2024 Election Poll (11/19/21)

[ConservativeElector2]

6 minutes ago, Patine said:

Bushism and Trumpism are both movements endemic solely to the American socio-political paradigm in totality. Like Pierre-Elliott Trudeau's policies were only a collective relevancy in Canada, and Strache and Haider's views are endemically Austrian.

I am thinking quite like a globalist, eh? 

6 minutes ago, Pringles said:

I think it's important to note he said for them to remain peaceful after the fact they had already stormed the building. Prior to that he said "Fight like hell."

You can see the timestamps from the old tweets. 

''Fight(ing)'' seemed to be the favorite word of Sen. Warren during her presidential campaign. No one took offense with that. And I tell you why. Because no one stormed Wall Street buildings afterwards. Do you think I'd storm a building just because a president tells me to "Fight like hell". No I wouldn't, idiots do that and they are rightly to blame for it.

I just happen to believe that the majority of guilt is with the most radicals members of the crowd. Of course there might have been some people caught in the moment, but the most radical members are those who have brought shame to the entire movement of the right. They would have fulfilled their mission regardless of what Trump siad or could have said.

[ConservativeElector2]

21 minutes ago, Pringles said:

It seems you need to make up your own mind on what you truly are. A conservative or a right wing populist.

Oh and to answer that; surely I see myself as a conservative. But due to that fact alone I cannot simply vote for left-wing parties just because there is no viable conservative option on the ballot like it's the case in Austria. That would not make sense to me.

[ConservativeElector2]

15 minutes ago, Hestia said:

Which was after the attack had already begun...the fact Virginia and Maryland mobilized their National Guards before the US did in its own capital city is directly his fault. The MAYOR of DC sent a request to Virginia for aid. That leadership was sorely lacking on that day, which you don't seem to be acknowledging. The Speaker of the House should not be the one running national defense in this country. It's not her job.

 

Ok I looked that up on Politifact. If it isn't Pelosi's duty alone I will retract my statement of course. Anyway this Paul Irving seems very weird. What statement is it to care about "optics"? That's grossly negligent to his duty.

''The chain of command for Capitol security does include Pelosi, but it does not fall solely to her [...]. Others in the chain of command include the Senate majority leader and the Capitol police chief [...] News reports indicate that in the days before the attack,  House sergeant-at-arms Paul Irving resisted calls from the Capitol Police to bring in the National Guard for extra security at the Capitol because of “optics.” Irving later testified that intelligence reports didn’t show the need for the extra security, not that he rejected it because of optics.''

[ConservativeElector2]

44 minutes ago, Patine said:

Shall I look up, "assault," in the 50 U.S. States and District of Columbia penal codes for you?

No please safe your time lol

7 minutes ago, Patine said:

Dividing everything into a, "Right-wing is good, left-wing is bad, when it is down to those two, no negotiation, nuance, or consideration on that," leaves me to wonder something - you've said many times you were a Christian with a strong respect for Judaism (even though I have yet to see you supporting Christ-like ideals for politics or society, but that aside), but many of your viewpoints are sharply Manichaean in nature.

Generally, I'd say yes "Right-wing is good, left-wing is bad" is indeed correct. However, contrary to what you imply I have also often stressed, at least in recent times, for the need to be more nuanced in reality. One can acknowledge the good things Trump has done while still respect Mitt Romney. One can criticize Mitt Romney but also find the awful sides of Trump. I think I am in a good territory here, and my viewpoints are by far not so absolutist in nature anymore. 

I am sure I have the best in mind for the people deserving it, however, my ideas to reach this goals are different from yours. That's an undeniable fact and likely won't change.

Is having Manichaean beliefs (if at all, as I stress the need for nuancing political beliefs a bit) contrary to being a follower of Christ? I don't think so.

 

[ConservativeElector2]

1 hour ago, Hestia said:

I want you to be completely honest here. What do you think would have happened if Eugene Goodman didn't direct Romney away from the Capitol rioters? They were just down the hallway after all. Keep in mind these were the same people chanting "Hang Mike Pence". 

Overlooked this one, sorry.

