Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

[Coughdrop addict]

It's like when a creationist uses Gish Gallop. Using this technique, creationist debaters let loose such a flurry of nonsense mixed with jargony words, pseudo-science, and Biblical references that the opponent realizes that it's an impossible task to answer them all, and thus appears to be hammered by truth. The reason this works is that science wears restraints that creationism doesn't: facts. The creationist isn't so shackled.

Essentially right wingers saw the Gish Gallop "working" for Young Earth Creationism, and now use it as their first tactic on every topic. So when for example they say covid is a hoax while in the same breath say that Biden is letting in hordes of covid-infected migrants to destroy the country, realize that they aren't trying to convince you or offer a rebuttal. They're trying to shut you up by burying you in nonsense.

[alhoon]

It's like when a creationist uses Gish Gallop. Using this technique, creationist debaters let loose such a flurry of nonsense mixed with jargony words, pseudo-science, and Biblical references that the opponent realizes that it's an impossible task to answer them all, and thus appears to be hammered by truth. The reason this works is that science wears restraints that creationism doesn't: facts. The creationist isn't so shackled.

Essentially right wingers saw the Gish Gallop "working" for Young Earth Creationism, and now use it as their first tactic on every topic. So when for example they say covid is a hoax while in the same breath say that Biden is letting in hordes of covid-infected migrants to destroy the country, realize that they aren't trying to convince you or offer a rebuttal. They're trying to shut you up by burying you in nonsense.

Agreed, but that's not just the alt-rights. There are people trying to bury you in nonsense in all spectra.

[EmperorBatman999]

Debating with right wingers and conservatives is getting very cumbersome. You make an argument of 100 units. They take 1 unit, twist it through use of straw man arguments and red herrings, and then rant about mostly irrelevant or completely untrue stuff, while also projecting their own position's shortcomings. You end up spending most of your time trying to get them on the actual topic reaching nowhere.

TurningPoint USA is the worst. They make some of the crassest, trashiest public "statements" (more like outbursts) and social media posts. I have no idea why anybody would ever believe them.

And to think at one point, at the worst depths of my joblessness last spring, I applied to work for them. Perhaps I thought I could somehow change them, refine and soften them. But, I needed to collect some kind of salary, but it's not a surprise I didn't make it past my first interview with them.

For people who are lucky enough to live outside the United States, these are the "Dear Liberals...!" people.

[alhoon]

With the retreat from Kabul and the imminent declaration of the Emirate of Afghanistan, the wars of Bush2 finally end after 20 years. Both wars ended in failure. From partial failure (Iraq) to humiliating one (Afghanistan).

That's what happens when you place oil companies people to key roles in your country and go in an futile exercise in nation building in cultures very much unlike yours with the haughtiness to not understand the differences.

[Coughdrop addict]

With the retreat from Kabul and the imminent declaration of the Emirate of Afghanistan, the wars of Bush2 finally end after 20 years. Both wars ended in failure. From partial failure (Iraq) to humiliating one (Afghanistan).

That's what happens when you place oil companies people to key roles in your country and go in an futile exercise in nation building in cultures very much unlike yours with the haughtiness to not understand the differences.

I wouldn't say Iraq was a failure. The citizens of Iraq have shown the will to fight for their country, beating back ISIS. Of course Iraq had a previous history of stable if horrifyingly brutal government that Afghanistan lacks. The very idea of the nation-state wasn't nearly as foreign to Iraqis as Afghans.

[Heathen Hammer]

Form strategic perspective, Iraq is failure by virtue of the fact that it is firmly within Iran's sphere on influence, Iran being the key factor behind annihilation of ISIS (whose rise was largely caused by American presence in the region in the first place).
The point is that "nation-building" was only a vague propaganda term, while in reality Americans never bothered with that, primarily relying on short-term support from local warlords who tended to be just as brutal as the factions they claimed to oppose if not more. American middle-eastern disaster is largely product of modern neoliberal mindset and goes to show that bad things happens when finance class has too much say in the state, as it is impotent in dealing with matters outside the realm of profit-margins.

[alhoon]

I wouldn't say Iraq was a failure. The citizens of Iraq have shown the will to fight for their country, beating back ISIS. Of course Iraq had a previous history of stable if horrifyingly brutal government that Afghanistan lacks. The very idea of the nation-state wasn't nearly as foreign to Iraqis as Afghans.

