A nefarious actor could abuse the term "hate" and use it as a weapon to silence others that disagree with their positions rather than out of genuine concern of harm. That's exactly what we see currently when people scream "hate" and are unwilling to articulate and defend their views objectively through the use of reason and logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I prefer to break things down by defining the battle as a contest between objective thinkers vs. subjective thinkers.  And not so much left and right

With that in mind I'd like to add a #4.

4) The belief that speech requires regulation and censorship to fight "hate speech". 

While I accept the concept that some objective criteria can define "hate" its use is currently defined subjectively.  Somebody feeling '"threatened" by what you might say is highly subjective yet requires you to be silenced and censored.  Threatened in what way?  Physically, mentally, emotionally?   The issue of subjectivity is observable simply by how one person feeling threatened and others are not.  It's an argument consistent with beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  There's no defined standard.

A nefarious actor could abuse the term "hate" and use it as a weapon to silence others that disagree with their positions rather than out of genuine concern of harm. That's exactly what we see currently when people scream "hate" and are unwilling to articulate and defend their views objectively through the use of reason and logic.

I would agree that would be a good topic but I was intentionally driving the conversation towards politics and was just trying to ensure no one got too butt hurt. I tried to stay with facts and while my general opinions but the MSM one actually surprised me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...