Goodman's actions of course have been necessary and well done. I cannot say if these people had killed Romney or anyone else, as we know saying dumb things and really do them is a little bit different, but I cannot and do not want to deny the possibility of it. The "Hang Mike Pence" crowd is disgusting. These are people hating on everyone and everything while seeing Trump as their savior?! That's weird and dumb and we have seen the results from such a sentiment. 

[ConservativeElector2]

13 minutes ago, Patine said:

They absolutely are! It's a Dualist religion, where adversity is dominant, and there is no place for the Ultimate Power of God and His Kingdom and the Salvation by Christ in it's doctrines. In fact, I believe the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and many Rabbis and Islamic scholars declared to embrace Manichaean ideals - ESPECIALLY in an attempted alloying with Abrahamic Monotheist religion - was tantamount to Apostacy.

If you define Manicheanism as a religion than you are right. If you use the word to describe the dichotomy of viewpoints, it's still not a problem with Christianity I believe.

7 minutes ago, Patine said:

@ConservativeElector2 You also overlooked this one.

I chose not to respond to this one. I believe I have nothing to add which could bring us any further. My view is different, but I commend you that you don't see the entire fault with me, but also with my political idols who are influencing me the wrong way. I disagree but I believe a discussion would not make any gains for both of us.

18 minutes ago, Patine said:

This segues into internal criticism within right-wing figures, which was not what I was referring to at all. And, other than cutting down on military interventions (which doesn't seem to be a point of praise by you, anyways) what, "good things," has Trump actually done?

No, of course I don't praise weakening the military. Interventions can be justified and should always be on the table. Not saying to use it lightly, but it needs to be an option. Many problems on the world stage could have been easily solved if brutal dictators and enemies to world peace had been taken out just in time. 

[ConservativeElector2]

2 hours ago, Patine said:

No, just thinking out of context. My point is, movements and ideologies such as those have no real global applications of any sane nature.

Btw I don't think being called a globalist is absolutely bad. In fact I am much more globalist thinking than most in my political realm. Like I said many times we need to take out the best aspects of globalism and nationalism and combine them. Pretty much the same with the Religion vs. Science debate.

[MrPotatoTed]

9 hours ago, Patine said:

Your whole, "someone is unforgivable and unredeemable forever after, even family and former friends, for voting for and/or supporting Trump in 2016," is a highly misguided, and even toxic, viewpoint, and there are three good reasons why:

1. You, yourself, are succumbing to a broader toxic zeitgeist of thinking that is far bigger, and far more broad-based, inclusive of movements, leaders, ideologies, and even on a global level, than Trump, and this is part of it's caustic, ruinous, divisive effects. Good people SHOULD be better than this, in the long-run.

2. Trumpsim, in the long-term, is the type of ideology (and that word is generous for such a semi-coherent set of vitriolic and inflammatory rhetoric) is not the type of movement that historically or sociologically has lasting power. It will die before you know it, and while it will occasionally be brought back periodically for review, or a, "maybe Ol' Don was right back then," moment by some politician or pundit like other flash-in-the-pan, toxic socio-political movements of the past do like bad pennies, it will not retain it's virulent grip in the long-term. Your fervent, unforgiving hatred shouldn't either.

3. I hate to bring it up again, but it's very relevant. The Duopoly, and the lack of real choice at the ballot box. Many people were NOT necessarily voting for Trump, per se, in 2016, but hoping a standard Republican Congress and State Governments (voting downticket) would keep GOP normalcy, or were just MORE against the Democratic platform and Hillary Clinton (and she was awful, too, ultimately), or perhaps even believed the new jobs in economically depressed areas of the Rust Belt and Coal Areas bit would be long-term and tuned out the rest of his crap - after all, it's not like anyone else but Clinton and him would realistically win.

Who are you quoting with those quotation marks?  You're not quoting me, that's not what I said.

[MrPotatoTed]

8 hours ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with Romney on some issues but I have the utmost respect for him as well. However, to address my belief what an attack is, it is clear to me that there should be some sort of armor if not military weapons involved. I don't believe that has been the case. Some wooden sword brandishing idiots can be easily escorted out of the rooms honestly. We also have seen videos in which the officers respectfully asked pretty quiet protesters to leave the place. Doesn't really look like a war zone to me. I am afraid the war zone hyperbole is largely media driven. 

Did you listen to the testimony of the police officers who testified before Congress?

