Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The question posed in the poll is too open to interpretation. How one interprets 'violence' is going to be subjective. For example, even police sometimes resort to violence to carry out policy.
I hope we can. But like I said, we first have to agree on some objective terminology. I'm a centrist; I try to find the objective view and articulate it accurately.
But propaganda can mischaracterize positions and create invalid and unsubstantiated opposition. There first has to be clarity through objective language.
Objective language would not confuse change to the left with change to the right. Objectively speaking Trump is for centralizing power which is a change towards autocracy. Objectively, real conservatives would not support ignoring the intentions of article 1 the establishment of the legislative branch in the Constitution.
That's not an accurate assessment. That's more like propaganda. Trump wanted a forty-to-fifty-foot impenetrable wall made of steel and hardened concrete. Most people saw this as impractical particularly since there was already bipartisan legislation and funding for the steel bollard border fence that was being built during both the Bush and Obama administration. Trump then declared--> whoever wasn't for his wall was not for border security --> and subsequently was for open borders--> and inevitably were for crime.
It's not that it doesn't fit. Objectively it fits fine as described. What you're expressing is basically the same sentiment I am expressing when I said it's "limited" in its analytics. But even though it's limited as in unable to show a policy issue much less a position on policy, it still shows a position of the left being a response to the status quo simply because left in this framing of Left/right is open to change and right isn't.
Where there is objective language there should also be agreement.
Yes. To be clear, taking the objective meaning of the term conservative and subjectively changing the meaning to infer white supremacy, nazis, christian nationalists, etc.. is slandering real conservatives. Just like saying that people who see Trump's wall as impractical are for open borders and crime, that is also slander.
Sure, you can fill in left and right with whatever you want, subjectively speaking. But objectively speaking, it would NOT be a valid dichotomy to reason upon if one side is substantively invalid.
Yes, if we use objective language. But if propaganda has muddied the waters, then a person can be taking sides for or against things that don't even exist in reality.
Well, I didn't mean to imply that democracy/autocracy determines what is far left as subjectively determined by the left, or even subjectively determined by the right.
I think it implies an ideology of communism on the far left which is not supported by the left in general. The left/right framing of democracy/autocracy shows the centralizing and decentralizing of power. So, it does show the left as being against the centralizing of power. The ideology of the left would therefore support protecting individual civil rights including the right to hold a government accountable to its people.
Not surprising that NBC limited it. It is some local news anchors taking scores about which "team" (white or black) committed each crime reported on the newscast.
Subjective in the sense that if someone were to go back in time and murder baby Hitler? Many people who may have stated "sometimes" may have been thinking about those extremes when answering the question. So, can you now see why it is so reprehensible for liberals to constantly compare Trump to Hitler and ICE agents to the Gestapo? How could this happen? Why would someone try to murder ICE agents? Why would someone try to assassinate Trump? Why would someone actually assassinate a political activist? Does anyone on the left actually want to acknowledge that perhaps calling people literal nazis and fascists might spur a radical to feel justified in political murder because they see it no differently than to kill baby Hitler? Based on the data, the vast majority of democrats will denounce political violence, but celebrate if their opponent dies. What that tells me is that there is a significant number of democrats who will quietly celebrate my murder only to turn around and shed crocodile tears at my funeral.
I don't think the poll question brought time travel to mind, but yes, I get what you're saying...
Yeah, they probably were.
I understand why you say that in the sense that it could give someone the inclination to assassinate their perceived enemy, but do you think people should not pay attention when Trump's sending people to foreign prisons without due process?
You probably don't see it through the eyes of immigrants. How could this happen you ask? Trump expressed the sentiment "poisoning the blood of our country" and also how there is a greater "enemy within", which is reminiscent of Nazi propaganda used against the Jews. People will stand up against oppression and inhumanity.
Basically, the by labeling conservatives as nazi fascist and ice agents as a Gustapo, they have created a permissive structure to condone politically motivated violence. Which is ironic when they turn around blame conservatives after they perpetuated that permissive structure.
This is what I am talking about. You know darn well that Trump is nowhere close to being a Nazi and that his enforcement of existing immigration laws is nowhere close to sending in the Gustapo who hunted down Jews for their extermination.
We've already seen Trump sending people to foreign prisons without due process. He lied about the election being stolen and we watched as people attacked the capitol because they believed him. I don't believe he has any qualms about using the military against those in this country whom he deems as not his own people.
I'm against negative prejudice, so I'm against the labeling of conservatives as nazi's, and I'm against labeling nazi's as conservatives. Do you know what I mean when I say I like clarity and not obfuscation?
And Biden forced businesses to close because of totalitarian COVID policies. What about it? Shall we then compare Biden to Hitler because his actions were reminiscent of Kristallnacht? There is no "What about" because there is no "what about" to "what about" about.
I don't know because statistics have shown that democrats would be willing to quietly celebrate my death only to shed crocodile tears at my funeral. Please forgive me, and I ask that you not take it personally. Still, right now, I frankly don't believe anything a liberal says, especially when they try to play the high ground and distance themselves from those who got fired for openly recording themselves saying what they statistically are likely to agree with.
Somehow, I can't picture democrats standing around willing to quietly celebrate your death. If it's any consolation, it bothers me that you would spend time entertaining such thoughts.
I think Biden could be criticized either way by people who are cynical. Anyway, I don't recall Biden forcing businesses to close. I do recall governors were the ones left with making those decisions under Trump.
Yeah. And statically, if you knew my true identity and discovered that I died, more than likely you would celebrate it only to post about paying your respects on a public forum. Again, looking at the statistics, I could be wrong, but chances are I would be right.
Good grief. Your 'true identity'? Do you happen to work for the Daily Planet?
So what if I did? Would you celebrate my death only to come onto a Christian forum to cry about how my demise was unacceptable? Maybe. But again, statistically, you are more likely to laugh and celebrate my death only to come to this forum to pay my respects and call for "unity." Again, I am not accusing you of anything, but statistically, you would be an outlier if you had not.
There was another part of my post other than musing on your occupation. How about you go back and read that.
