The president is a criminal

[fskimospy]

Opposition does not equate to being uncivil. Are you not aware of that?

Depends on the actions of the other party really. Other political parties tried to resist the Nazis in a (mostly) civil manner, for example. To put it mildly that did not work.

If you want a less inflammatory example I would look at Hungary and Poland. Their governments are quite effectively destroying their democracies while the other parties argue in a civil manner that they should not. How's that working out?

 

[woolfe9998]

What I did say is that Conservatives would be less extreme if the political climate were not so extreme. I also said that they are in large part the cause of that climate as well.

The "political climate" isn't causing them to be extreme. Conservatives being extreme is the political climate.

You seem confused about why they are so angry. They are angry because they've been letting propagandists like Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Trump and Hannity piss on their brains for decades now, and they choose to believe everything they're being told. If you thought the Clintons were murderers and child sex traffickers, you'd probably be pretty angry too.

Little if any of this has anything to do with the behavior of actual liberals. Accordingly, being "nice" will not tamp down the anger.

 

[realibrad]

It's never too late until it is. All that civility from one side has managed so far is to drive the other side to even further extremes.

So no examples then? That is strange given you said you had many but cannot provide one. That seems like an oopsies on your part.

 

[UNCjigga]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...investigation-trump-latest-jerome-corsi-claim

Gotta keep those wheels turning on the Special Counsel ... it will end up draining ALL the swamps...

Interesting...somehow I figured Mueller wasn't done with Farage or Arron Banks just quite yet. For folks who don't remember, Arron Banks is the British UKIP/Leave.eu financier who held dozens of meetings with at the Russian embassy in the leadup to the Brexit vote and pumped £9M into the Leave campaign (there are still questions about whether some of that money came from offshore accounts.) Oh, and he also met with Donald Trump in Trump Tower a week after the 2016 election, and afterward went straight to the Russian embassy as soon as he returned to London.

 

[ecogen]

So no examples then? That is strange given you said you had many but cannot provide one. That seems like an oopsies on your part.

Really? Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy. the junta in Greece, the French revolution and the list extends to infinity tbh. You gonna ask me to prove that the earth is a sphere next?

 

[realibrad]

Depends on the actions of the other party really. Other political parties tried to resist the Nazis in a (mostly) civil manner, for example. To put it mildly that did not work.

If you want a less inflammatory example I would look at Hungary and Poland. Their governments are quite effectively destroying their democracies while the other parties argue in a civil manner that they should not. How's that working out?

The situation is different. If you look at a dire situation and then try to compare it to what is going on in the US, its vastly different. Dire situations can sometimes require extreme measures. Nazism did not arise because there was a lack of hostility to their beliefs. Nazism arose from people in a dire situation looking for anything that could get them out of their miserable lives.

Ironically, that was very much a big boost to Trump. People saw Trump as a way to improve their wealth.

You might need ti give me some reading material on Hungry and Poland. I honestly do not know enough to speak on it here.

Also, you can bring up Nazis any time you want if it fits the situation.

 

[realibrad]

The "political climate" isn't causing them to be extreme. Conservatives being extreme is the political climate.

You seem confused about why they are so angry. They are angry because they've been letting propagandists like Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Trump and Hannity piss on their brains for decades now, and they choose to believe everything they're being told. If you thought the Clintons were murderers and child sex traffickers, you'd probably be pretty angry too.

Little if any of this has anything to do with the behavior of actual liberals. Accordingly, being "nice" will not tamp down the anger.

You are now in the states?

 

[soundforbjt]

I can't wait until January. Things are going to get real interesting then. There's more than enough material to properly impeach and remove Trump and has been for quite some time and those who claim any understanding of the Constitution would understand that fact. Only political will stands in the way and while it is entirely possible that the Republicans such as Mitch will utterly destroy his party for Trump he may yet come to understand that his and other's actions will now have consequences. If McConnell wants funding for a rubber chicken he's going to have to start talking turkey. If he wants to protect his party leadership then his and the Republican's loyalty cannot be seen as absolute. I'm leaning towards the Senate protecting Trump, but that's going to make them suffer hell.