[Timur]

7 hours ago, Patine said:

This segues into internal criticism within right-wing figures, which was not what I was referring to at all. And, other than cutting down on military interventions (which doesn't seem to be a point of praise by you, anyways) what, "good things," has Trump actually done?

They absolutely are! It's a Dualist religion, where adversity is dominant, and there is no place for the Ultimate Power of God and His Kingdom and the Salvation by Christ in it's doctrines. In fact, I believe the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and many Rabbis and Islamic scholars declared to embrace Manichaean ideals - ESPECIALLY in an attempted alloying with Abrahamic Monotheist religion - was tantamount to Apostacy.

I don't think Manichean religion and "Manichean" views in politics are the same thing.

[vcczar]

16 hours ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Btw I don't think being called a globalist is absolutely bad. In fact I am much more globalist thinking than most in my political realm. Like I said many times we need to take out the best aspects of globalism and nationalism and combine them. Pretty much the same with the Religion vs. Science debate.

The issue with this is what you think is “best” in these two areas is going to be very different from what I think is best. What I would take from globalism, nationalism, religions, and science won’t be what you’d take from them, I don’t think. 

[MrPotatoTed]

9 hours ago, Patine said:

Both lead to highly Unchristian ways of thinking or living, regardless.

It was more to show a paraphrasing of the intention I was getting from your posts. In this case, they were used because quoting you directly would not have conveyed what I was saying, and I couldn't remember your EXACT words, in any case, I confess. Nonetheless, the point I'm making here is especially important, and I'm hoping it won't be washed away in you once again regarding disecting my presentation as a much higher priority to acknowledging the content, which are wont to do.

I'm pointing out that that's not what I said, because that's also not what I believe.  The point you are making is based on a false premise -- you believe that I am wrong, yet don't know my actual opinion on the topic.

Of course I can forgive somebody for making an innocent-in-intent and errant choice, especially if they realize they were wrong and apologize. 

For starters, lots of people...through no direct fault of their own...are simply stupid.  Or at least uneducated on the matters relevant to choosing the best candidate.  Are we to hold people accountable for the failures of their local school district?  I can forgive these people, who literally just don't know any better, provided they weren't trying to intentionally hurt others.

And there are others who certainly should have known better, but don't actually matter.  For example, my own in-laws...who are otherwise amazing people who I love...are Trump supporters.  They're quiet about their support for Trump, probably because they already know my feelings on the subject (and my wife's), but they did proudly vote for him twice and I'm sure they'll do it again a third time if given the chance.  However, they live in California, where there was never any chance at all that Trump would win the state and thus their votes and support of Trump don't actually matter.  I don't hold too deep a grudge against people like that either.

But Chris Christie?

Christie knew exactly what it takes to be President -- or at least should have, being both highly educated and also actively running for President just weeks prior.   His endorsement mattered a whole lot -- it was the first main stream endorsement that Donald Trump received, and it came during a time when it looked like Trump might actually lose the primaries, changing the narrative to Trump looking inevitable.  It was a huge freaking deal.

And worse yet, Christie knew Trump personally.  Hell, Christie had personally convicted Jared Kuschner's father and sent him to prison.  Christie knew exactly what we would be getting -- and he endorsed him anyway, for personal gain.

At the very bare minimum, that is demonstrating mind-blowingly poor judgement of character, which would make Christie a bad President of the United States.
 

[ConservativeElector2]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

The issue with this is what you think is “best” in these two areas is going to be very different from what I think is best. What I would take from globalism, nationalism, religions, and science won’t be what you’d take from them, I don’t think. 

Probably you are right on this.

 

[ConservativeElector2]

58 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

His endorsement mattered a whole lot -- it was the first main stream endorsement that Donald Trump received, and it came during a time when it looked like Trump might actually lose the primaries, changing the narrative to Trump looking inevitable.  It was a huge freaking deal.

Interesting, I thought Jeff Sessions was his first major political endorsement, but possibly you are right. However, I have to disagree a bit nonetheless.

Did we really see a time in which it looked like Trump was going to lose the primaries? Thanks to the media fighting for every bit of promotional article, even if written in a negative way, his campaign was effectively courted throughout the whole primaries. Maybe even because they thought Clinton could win more easily against Trump than against Rubio or Kasich. I don't really remember a time in which it looked bad for Trump. When Christie endorsed him, he had already won NH, SC and NV I believe. That effectively put Trump into the frontrunner position before Super Tuesday.

