You know, it's amazing and ironic to me...

[mjr]

Still, that doesn't change the fact that any statements in the way of, "look how stupid/hypocritical(?) the Left/Right/Mermaids are!" is useless as a basis for a discussion. You aren't reaching anybody that way.

I will definitely concede this to you. It's a fair, valid point. I know I've been guilty of it in the past. I'm falliable, and I'm working on it.

All I'm really asking is the same courtesy.

Unfortunately, too often that's all we see is the "look how stupid/hypocritical/whatever" one group or another is.

[TheHuckster]

Another thing about these kinds of observations that has always bothered me:

When it comes to relatively disorganized groups like Trump opponents, you are always going to get mixed signals from the whole, mainly because the opponents each have their own reasons for disliking Trump. So, while you might hear "the group" say something like, "We should all love eachother" and "Let's burn down Washington" at the same time, it's two individuals from that group making those statements separately.

So, if you see one member of the group preaching love, while another member is causing property destruction, that doesn't count as hypocrisy. That's just a mob of people, each with their own points of view, whose only common opinion is that they are very opposed to the new administration.

And, indeed, there are videos of protesters who are condemning the more obscene actions of people destroying property. And the vast majority of protesters did so peacefully, albeit a lot of them had a sharp tongue.

So, yeah, there are always going to be individuals who are hypocrites, and for sure everyone has been one from time to time. It's part of being human.

[Gravekeeper]

Prove me wrong, there.

You're gonna start that shit again too?

Aside from that, you're in Canada. Why does this matter to you? Doesn't Canada have it's own issues? Who's running Canada never really crosses my mind -- and I would wager that who's running Canada never crosses the average American's mind (as in someone in the U.S.).

This is another argument I am farking sick of hearing.

It matters because we're the US's largest trading partner and closest ally. Anything you do have major ramifications for us. Not to mention the world at large. You are the world's largest economic and military power. EVERYTHING you do matters because of your ability to disrupt the globe if you get up on the wrong side of the bed.

Electing Trump didn't just fuck your country. It has the rest of us nervous as shit waiting to see just how much damage he's going to do to us.

But hey, I'm tired of coming down to your level. So I'll step back, be the bigger man, and let you have the last word. Have at it. Whatever you wanna say, personal attack or not. Go for it. Whatever you wanna say. And I'll smile, and move on. True colors. Go for it.

In order to take the moral high road you need to actually occupy that territory first.

[Talon]

Seriously folks, stop feeding him.

[Canarr]

I will definitely concede this to you. It's a fair, valid point. I know I've been guilty of it in the past. I'm falliable, and I'm working on it.

All I'm really asking is the same courtesy.

Unfortunately, too often that's all we see is the "look how stupid/hypocritical/whatever" one group or another is.

But that is exactly what you did when you started this thread. That's your entire topic here.

I mean, sure, there are always assholes in every movement. You could question whether or not it's okay to deal with a Trump supporter by setting her hair on fire. Or you could wonder how, at a "Women's March", it could be seen as acceptable to deal with an obnoxious reporter by punching her in the face.

However, none of that invalidates the protests themselves, nor does it taint any of the participants beyond those immediately involved.

[Gravekeeper]

Seriously folks, stop feeding him.

I know I know. But he's not even a good troll.

Compared to the level of shit out there since the rise of Trump this is bush league trolling. -.-

[mjr]

But that is exactly what you did when you started this thread. That's your entire topic here.

Correct. I also said I'm falliable, and I'm working on it. I won't quibble on that point. You made it in a respectful manner.

You could question whether or not it's okay to deal with a Trump supporter by setting her hair on fire. Or you could wonder how, at a "Women's March", it could be seen as acceptable to deal with an obnoxious reporter by punching her in the face.

I would assume it's not...

[Canarr]

Correct. I also said I'm falliable, and I'm working on it. I won't quibble on that point. You made it in a respectful manner.

Okay. So, we're basically done with this topic, then? Nothing left to discuss?

[wolfie]

Or people campaigning for all animals' right to live, who still think nothíng is wrong with sabotaging raised blinds, causing injuries or death to the hunters using them.

On the other hand, if the "sabotage" in question destroys the usefulness of the blind without endangering the person using it, that's another story. I'm referring to an anit-hunter seeing a blind, then tainting the area around it by laying down LOTS of human and predator scent so deer avoid the area, leaving the hunter wondering where they all went.