Republicans will stand by Trump as long as it's a political advantage for them to do so, their supporters have very, very, short memories, so any damage done will be undone as soon as they give them someone on the left to deflect their anger towards. Look squirrel!

 

[woolfe9998]

You are now in the states?

Yeah, I live here like always.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, past examples of when Civility has failed when not in the context of incredible hardship such as huge amounts of people becoming destitute through hyper inflation. I think its pretty reasonable to think that Civility can be nullified when positioned against extreme situations. I do not think the US is anywhere close to a situation like that though.

Ask yourself this. When the past government of America headed by King George was removed just how civil were we? The Boston Tea Party? Well, that was rather rude as was the UnCivil War. The French weren't very civil to Louis either.

Civility comes to an end and calling for it isn't effective. What would be is to address the issues in an effective way before civility fails.

Way back when there was discussion as to whether the possibility of removal of a President by impeachment. Ben Franklin was arguably the one who laid it out in a way that it was understood what it had to be. The fear of incivility was hardly a concern, they were all baptized in blood. No, impeachment was the option to the only other means available to the citizen -and these are Franklin's words, not mine - assassination. What was the threshold for removal? No not the claimed in ignorance requirement of criminal activity, but by being "obnoxious", and in the context of the day we've already passed that.

No, civility isn't the issue, it's the lack of aggressive but legal correction of issues we face. Civility would not be a preventative, merely a casualty in a progression of history repeated again and again. Ben Franklin and the others would have told you that things can very much get worse.

 

[realibrad]

Really? Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy. the junta in Greece, the French revolution and the list extends to infinity tbh. You gonna ask me to prove that the earth is a sphere next?

All examples of things happening in situations that were not dire at all. Post WWI was just a rosy place in Germany and Italy.

As for the Junta, Greece was just an amazing place post WWII and that civil war they had was just a water balloon fight right?

The French revolution had nothing to do with the massive amounts of debt, a failing economy, and a wealthy class that insulated themselves from those effects at the expense of others.

My god, how could I have not seen it. You were so right!

 

[Jhhnn]

Man, MLK got it so wrong. We really should not have followed his dumb ideas eh?

Pro tip, Black people had it far worse than Liberals of today.

And duh-vert, of course.

 

[realibrad]

Yeah, I live here like always.

Huh, well I thought you were in Europe for some reason.

Well, the Right has been the masters of incivility for a while now. It does seem strange that you think the Left has not started up in that though.

As I said, the Right started the incivility, but, the Left starting to match them is not going to leave the climate the same. I think its reasonable to expect that as the Left gets more uncivil that we would expect things to get worse.

 

[ecogen]

All examples of things happening in situations that were not dire at all. Post WWI was just a rosy place in Germany and Italy.

As for the Junta, Greece was just an amazing place post WWII and that civil war they had was just a water balloon fight right?

The French revolution had nothing to do with the massive amounts of debt, a failing economy, and a wealthy class that insulated themselves from those effects at the expense of others.

My god, how could I have not seen it. You were so right!

Again, it's never too late until it is. Keep letting the GOP go unopposed, you'll keep falling behind when it comes to quality of life for the average citizen until you reach the inevitable breaking point. Half of your country is already a shithole, and you're doing nothing to change that.

 

[zinfamous]

Man, MLK got it so wrong. We really should not have followed his dumb ideas eh?

Pro tip, Black people had it far worse than Liberals of today.

This is basically SlowSpyder's smoking strawman. Don't ever go full Slowspyder. Jhnnn mentioned nothing about liberals having it worse than black people or MLK or anything. In fact, he didn't even mention liberals specifically, just the observably true fact that Gingrich turned the GOP and its followers into an uncivil mass of sociopaths, that literally hate anything and everything that they don't define as "them."

 

[realibrad]

Ask yourself this. When the past government of America headed by King George was removed just how civil were we? The Boston Tea Party? Well, that was rather rude as was the UnCivil War. The French weren't very civil to Louis either.

Civility comes to an end and calling for it isn't effective. What would be is to address the issues in an effective way before civility fails.