Form strategic perspective, Iraq is failure by virtue of the fact that it is firmly within Iran's sphere on influence, Iran being the key factor behind annihilation of ISIS (whose rise was largely caused by American presence in the region in the first place).
The point is that "nation-building" was only a vague propaganda term, while in reality Americans never bothered with that, primarily relying on short-term support from local warlords who tended to be just as brutal as the factions they claimed to oppose if not more. American middle-eastern disaster is largely product of modern neoliberal mindset and goes to show that bad things happens when finance class has too much say in the state, as it is impotent in dealing with matters outside the realm of profit-margins.

I usually disagree with HH.
But I agree with this 100%. Yes, profit-seekers make bad politicians. Especially when half of them don't look at the profit-margins of their constituents but their own bank accounts.
I am looking at you, Cheney.

[Cyclops]

...
I am looking at you, Cheney.

Close to 100% on this site would agree, Cheney was a ****.

My pet whinge about the US right is why wasn't Pence (an experienced and moral man AFAIK) given a go? Let Trump get impeached, or fall on his sword or whatever, and sub in the decent human with actual leadership experience. It is as crassly stupid as when the Donkey Party let Hilary run instead of an actual leader.

[Coughdrop addict]

Why? Trump had everything the average Republican voter looks for in a leader. He's a self-centered narcissist who has been pampered and coddled his whole life, while whining constantly that he is the biggest victim in the world and always blaming someone else for his actions. He's also a compulsive liar who will say or claim anything if he thinks it will lead to getting what he wants. Most importantly of all, he is belligerent, abusive, childish, petty, deeply suspicious of anyone smarter than him, and treats his grudges as his most cherished possessions.

They voted for him because he's just like them.

[alhoon]

Why? Trump had everything the average Republican voter looks for in a leader. He's a self-centered narcissist who has been pampered and coddled his whole life, while whining constantly that he is the biggest victim in the world and always blaming someone else for his actions. He's also a compulsive liar who will say or claim anything if he thinks it will lead to getting what he wants. Most importantly of all, he is belligerent, abusive, childish, petty, deeply suspicious of anyone smarter than him, and treats his grudges as his most cherished possessions.

They voted for him because he's just like them.

The assumption that the average Republican voter looks for someone exactly like Trump, let alone that the average Republican voter looks like Trump is false. While Trump remains popular with the Republicans, the average Republican voter doesn't look at these things for a leader.
They want someone that is pro-state power over federal, that doesn't bow down to the Media and that is not afraid to annoy people nor walks on PC eggshells. Plus they wanted someone with a clear anti-immigration message and "America-first" message... even if it is xenophobic.

If they got someone sane and non-petty with these characteristics, they would vote for him.
Make no mistake, the average Republican, unfortunate as it may be, indeed wants someone to say to the 'Mexican countries' that "We don't want your people here, we consider most of them criminals that steal our jobs.", say about the Middle East and Africa "it's about time we put a stop to arrivals from countries we consider culturally inferior and with dangerous religion" and say "we spilled enough blood in the sand, let them chop off each other's head as long as they don't bother us".

Now, they got someone that instead of "We don't want your people here, we consider most of them criminals that steal our jobs." said "Mexico sends us murderers, rapists and drugs."
He called the poor countries as "####hole countries".
He invited the Taliban for peacetalks and tea and was about to leave in May 2021.

The intellectual Republican would frown. The Hillbilly Republican would cheer. The Average Republican would be OK with the above.
But most of them would then check the other side and be disgusted and thus rally to the leader's flag.
Because between saying "Mexico sends us Rapists and drugs" or the "Please wait at the border, it may be some time till we can admit you in", the average Republican prefers the first option.
Between "####hole countries" and Muslims bans and an ~50% reduction to legal immigration and Democrats pandering to the 2.5% of Muslims and pretending Muslims and non-Muslims can easily coexist without issues or Democrats (rightfully) bringing in and giving shelter to people from poor, war-ravaged countries, the average Republican prefers the first option. Just the 50% reduction in immigration is good news for many blue collar workers (and bad news for the companies that want talent).
Between hearing that Taliban are invited to Camp Davis to talk about peace or Democrats saber-rattling in the Middle East, the average Republican prefers the first option.

