Our Political Discourse.

Bruh said:
i don’t have time to do homework.

What things have I not acknowledge that are good?
Click to expand...
i don;t have time to do homework either.... .. look through your posts and find something positive you said about trump..... . shouldn;t be that hard...... they are your posts afterall - aren;t they?......... or is your memory as bad as your judgement?....
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
In what context is he celebrated Stalins birthday and denying the holocaust appropriate?
Click to expand...
He doesn’t deny the holocaust. Statins birthday? He trolls, I don’t know I’m not his parent.

Context? Ever heard of young men hanging out and telling off color jokes? But I’m sure you’ve never done something like that.
 
aleshanee said:
i don;t have time to do homework either.... .. look through your posts and find something positive you said about trump..... . shouldn;t be that hard...... they are your posts afterall - aren;t they?......... or is your memory as bad as your judgement?....
Click to expand...
Trump shut the boarder down that’s a good thing.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
Maybe Nick should pick a better adjective when describing Hitler and Stalin. I don’t think “great” is probably the best choice of words. It gives the appearance of dog whistling to certain group of people, but I’m pretty sure Nick already knows this. 😉
Click to expand...
You missed the part where he said they were wicked and evil.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
Then why call them great??
Click to expand...
Because of the power of their influence. That’s undeniable. If these men were to write a leadership book don’t you think they’d have some knowledge on how to influence people?

How did they influence an entire country? It was for evil everyone knows that. But how?

Great meaning, their arm of influence. Not honorable. Nick said that. He said they were wicked and evil men. But great in their influence. That’s undeniable.
 
Bruh said:
Because of the power of their influence. That’s undeniable. If these men were to write a leadership book don’t you think they’d have some knowledge on how to influence people?

How did they influence an entire country? It was for evil everyone knows that. But how?

Great meaning, their arm of influence. Not honorable. Nick said that. He said they were wicked and evil men. But great in their influence. That’s undeniable.
Click to expand...
Words matter.
 
ALAYMAN said:
That isn't true for me, cuz I have a certain smell test. Fuentes doesn't pass it, but marginally, Trump does. What's your smell test?
Click to expand...
First I like to start with someone who doesn't smell. 😉
 
Bruh said:
How did they influence an entire country?
Click to expand...

Causing mass starvation, burning down the Reichstag, and blaming the Jews?

Asking where the two most totalitarian despots of the 20th century got their "influence" may be one of the dumber questions someone could ask.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Speaking of political discourse and political climate the Democrat Party voters elected a communist and an attorney general who wished death on his political opponent and his children! That speaks volumes on the subject.

We’ll have to wait for Sub to tell us they weren’t electing a pastor and weigh in on the morality of these officials.
Click to expand...
The Democrats are pretty much a lost cause. Not my circus not my clowns.

The GOP on the other hand has steadfastly claimed the moral high ground despite their general lack of morality.

Neither party deserves my support nor do I owe any to either.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
Then why call them great??
Click to expand...
I'm going with the idea of secondary definitions. Used in the context of powerful and mighty. Alexander the Great for example.

BTW the same thinking has been applied to Mr. Trump when he has made positive comments about the leadership abilities of men like Putin and Xi. Those would be clear examples where he did it deserve the criticisms that followed.
 
subllibrm said:
I think starting with a candidate who has morals is a reasonable standard.
Click to expand...
So this is as close as you've come to answering who meets the moral standard you hold when considering who would get your vote, yet is still abundantly vague. How about giving a list of potential candidates (Vance, Rubio, Desantis, etc) who you think has sufficient morals to garner your vote.
 
subllibrm said:
I think starting with a candidate who has morals is a reasonable standard.
Click to expand...
you have been asked on this forum many times to name that person.... .. and you always refuse........ i don;t think it;s because you don;t have someone in mind.... i believe it;s because you know that once you do that your idea of an acceptable "moral" candidate would be subject to the same brutal scrutiny.. defamation and raking over the coals you have done with donald trump here... ..... and face it.... . your average lilly livered leftist ..... (which i consider you a prime example of)..... just couldn;t bear to see that kind of thing happen..... (regardless of how enthusiastically you dish it out)... ....

disagree with me?..... then strap on your big boy boots and name a candidate........ otherwise...... what i said to bruh concerning caring what he thinks anymore goes double for you.......
 
Ransom said:
Causing mass starvation, burning down the Reichstag, and blaming the Jews?

Asking where the two most totalitarian despots of the 20th century got their "influence" may be one of the dumber questions someone could ask.
Click to expand...
Oook
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top