Way back when there was discussion as to whether the possibility of removal of a President by impeachment. Ben Franklin was arguably the one who laid it out in a way that it was understood what it had to be. The fear of incivility was hardly a concern, they were all baptized in blood. No, impeachment was the option to the only other means available to the citizen -and these are Franklin's words, not mine - assassination. What was the threshold for removal? No not the claimed in ignorance requirement of criminal activity, but by being "obnoxious", and in the context of the day we've already passed that.

No, civility isn't the issue, it's the lack of aggressive but legal correction of issues we face. Civility would not be a preventative, merely a casualty in a progression of history repeated again and again. Ben Franklin and the others would have told you that things can very much get worse.

I'm going to answer this and take a break as I have been responding to a flurry of posts and I cannot keep up.

For sure there are times with civility will not be the solution. That does not imply that we are at that door though. Civility allows for rational discussion. That discussion can lead to compromise and understanding which is vital to a modern society. It may come down to it where we need to kill people, but, I would rather avoid that road if possible.

The constant escalation that we now see is in large part due to one side giving up on the high road. We have far more problems than that, but, escalation is not likely to end well. Is that unreasonable?

 

[woolfe9998]

Huh, well I thought you were in Europe for some reason.

Well, the Right has been the masters of incivility for a while now. It does seem strange that you think the Left has not started up in that though.

As I said, the Right started the incivility, but, the Left starting to match them is not going to leave the climate the same. I think its reasonable to expect that as the Left gets more uncivil that we would expect things to get worse.

I didn't say there aren't people on the left being uncivil. I said that being civil will not make the right any less angry, because incivility of the left isn't what is making them angry to begin with. They're angry at liberals because they believe in lies they are being told.

In a country with protected speech, there is nothing to be done about this. Literally the only thing that matters any more is changing demographics and how fast it occurs. Their leaders need to be voted out of office and kept out.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you already forgot post 104 where I said this...

" Obviously it would be stupid to say feel nothing, but, you have to be mature and try to constrain yourself so your actions are not unduly influenced by anger. "

You also seemed to have not understood when I said "control". I clearly am not saying to feel nothing. I am saying to make sure you do not let those feelings get to the point where they are damaging your ability to make rational decisions. Harness and control can be exchanged in this context.

That doesn't appear to be happening here so I think we're okay then, unless you're counting each and every liberal who exists. I don't think that's a useful thing to do though.

Wait, you don't think you can influence a society by shifting actions

I think what you're suggesting is not possible so it's not worth worrying about.

The Republicans had the same strategy when they sought out the south. They sold their soul to win elections no?

I would say a decades long purposeful propaganda campaign has been the primary reason, that it played to peoples emotions was secondary.

Obama was not a president in a vacuum. He may have very well been the reason things were better then vs now. We no longer have a strong leader that we can look to. He worked his ass off to try and keep the country together. I think him being influenced by Lincoln was a huge help. Lincoln had to sign off on actions that he knew would be the death of millions because people let their emotions override their logic. I'm hoping people realize and remember that time because I truly believe we are on the same path.

So tell me, do you think the civil war could have been avoided if the anti-slavery side had just been a little more angry? I would be that you would counter by trying to argue that had the anti-side not be so passionate we would not have ended slavery. Lets see how I do.

I have no idea if we would have ended slavery or not.

 

[realibrad]

This is basically SlowSpyder's smoking strawman. Don't ever go full Slowspyder. Jhnnn mentioned nothing about liberals having it worse than black people or MLK or anything. In fact, he didn't even mention liberals specifically, just the observably true fact that Gingrich turned the GOP and its followers into an uncivil mass of sociopaths, that literally hate anything and everything that they don't define as "them."

The point was to show that civility was able to work given conditions and people far worse off. jhhnn was trying to say that it would not work, yet clearly it did.

I also want to note that when I say that the Right sold its soul to win, I am talking about things like what Gingrich did.

 

[fskimospy]

The "political climate" isn't causing them to be extreme. Conservatives being extreme is the political climate.

You seem confused about why they are so angry. They are angry because they've been letting propagandists like Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Trump and Hannity piss on their brains for decades now, and they choose to believe everything they're being told. If you thought the Clintons were murderers and child sex traffickers, you'd probably be pretty angry too.

Little if any of this has anything to do with the behavior of actual liberals. Accordingly, being "nice" will not tamp down the anger.

