GOP tax scam
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas
Ditto:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... l-security
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas
It seems to me that the Trump Supporters by and large take whatever Trump says/promises at face value, and rarely scan the territory for the possibility of Trojan Horses. It is the "poor uneducated" people he claimed to love so much who will suffer the most, and that will be a tragedy for them. I don't think they deserve betrayal on that scale even if they were taken in by a huckster, their coming realization and future predicament will be a tragedy as much for them as those who did see the Trojan Horses.
In 1963, Bob Dylan wrote his famous song A Hard Rain Is Gonna Fall. I read the words of it today and shivered.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas
No, I don't think so. They will be too drowning in personal despair to belatedly develop analytical skills or look back and see the function of cognitive dissonance in their previous beliefs. They may blame Trump the person in time, though without understanding that he was a functionary in a much bigger picture.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas
I can't find a single person that will claim today they voted for George W. Bush in 2000/4, even in my own right wing little town they have nothing good to say about him because he was an absolute disaster and they know it. Yet, 8 years later they decide to go for Trump, who is nothing more than George W. Bush's failed policies and bravado on steroids, and a great many of them think that's why George W. was a failure: he didn't go far enough, not that his policies were counter productive. They've doubled down now, and I just don't see them changing anytime soon, regardless of how bad things may turn. They'll just find another scapegoat to blame their failures on, such as Soros, Hillary, Obama, minorities in general, educated liberals, etc. The GOP never took responsibility for George W., when Trump crashes and burns they won't take responsibility for him either: the party of 'personal responsibility' pushes that responsibility onto everyone but themselves.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas
However when it comes to being unbiased, I don't believe I have referred to myself as such. And if I did it was an incorrect choice of words. I am obviously biased regarding my views of liberalism. I have said that I seek what are considered unbiased or at least the least biased news sources like Reuters and AP, because I don't what my bias or objectivity to be shaped by someone or something else. I want it to belong to me and be mine.
Regarding me supposedly proclaiming myself to be a "straight shooter", a word search of my posting history shows that only you have used the term "straight shooter", not me.
Now I'll point out the flaw in what I perceive to be your reasoning. And that is it seems to me you are implying that if I'm con regarding one thing I must therefore pro regarding something else. If I'm critical of Catholicism for instance, does that mean I must be Protestant, or does it mean I must be LDS, or perhaps Jehovah's Witness, or perhaps atheist. Or perhaps I'm none of those and I'm just simply critical of Catholicism out of my own distinctive individuality.
^^ That's a sly attempt to sound like you have no agenda, your posting history differs wildly from that statement.
I've made it perfectly clear that I am prompted to point out the flaws I see in liberalism, which of course would be an agenda. So again you are making claims, of me making claims, that I never made.
I said, go ahead and make me your special protect (future-tense) not that I was already your special project. Again, you are out of context.
Ah so you're just screwing with me. I already figured that was the case. But I don't mind taking it apart.
So just to be clear, your agenda is to simply screw with me. Maybe trying to get me to have a meltdown. Maybe trying to browbeat me into no longer posting. Whatever it is, you've made it clear in your "I just like seeing you dance" statement that you are up to no good.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas
However when it comes to being unbiased, I don't believe I have referred to myself as such. And if I did it was an incorrect choice of words. I am obviously biased regarding my views of liberalism. I have said that I seek what are considered unbiased or at least the least biased news sources like Reuters and AP, because I don't what my bias or objectivity to be shaped by someone or something else. I want it to belong to me and be mine.
Regarding me supposedly proclaiming myself to be a "straight shooter", a word search of my posting history shows that only you have used the term "straight shooter", not me.
Now I'll point out the flaw in what I perceive to be your reasoning. And that is it seems to me you are implying that if I'm con regarding one thing I must therefore pro regarding something else. If I'm critical of Catholicism for instance, does that mean I must be Protestant, or does it mean I must be LDS, or perhaps Jehovah's Witness, or perhaps atheist. Or perhaps I'm none of those and I'm just simply critical of Catholicism out of my own distinctive individuality.
^^ That's a sly attempt to sound like you have no agenda, your posting history differs wildly from that statement.
I've made it perfectly clear that I am prompted to point out the flaws I see in liberalism, which of course would be an agenda. So again you are making claims, of me making claims, that I never made.
I said, go ahead and make me you special protect (future-tense) not that I was already your special project.
Ah so you're just screwing with me. I already figured that was the case. But I don't mind taking it apart.
So just to be clear, your agenda is to simply screw with me. Maybe trying to get me to have a meltdown. Maybe trying to browbeat me into no longer posting. Whatever it is, you've made it clear in your "I just like seeing you dance" statement that you are up to no good.
As I said, I'm not singling you out, if you've drawn my attention it's because you're either wildly brilliant or you're wildly inconsistent. I like playing with the extremes in either direction. And yes, it's a game, games are fun, if you or I weren't getting some sort of satisfaction neither of us would be here.
If you're close to a meltdown, my apologies, that's not the intention at all, and disengage if necessary. The main thing I'm trying to suss out here is whether you're playing the wolf in sheep's clothing game or if you're truly unaware of how inconsistent your claimed stance is to what you've actually been arguing the last year.
If you're close to a meltdown, my apologies, that's not the intention at all, and disengage if necessary. The main thing I'm trying to suss out here is whether you're playing the wolf in sheep's clothing game or if you're truly unaware of how inconsistent your claimed stance is to what you've actually been arguing the last year.
Your statement "I just like seeing you dance" makes it perfectly clear that are trying to bully me and renders your accusations against me invalid. You exposed the fact that you are doing nothing more than the shameful inexcusable act of trolling someone, exposed yourself as being a troll, and now you're trying to gloss it over. You are by your own admission the wolf in sheep's clothing. Now do you wish to continue exposing and embarrassing yourself?
Have you been inspired by Aristophanes' admitted bullying? That would be a shame if so because you're far too nice of a person to start making ugly accusations against someone trying to make them feel bad about themselves.
If you're close to a meltdown, my apologies, that's not the intention at all, and disengage if necessary. The main thing I'm trying to suss out here is whether you're playing the wolf in sheep's clothing game or if you're truly unaware of how inconsistent your claimed stance is to what you've actually been arguing the last year.
Your statement "I just like seeing you dance" makes it perfectly clear that are trying to bully me and renders your accusations against me invalid. You exposed the fact that you are doing nothing more than the shameful inexcusable act of trolling someone, exposed yourself as being a troll, and now you're trying to gloss it over. You are by your own admission the wolf in sheep's clothing. Now do you wish to continue exposing and embarrassing yourself?
When I'm saying you're dancing, it's because you're DANCING AROUND THE SUBJECT WITHOUT ANSWERING IT. So enough deflection, I'll just ask directly: are you playing the wolf in sheep's clothing game or are you naive to the fact your claims of merely being against misinformation don't line up with most of your previous posts?
Last edited by Aristophanes on 01 Jan 2018, 11:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.