[Canarr]

On the other hand, if the "sabotage" in question destroys the usefulness of the blind without endangering the person using it, that's another story. I'm referring to an anit-hunter seeing a blind, then tainting the area around it by laying down LOTS of human and predator scent so deer avoid the area, leaving the hunter wondering where they all went.

Sure, that stuff is harmless. And honestly, I have no idea how often that happens, because as you said: it's possible not even the hunter realizes that it's sabotage. And no, there'd be no hypocrisy involved there.

What I meant was the kind of activist who will activley sabotage a blind; pulling nails, cutting ropes, sawing load-bearing beams, that sort of thing. Willfully accepting injuries or even death inflicted on a fellow human being, because they deem him a murderer for shooting deer.

[s_stabeler]

on the subject of calling Trump supporters racist/sexist/whatever, it's true they aren't necessarily inherently bigots. However, it is legitimate to point out they apparently care less about Trump's sexism/racism/whatever than the benefits he claims he will bring, particularly when those benefits can reasonably be called imaginary due to there being no realistic plan to actually get them.

[Mr Hero]

Government doesn't tell us what we must do. Just a fear-mongering tactic used by Republicans to try to convince people to stay on their side.

You MUST pay for insurance or else pay a fine.

[HYHYBT]

From my perspective (and only my perspective), the assumption is there that the ONLY reasons that people voted for Donald Trump are racism, sexism, bigotry, hatred, and homophobia.

That you haven't been paying attention is your problem, and yours to fix on your own.

Had Donald Trump neither possessed nor supported any of those traits, and had he been the representative of the Democratic Party instead of the Republican one, with all other characteristics the same, I'd still have said he's too dangerous to let anywhere near the presidency, and I'd have voted for any "wrong within normal parameters" Republican opponent to keep him out of the White House. And that's a fairly widespread view... if you bother to look. (If you don't bother to look, again, that's your problem, not mine.)

Going back to things as they really happened, no, you don't have to be racist, sexist, etc. to support Trump. You DO have to find those, and his lack of diplomacy, his proven crookedness in business dealings, and so on, all combined, less important than getting someone, anyone, with an R by his name into office. (There are other reasons I've seen, but they tend to depend on willful belief of distorted half-truths and outright lies, which requires a reason, which just comes back to the same place.)

[mjr]

Going back to things as they really happened, no, you don't have to be racist, sexist, etc. to support Trump. You DO have to find those, and his lack of diplomacy, his proven crookedness in business dealings, and so on, all combined, less important than getting someone, anyone, with an R by his name into office. (There are other reasons I've seen, but they tend to depend on willful belief of distorted half-truths and outright lies, which requires a reason, which just comes back to the same place.)

Eh, people voted for Hillary, and she was, to a lot of people, fairly nefarious. Neither one of them had clean hands in this.

Personally I didn't vote for either of them.

[ben_who]

That some people calling for unity, love, and tolerance right now are saying things like:

"I choose love. Are you with me?"

yet, at the same time, they're saying things like:

"f*** you"

and

"Donald Trump suck a d***"

How is "f**k you" and "Donald Trump suck a d***" in any way "choos(ing) love"?

MJR, can you tell me...are you just here to score the debate points or are you actually open to discussion?

My browser shows 20 topic headers at a time; you've started eleven of them. Do you actually have a strong commitment to public discourse, or are you just gathering "told ya so's" for later?

When you asked how to contact your elected representative, you made it clear that it was in the context of trying to corner him into blurting out the answer you wanted, one that would prove you right. When I told you that wasn't gonna happen, you seemed to lose interest. As someone who works in the media, I tried to provide some insight into how media works (and how it fails - and boy, does it ever fail sometimes). You brought up a 13-year-old Dan Rather story that was quickly discovered and had grave consequences for everyone involved, and then, again, lost interest.

You're not "amazed" at the "irony" of people who plead for tolerance and then use rough language to punctuate it, any more than I'm "amazed" at the "irony" of the "party of life" trying to decide who deserves health insurance based on an outdated marketplace system. "And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen," you actually said. We're here to talk politics, not supply you with gotcha moments.

You're not going to have any tolerance for the small contradictions of political theory; you're going to use them to diminish your opposition to make yourself feel better. You're not learning anything from us, we're not learning anything from you, and the division just gets deeper and deeper until it becomes intolerable. If you want to win so badly, what is your "victory condition?" At what point are you satisfied with the answers you get?