• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

Montana said:
He's smart enough to take apart people who have zero education in the art of debate, and think they can solely skate by on their knowledge of their respective topic.

....but yeah; at his core Milo is a charlatan faux-intellectual who'd be destroyed by a Sam Harris, Chomsky, or Hutch in his day. Hell the slightest bit of push back from Joe Rogan, who himself is far from being the sharpest tool in the shed....and many of Milo's arguments fall apart. Was kind of pathetic tbh.

He's definitely smart enough to make the average Johnny 6 pack, a blind follower tho, and a source for talking points.
Click to expand...

Right...which is why he absolutely destroys anyone that tries to take him on.

Sam Harris isn't his opponent. They are on the same side of almost every debate. IE: Islam is bad news and we don't want it here.

Hillary is everything that is wrong with politics. She's a criminal. She belongs in prison.

Her winning the Presidency of the USA is not to be celebrated in the least.
 
Montana said:
Between Cernovich & his lisp and Milo....you definite have a type.




...and you regurgitate their talking points better than anyone, without for a second applying any level of quality critical thinking to discern it's value.

As far as lapdogs go, they couldn't ask for a better servant to spread their low rent philosophies.
Click to expand...

Bow wow wow.

Who cares about evidence?
 
"Milo strikes me as fairly insincere.....I don't seen him as a natural ally for what I'm doing.....as for the alt-right which Milo is a poster boy. ....it contains smart people as well as racists and nitwits...and the net result of which is divisive. As far as I can tell, becoming a part of a movement (like alt-right) doesn't help anybody think clearly. So, I distrust identity politics."

- Sam Harris.


He also couldn't be more anti-Trump, making him a very vocal opponent to Milo's fundamental pro-Trump theatrics.
 
Montana said:
"Milo strikes me as fairly insincere.....I don't seen him as a natural ally for what I'm doing.....as for the alt-right which Milo is a poster boy. ....it contains smart people as well as racists and nitwits...and the net result of which is divisive. As far as I can tell, becoming a part of a movement (like alt-right) doesn't help anybody think clearly. So, I distrust identity politics."

- Sam Harris.


He also couldn't be more anti-Trump, making him a very vocal opponent to Milo's fundamental pro-Trump theatrics.
Click to expand...

And what does he think about Hillary?
 
In fairness, he considers her the height of insincere, he just considers Trump a dangerous imbecile and would find just about anything preferable to a Trump presidency. He has noted that it's clear to him that when Clinton speaks on matters of governance and foreign policy, she comes with a wealth of knowledge and a fairly deep intelligence.

So he's holding his nose while he votes for her, but yeah, he's still voting for her.
 
MindzEye said:
In fairness, he considers her the height of insincere, he just considers Trump a dangerous imbecile and would find just about anything preferable to a Trump presidency. He has noted that it's clear to him that when Clinton speaks on matters of governance and foreign policy, she comes with a wealth of knowledge and a fairly deep intelligence.

So he's holding his nose while he votes for her, but yeah, he's still voting for her.
Click to expand...


Does he find her infallible and agree with her on all policies?.....definitetly not.

Saying he's holding his nose tho is a bit of a stretch.....he definitely makes it clear she's not without warts, and he disagrees with her on a number of issues. But he just finished doing a two and a half hour podcast with Conservative Andrew Sullivan from NYMag, where they lay out their argument for both voting for her......but Sullivan first explains his own issues with the Clintons, and Harris spends half the podcast defending her and sticking up for many of her positions.

He's done the same in conversations with Gad Saad.


People overreach a bit on their thoughts that he doesn't like her......because they know he obviously disagrees with her on some imitation issues & how to deal with radical Islam......but he's actually pretty strongly with her being President......he came out strongly in favor of her, over Bernie, for instance early in the primary process as well.

Again; isn't the say he finds her infallible....but he agrees with her on more issues than people are seemingly willing to awknowledge....it isn't purely a nevertrump vote. (Which I think can be said for Sullivan, for instance)

Krauthammer, Bush, George Will, David Frum, Ilya Somin....these are people who their core political philosophies run polar opposite to Clintons..... they're holding their noses to vote for HRC, to keep Trump out of the White House.

Harris is more In that Montana/Mindz/lecoq type demographic where yeah...he doesn't love her.....but he prefers her economic policy, agrees with her on a majority of social issues, wants her nominating the next few SCOTUS appointments, etc etc.....he isn't solely nevertrump.
 
Last edited:
Montana said:
I never said they're pied pipers who simply follow along to what they're told.....I think what you said is perfectly accurate.....they watch Hannity, Maddow, etc specifically because they want to have reinforced what they already believe......which imo, is every bit as intellectually lazy as following along like a brainless automaton.