Yes, this is a better way of saying my point. Conservatives are not angry because liberals are uncivil, conservatives are angry because of a decades long propaganda campaign designed to make them angry.

 

[fskimospy]

The situation is different. If you look at a dire situation and then try to compare it to what is going on in the US, its vastly different. Dire situations can sometimes require extreme measures. Nazism did not arise because there was a lack of hostility to their beliefs. Nazism arose from people in a dire situation looking for anything that could get them out of their miserable lives.

Ironically, that was very much a big boost to Trump. People saw Trump as a way to improve their wealth.

Like the current Republican Party the Nazi Party was always a minority party during the Weimar Republic. They didn't take power because of overwhelming popular demand for their policies, they took power because once they tricked the president into making them a minority part of a coalition they used that power to ban their opponents, beat them into submission, and then burn the Reichstag down.

You might need ti give me some reading material on Hungry and Poland. I honestly do not know enough to speak on it here.

Also, you can bring up Nazis any time you want if it fits the situation.

Here is a piece on Hungary, even without the part of the article that relates it back to the US this should all sound very, very familiar.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/13/17823488/hungary-democracy-authoritarianism-trump

 

[realibrad]

I didn't say there aren't people on the left being uncivil. I said that being civil will not make the right any less angry, because incivility of the left isn't what is making them angry to begin with. They're angry at liberals because they believe in lies they are being told.

In a country with protected speech, there is nothing to be done about this. Literally the only thing that matters any more is changing demographics and how fast it occurs. Their leaders need to be voted out of office and kept out.

You said that the climate was the Right being extreme. That is not true as the Left also is playing a role in the political climate. I am in no way dismissing the responsibility of the Right and what they did. But, to say that its all the Right's fault is clearly wrong no?

 

[realibrad]

That doesn't appear to be happening here so I think we're okay then, unless you're counting each and every liberal who exists. I don't think that's a useful thing to do though.

I'm confused. I said that anger needed to be controlled as not doing so is actually harmful to rational choice making. You said that is not inherently true, as emotions could be used to motivate people, which is not a disagreement to what I said. What did I miss in this part?

I think what you're suggesting is not possible so it's not worth worrying about.

You don't think I'm suggesting that is not possible?

You seemed to be saying that the masses could not be swayed, yet, I know you have made the argument that leaders on the Right are swaying its base. So what is it that you are saying?

I would say a decades long purposeful propaganda campaign has been the primary reason, that it played to peoples emotions was secondary.

That is selling their soul to me.

I have no idea if we would have ended slavery or not.

Then do you think its reasonable that Obama may have been the reason we had a lid on so much of this? You seemed to say that Obama being nice did nothing, and I suggested that maybe he held a lot of this shit down.

 

[realibrad]

Like the current Republican Party the Nazi Party was always a minority party during the Weimar Republic. They didn't take power because of overwhelming popular demand for their policies, they took power because once they tricked the president into making them a minority part of a coalition they used that power to ban their opponents, beat them into submission, and then burn the Reichstag down.

The Nazi party needed support, and it gained it by reaching out to people that would support them. This clearly had to happen. You cant use violence if there is nobody to enact the violence. Hitler was able to amass large crowds to his speeches. Also remember that the anti-semitic movement was well underway long before Hitler and the Nazis. Post WWI there were many people playing on peoples anger and pain.

Here is a piece on Hungary, even without the part of the article that relates it back to the US this should all sound very, very familiar.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/13/17823488/hungary-democracy-authoritarianism-trump

I will try and read it tonight. I'm sure its quite depressing.

 

[woolfe9998]

You said that the climate was the Right being extreme. That is not true as the Left also is playing a role in the political climate. I am in no way dismissing the responsibility of the Right and what they did. But, to say that its all the Right's fault is clearly wrong no?

You keep ignoring my point, which is that conservatives are angry because of propaganda, not actual liberal behavior. Accordingly, there is no reason to expect that being more civil will improve their emotional state. Liberal behavior is not a huge factor for them because such behavior occurs in the real world, a place conservatives no longer reside.

I've criticized the left's identity politics in the past, but that is because I think there are some swing voters who might be turned off by it. Conservatives aren't the point because they are totally unreachable.