Additionally I think you are overestimating Christie's influence. His campaign had a poor showing in IA and NH and he was a regular guest in the second tier debates. I don't think his endorsement really mattered that much.

[Timur]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

But, of course, while this is very true, it is not at all a good thing. The U.S. media has become a toxic engine of lies and social and political degeneration that has effectively stopped reporting the, "news," in any respectable sense. And, the U.S. media WILL get more fringe, dangerous, populists and extremists - on both sides of the political spectrum - into various elected offices where they shouldn't be and where they normally wouldn't be elected to. No, this is a VERY bad thing, indeed, especially in the long-term.

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/john-kasich-on-medias-role-in-the-rise-of-trump-you-guys-have-a-lot-of-responsibility/296302/

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Interesting, I thought Jeff Sessions was his first major political endorsement, but possibly you are right. However, I have to disagree a bit nonetheless.

Did we really see a time in which it looked like Trump was going to lose the primaries? Thanks to the media fighting for every bit of promotional article, even if written in a negative way, his campaign was effectively courted throughout the whole primaries. Maybe even because they thought Clinton could win more easily against Trump than against Rubio or Kasich. I don't really remember a time in which it looked bad for Trump. When Christie endorsed him, he had already won NH, SC and NV I believe. That effectively put Trump into the frontrunner position before Super Tuesday.

Additionally I think you are overestimating Christie's influence. His campaign had a poor showing in IA and NH and he was a regular guest in the second tier debates. I don't think his endorsement really mattered that much.

Sessions was actually two days after Christie.  
 

Christie offered legitimacy to Trump’s campaign.  The first indication that it was okay for “establishment” Republicans to get on board the Trump train.  For nearly six years, Christie had been seen as a very plausible Presidential candidate himself on national news programs, and now he was endorsing this insane loon and encouraging others to do the same.

And yes, it’s true that Christie’s own campaign didn’t get very far and so it’s reasonable to question how many cared who he endorsed.

But he DID stay in juuuuust long enough to completely annihilate Rubio both in his final debate and in New Hampshire, giving Donald Trump his first win.  After Cruz won Iowa, followed by Trump and Rubio, Rubio was seen as the most viable contender against Trump — until Christie wiped him out.  From that point on, Trump was unstoppable.

 

[ConservativeElector2]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

But, of course, while this is very true, it is not at all a good thing. 

Do you happen to believe I have suggested it's a good thing? If so you are wrong.

[ConservativeElector2]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

No. I realize your statement seemed to be empirically neutral on the issue. I was inserting my own view, unsolicited, I admit.

I see, but still interesting you said ''neutral''. I thought the reader could be able to read out my discontent with the media's sensationalist courting of Trump's campaign.

[ConservativeElector2]

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Your post seemed a bit matter-of-factly about the media's role, especially because, in other posts, you have not exactly portrayed Trump, and his Presidency, as an outright negative, per se. But I definitely didn't see it as a support of the media's role as good, either.

Well, if the media hadn't played such an important role, we could have seen a Rubio, Cruz or Jeb Bush presidency while Trump's campaign may have faltered with 5%. Even if Trump's presidency wasn't outright negative I had certainly preferred these other candidates - as stated many times.

[MrPotatoTed]

21 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Jeb Bush presidency

Be still, my beating heart.

 

[DakotaHale]

Soros, Bezos and Gates are good. Declining fertility rates in the west are good.  Automobile-centric housing and urban planning is good. Drink corn syrup. Watch the news. The police are good. The UN is good. Industrial society is good. Politicians want to make the world better. Celebrities aren’t Beelzebub-worshipping pedophiles. Blue light is good. Don’t piss in the sink. Watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and ignore Ghlisaine Maxwell. There’s no eternal war of good and evil. Don’t riot or anything haha that’d be bad for the economy.

Who’s sick of the gang stalkers and psyops and ready to return to monke

 

[DakotaHale]

17 minutes ago, Patine said:

Time to take your medication, there. 😛

I WON'T DRINK CORN SYRUP I WON'T DRINK FLUORIDE I HATE THE ANTICHRIST ‼️‼️