And then, the Democrats would vilify them and make sure they double down on their decision and turn them from Trump supporters to Trump fanatics.

[Heathen Hammer]

I think that biggest populist potential for real political change (as in real political changes that would actually determine how much exactly should finance class be allowed to control society) in current US would be for a candidate who is anti-corporate, but is also socially conservative. Trump had the markings for that (or at least saw potential in it and rode it), but he didn't go all the way. But as it always goes on history, when there is a potential, someone will take advantage of it. Like it or hate it, populism is the future.

[Gaidin]

My pet whinge about the US right is why wasn't Pence (an experienced and moral man AFAIK) given a go? Let Trump get impeached, or fall on his sword or whatever, and sub in the decent human with actual leadership experience. It is as crassly stupid as when the Donkey Party let Hilary run instead of an actual leader.

You're starting to learn how primaries work. The party does not choose candidates in the old style where state delegates choose the person that may not only be a good politician, but possibly a person good for the country. The last time that really happened was in the 1960s. Party line votes are a bit different than general votes. But after the 1960's, party primaries were made totally popular vote by both parties.

Also, your reference to Pence not being given a go? Well, he sort of has to run for the nomination to be given a go. And, he didn't run. Aside from your rather crass reference to the impeachments, you should look more into the history of US Impeachments to see why and how they work the way they do before saying people should fall on their swords.

[Cyclops]

You're starting to learn how primaries work. The party does not choose candidates in the old style where state delegates choose the person that may not only be a good politician, but possibly a person good for the country. The last time that really happened was in the 1960s. Party line votes are a bit different than general votes. But after the 1960's, party primaries were made totally popular vote by both parties.

Which president in the 1960's was chosen as "good for his country"? Not sure Kennedy was chosen for the good of any country, he was drunk frat boy elected by daddy's money and lies, so not entirely different to Trump. LBJ was a Biden grade placeholder. Nixon is more plausible than the other two.

Despite the charade of primaries generally candidates are still chosen by the gilded elite, Trump was unusual in that he crashed the process (with his rambunctious nomination), but he bent the knee. He tried it again with his shaman-led insurrection, but turned on his own coup attempt within hours: clearly he got the phone call.

Also, your reference to Pence not being given a go? Well, he sort of has to run for the nomination to be given a go. And, he didn't run. Aside from your rather crass reference to the impeachments, you should look more into the history of US Impeachments to see why and how they work the way they do before saying people should fall on their swords.

When Nixon was threatened with impeachment he stepped down and Ford stepped up. There's a precedent and its hardly obscure, not sure what your point is here.

Pence showed leadership qualities throughout the Trump debacle, down to the death. Oil beats God in the Republican party I guess, same way on the Democrat side that slimy timeserving beats having a heart.

[Coughdrop addict]

The assumption that the average Republican voter looks for someone exactly like Trump, let alone that the average Republican voter looks like Trump is false. While Trump remains popular with the Republicans, the average Republican voter doesn't look at these things for a leader.
They want someone that is pro-state power over federal, that doesn't bow down to the Media and that is not afraid to annoy people nor walks on PC eggshells. Plus they wanted someone with a clear anti-immigration message and "America-first" message... even if it is xenophobic.

If they got someone sane and non-petty with these characteristics, they would vote for him.
Make no mistake, the average Republican, unfortunate as it may be, indeed wants someone to say to the 'Mexican countries' that "We don't want your people here, we consider most of them criminals that steal our jobs.", say about the Middle East and Africa "it's about time we put a stop to arrivals from countries we consider culturally inferior and with dangerous religion" and say "we spilled enough blood in the sand, let them chop off each other's head as long as they don't bother us".

Now, they got someone that instead of "We don't want your people here, we consider most of them criminals that steal our jobs." said "Mexico sends us murderers, rapists and drugs."
He called the poor countries as "####hole countries".
He invited the Taliban for peacetalks and tea and was about to leave in May 2021.

