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

OT: American Politics

Montana said:
I’d love to have a more in depth discussion on this…I feel like way more man power needs to be poured into finding the proper solution to dealing with an opponent who has no interest in arguing in good faith, addressing the facts and will just continue to move the goalposts or tell a new lie to distract from the last one.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't think there's much to be done on that. Someone unwilling to address the facts and engage in some sort of good faith discussion isn't someone you're going to get through to. My approach in engaging the various personalities we've seen here over the years is to address the issues in a way that a fair person sitting on the fence between the two worldviews would be swayed by.

Put another way, I'm not trying to convince the Flyguy's of the world anything. They're impervious to anything outside that weirdo right wing conspiracy echo chamber. I'm trying to convince the Deckie's of the world to give up their obvious shift towards white supremacy.

Montana said:
How do you combat the appeal of just being told what they want to hear, and ostensibly LARP-ing the political process as if it’s a game of DND and Trump is their dungeon-master.
Click to expand...

Honestly dunno. Make politics boring again. Only thing I've really got on that front is to make sure you're not talking past their concerns within reason. It should be good and healthy to disagree with their assessments, but don't suggest that their concerns don't matter/aren't important, etc. So if someone is mad about immigration, don't call them racist (even if the dog whistle is blowing a bit) but engage in good faith until they prove they're not of good faith.

Montana said:
Insane to me that this is the first I’m hearing pretty much all the important questions actually being answered about the failures to adequately protect a former President.

Any one article or two you sourced this from that I can read in full?
Click to expand...

Sorry mate, that's my prediction for the report, not from the actual report itself. Nothing is public yet and if I know the grinding pace of major incident investigations, weeks away. They'll be doing eye witness interviews for another week easy, reconstructing the route he tooks

Montana said:
….also have you seen any information about who was in charge of this USSS security detail management wise, who selected these agents etc? I’m curious if any part of this was a trickle down result of Trump always wanting yes men around him, versus hiring the most competent people possible.
Click to expand...

No, nothing on specific USSS stuff yet. Don't know who was in charge with his detachment, etc. Only thing I know is that Biden changed the head of the USSS a few years ago. The woman who ran Biden's VP detail when he was in the Obama admin is the head of the USSS right now.
 
zeke said:
it's a lot of eyeliner.

63edb1b1dd6fcf00194a9a71
Click to expand...
some hair dye in there too I think
 
FlyGuy said:
Maybe. I'm just glad it isn't Rubio/Haley/Scott. Would've preferred RFK or Ramaswamy.
Click to expand...
wow, it seems like your only criteria in a candidate is that they be as dishonest as possible. Surprised you left out little Marco here, in his defense he lies all the fucking time!
 
on the market side, stocks were up bigly but retraced most of it

people snapped up private prison stocks, gunmakers and crypto shit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top