Moreover I think many of us who watch a Daily Show, Bill Maher, O'Reilly, Scarborough etc simply because they're entertaining also get hoodwinked a bit, because we genuinely agree with them on some issues....so when they lead us down a different trail and maybe stretch the truth, or in a Hannity's case outright lie....people are a little blind to the uninformed bias they're absorbing.

I think an example of this can be made with you and Hillary Clinton....you've decided you hate her, it's your thing....and no fact could move you off it. Conversely any information disparaging her you're quick to jump on and believe in.....in part, because deep down you want it to be true.

A few of us are equally guilty the other way, and have some pretty large blind spots when it comes to some of the failures of the Obama presidency....or Hillary's foibles.
Click to expand...
Guilty as charged regarding Clinton. I don't deny nor shy away from it. I'm in the camp that believes they get away with bloody murder (figuratively speaking) that others wouldn't get away with.

With regard to Hannity, Maddow etc they are simply shock jocks. While they don't pretend to be neutral journalists their brand is just unwatchable unless you truly believe as they do and even then the educated person will find them so banal that it turns them off.
 
Last edited:
MindzEye said:
In fairness, he considers her the height of insincere, he just considers Trump a dangerous imbecile and would find just about anything preferable to a Trump presidency. He has noted that it's clear to him that when Clinton speaks on matters of governance and foreign policy, she comes with a wealth of knowledge and a fairly deep intelligence.

So he's holding his nose while he votes for her, but yeah, he's still voting for her.
Click to expand...
There are many in that camp. She was a very beatable candidate but the republicans were too stupid to elect someone relatively sane. Even on CNN last night they were saying Kasich would have beaten her solidly, and this was coming out of the mouths of their Democrat surrogates.
 
since when do most people "love" or "agree on every issue" with their nominee?

and the respect shown here to trust fund professional troll college dropout business failure Milo is hilarious. he is nobody.
 
Habsy said:
There are many in that camp. She was a very beatable candidate but the republicans were too stupid to elect someone relatively sane. Even on CNN last night they were saying Kasich would have beaten her solidly, and this was coming out of the mouths of their Democrat surrogates.
Click to expand...

Really just goes to show how bad of a campaign most of those other republican candidates ran.

I mean, really, did none of them do digging into trumps background?

Ever since he became the nominee it's been nonstop scandal after scandal, most of it coming from stuff he said in the past. Hard to believe non of this stuff came up during the primaries but all of a sudden popped up during the face off with Clinton.

Also surprising was the second trump went after Bill Clinton stuff about trump abusing women started popping up within a few days.

I don't like Clinton, but I must say, she and her team would have probably done the same to any candidate the GOP came up with. If the also rans couldn't beat trump, they probably couldn't beat Hillary either.
 
Montana said:
Some. For sure.


Although you often paint with too broad of a brush with Clinton, in part because of pre-conceived notions about her, and the inevitable bit of bias that seeps in to one's thinking from watching shows like O'Reilly & Fox in general.

...and in retrospect I'd say that's 100% true about much of what was said about Bush on this board during his presidency. Like Clinton, he was far from perfect.....but for most liberals on here that read the NY times, watch Bill Maher, Daily Show, etc....their bias fueled their rhetoric more than they realized.

Clinton has her warts....but this "Crooked Hillary" "Hillary is a Criminal" stuff is pure propaganda nonsense.




I think if this election has made one thing abundantly clear, it's that the kind of over the top verbose vitriol thrown around in political discussions about Bush, Clinton, Obama, Romney, etc...during their runs. ...has the result of making it seem like the boy who cried wolf, when a true incompetent piece of sh*t like Trump comes around.

At the bare minimum hopefully people learn their lesson this time around, and going in to future elections/political discourse with a touch more maturity.
Click to expand...

The media bears a lot of responsibility for the.perception that she's a criminal. Just about everything I have read on email gate has exactly zero rigour around data protection, where the confi emails were sent to (for ex, the issue was sending confi material to an unsecured server - might habe been an email to abedins yahoo account or blumenthals gmail), nada about data retention policies or secure disposal, no dincursion about the strd of care or legal threshold to assert a gross negligence claim (fyi the strds a lot higher than being really careless). Etc etc

Like, is the fbi really gonna throw someone in jail because they sent an email to a Gmail account?
 
they even somehow allowed the idea tha regularly deleting emails must be sinister to become a thing.

it's stunning that the media enabled the gop to carry on this obvious ploy for 2 whole presidential elections.
 
Sounds like Trump is coming apart behind the scenes. He is not sleeping, does not want to be left alone, is a nerves wreck and his campaign has even taken twitter away from him. He is only allowed to dictate his tweets and then the campaign decides if they get sent out.

Get the padded cell ready for him.

Ivanka is worried about the damage to their company as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top