The intellectual Republican would frown. The Hillbilly Republican would cheer. The Average Republican would be OK with the above.
But most of them would then check the other side and be disgusted and thus rally to the leader's flag.
Because between saying "Mexico sends us Rapists and drugs" or the "Please wait at the border, it may be some time till we can admit you in", the average Republican prefers the first option.
Between "####hole countries" and Muslims bans and an ~50% reduction to legal immigration and Democrats pandering to the 2.5% of Muslims and pretending Muslims and non-Muslims can easily coexist without issues or Democrats (rightfully) bringing in and giving shelter to people from poor, war-ravaged countries, the average Republican prefers the first option. Just the 50% reduction in immigration is good news for many blue collar workers (and bad news for the companies that want talent).
Between hearing that Taliban are invited to Camp Davis to talk about peace or Democrats saber-rattling in the Middle East, the average Republican prefers the first option.

And then, the Democrats would vilify them and make sure they double down on their decision and turn them from Trump supporters to Trump fanatics.

That the other options they were offered (humane treatment of migrants, accepting of non-whites and non-Christians as equal citizens) were rejected in favor of what Trump was offering tells me all I need to know about them. No doubt a few may have been uncomfortable, many Republican politicians openly derided Trump before 2015. But they all got behind him in lockstep the moment he was the nominee. All of their alleged moral reservations took a backseat to lust for power.

As for the infamous "states rights" argument, it is and always has been utter self-serving nonsense. They are perfectly fine with a powerful federal government that can force it's will on the states when it means getting their way. They had no objections to Trump trying to steal land through eminent domain for the wall, or trying to force the states to turn over their voter data to "prove he really won the popular vote" (more likely so Clinton voters could be targeted for revenge). Heck, ask them how they would feel about a federal mask or vaccine ban, regardless of what that state's government and voters want, to see what they really think of states rights.

[Heathen Hammer]

So now we have GOP governors asking Biden to resettle Afghan refugees in their states. As I predicted, taxpayer is going to foot the bill, while politicians get to act all altruistic and charitable at the expense of their constituents. Politicians started this war, escalated it, then lost it and taxpayers who never asked for any of this now have to pay to resettle thousands of foreigners in their own states, just because mr McRino wants to look virtuous. They could always use their private wealth to accommodate those refugees, but of course they won't.
Disgusting anti-populist behavior.

[Prodromos]

Pretty sure the vast majority of taxes are paid by people who support resettling Afghan refugees, especially ones who risked their lives to help US troops.

[Heathen Hammer]

Pretty sure the vast majority of taxes are paid by people who support resettling Afghan refugees, especially ones who risked their lives to help US troops.

Then they should have no problem using some private charity to accommodate them. Whether they helped US troops or not, its still not taxpayer's responsibility, as nobody asked taxpayers whether they want the Afghan war in the first place. Or just seize assets belonging to families of politicians that were in charge of that decision to go there and use that as piggy bank.

[Prodromos]

Libertarianism is cool but we both know that's not why you don't want America to take in refugees, bro.

[Heathen Hammer]

I've been waiting for steaming hot "you are raycis for not supporting forever wars" take for sometime. Yeah, I don't like the idea of bombing brown people to make profits for military-industrial complex, that makes me literally Hitler.

[Cyclops]

Pretty sure the vast majority of taxes are paid by people who support resettling Afghan refugees, especially ones who risked their lives to help US troops.

In my country the Feds are similarly focussed on domestic issues (not even corona, they are drowning in rape and corruption scandals) and zero thought has been given or provision made for the Afghans who supported our engagement there. We're hustling to find space on planes for these people who staked their lives on our cause, and while its just anecdotal it seems like a lot of contacts are going dark, most likely slaughtered.

Hopefully there will be a long hiatus before the US pulls this sort of crap again.

People trying to pin blame here and there, yes Biden is senile and Trump a cluster****, but neither made this, they have just fumbled the exit: there was no way to get out clean, but they should both bear blame for the degree of confusion.

I don't think the CIA is to blame (the on Asian adventure planned and carried out but the former CIA chief was as clean as it gets, Desert Storm, a textbook punitive raid), or DoD or State. The invasion was planned by the Cheney regime, and the mission creep was their work too "an Afghan Democracy is in our interests" said Bush as he ran "elections" to place warlords and adventurers in positions of power. There are a lot of factors in play but is true to say the Oil Faction of the Republican Party cooked this meal that the Afghans are eating right now.