FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=52208
Because like January 6, it was an attempt to overturn the results of the an election.
That’s why I asked. The impeachment “coup” would have resulted in the VP or someone else from Trump’s cabinet ascending to President. Going beyond that wanders deeper into conspiracy theory.UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 1:18 pmBecause like January 6, it was an attempt to overturn the results of the an election.
Before you attempt to obfuscate by asking for some kind of explanation go back and read Ganny's many posts on the topic. He's done an excellent job of explaining why it could be considered a coup and why it really backfired when trump actually did something worthy of impeachment.
They were both attempts to overturn the results of a free and fair election because the loser wasn't happy with losing.kalm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 2:03 pmThat’s why I asked. The impeachment “coup” would have resulted in the VP or someone else from Trump’s cabinet ascending to President. Going beyond that wanders deeper into conspiracy theory.UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 1:18 pm
Because like January 6, it was an attempt to overturn the results of the an election.
Before you attempt to obfuscate by asking for some kind of explanation go back and read Ganny's many posts on the topic. He's done an excellent job of explaining why it could be considered a coup and why it really backfired when trump actually did something worthy of impeachment.
The two are not even close to the same. This where the ideology of “both sides do it” gets in trouble. It obscures reality.
Do obscure and obfuscation come from the same origin?
Nevertheless its true in this case.UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 2:08 pmThey were both attempts to overturn the results of a free and fair election because the loser wasn't happy with losing.kalm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 2:03 pm
That’s why I asked. The impeachment “coup” would have resulted in the VP or someone else from Trump’s cabinet ascending to President. Going beyond that wanders deeper into conspiracy theory.
The two are not even close to the same. This where the ideology of “both sides do it” gets in trouble. It obscures reality.
Do obscure and obfuscation come from the same origin?
The first impeachment also had the unintended consequence of poisoning the well so the second and this time valid impeachment failed.
Donks own both of those and no arguing that they're not the same as January 6 will change that.
You know what else obscures reality? The my side isn't as bad as the other side defense.
Sure it is. You and kalm are convinced it’s true in one direction and SG and BDK are sure it’s true in the other. You’re all equally delusional.houndawg wrote:Nevertheless its true in this case.UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 2:08 pm They were both attempts to overturn the results of a free and fair election because the loser wasn't happy with losing.
The first impeachment also had the unintended consequence of poisoning the well so the second and this time valid impeachment failed.
Donks own both of those and no arguing that they're not the same as January 6 will change that.
You know what else obscures reality? The my side isn't as bad as the other side defense.
You’re wandering back and forth between what is fact and opinion and that’s ok. You have to sometimes to remain a centrist in a fluid system where the center is always shifting.kalm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 2:03 pmThat’s why I asked. The impeachment “coup” would have resulted in the VP or someone else from Trump’s cabinet ascending to President. Going beyond that wanders deeper into conspiracy theory.UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 1:18 pm
Because like January 6, it was an attempt to overturn the results of the an election.
Before you attempt to obfuscate by asking for some kind of explanation go back and read Ganny's many posts on the topic. He's done an excellent job of explaining why it could be considered a coup and why it really backfired when trump actually did something worthy of impeachment.
The two are not even close to the same. This where the ideology of “both sides do it” gets in trouble. It obscures reality.
Do obscure and obfuscation come from the same origin?
As you've done many times before and have had to been corrected on many times before, being a "centrist" or in the "middle" doesn't mean any of those things you suggest. Rather, it's always been a position on the political spectrum where folks reside who don't buy-in fully to either partisan side of the political spectrum, and instead, depending on the issue or the point of discussion, listen to both sides and only then decide, for that specific issue, which side they lean towards.
You’re defending centrism in a complex and flawed two party system where the center constantly shifts.GannonFan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 7:54 amAs you've done many times before and have had to been corrected on many times before, being a "centrist" or in the "middle" doesn't mean any of those things you suggest. Rather, it's always been a position on the political spectrum where folks reside who don't buy-in fully to either partisan side of the political spectrum, and instead, depending on the issue or the point of discussion, listen to both sides and only then decide, for that specific issue, which side they lean towards.
I get it, you're a pretty diehard partisan (your post-partisan schtick has long since been debunked as posturing), it's difficult to wrap your head around the idea that you're not always correct and that the other side of the political argument is not actually, always, the devil incarnate. But you really diminish yourself by trying to castigate folks for having the temerity to thoughtfully approach political issues and judge them on their merits rather than on the talking points of the political extremes. But being the partisan you are, I'm sure that doesn't even bother you, you're past those concerns of rationally approaching a topic. How splendid for you.
So you're a centrist then. It's okay to admit it.kalm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 8:31 amYou’re defending centrism in a complex and flawed two party system where the center constantly shifts.GannonFan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 7:54 am
As you've done many times before and have had to been corrected on many times before, being a "centrist" or in the "middle" doesn't mean any of those things you suggest. Rather, it's always been a position on the political spectrum where folks reside who don't buy-in fully to either partisan side of the political spectrum, and instead, depending on the issue or the point of discussion, listen to both sides and only then decide, for that specific issue, which side they lean towards.
I get it, you're a pretty diehard partisan (your post-partisan schtick has long since been debunked as posturing), it's difficult to wrap your head around the idea that you're not always correct and that the other side of the political argument is not actually, always, the devil incarnate. But you really diminish yourself by trying to castigate folks for having the temerity to thoughtfully approach political issues and judge them on their merits rather than on the talking points of the political extremes. But being the partisan you are, I'm sure that doesn't even bother you, you're past those concerns of rationally approaching a topic. How splendid for you.
Partisanship in such a system is tied to party. In that regard I’m post partisan as I see the flaws and take issue with both sides in accordance to my values. Those values tend to fall on the left side of the political spectrum with an underlying backdrop of libertarianism.
We are social apes that are best served through cooperation and community.
Try to not crap the environmental bed you sleep in but when you do, clean it up.
True freedom transcends race, country, religion, sexual orientation, and (in specific, limited situations) even the individual.
Government is a necessary evil. There can be both too much and too little.
Best of luck!
Of course I am silly. And the American voter according to years of polling is progressive on nearly every big issue from government corruption to monopolistic financial markets to drug legalization to increased wages to lgbtq rights to sensible gun control.GannonFan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:15 amSo you're a centrist then. It's okay to admit it.kalm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 8:31 am
You’re defending centrism in a complex and flawed two party system where the center constantly shifts.
Partisanship in such a system is tied to party. In that regard I’m post partisan as I see the flaws and take issue with both sides in accordance to my values. Those values tend to fall on the left side of the political spectrum with an underlying backdrop of libertarianism.
We are social apes that are best served through cooperation and community.
Try to not crap the environmental bed you sleep in but when you do, clean it up.
True freedom transcends race, country, religion, sexual orientation, and (in specific, limited situations) even the individual.
Government is a necessary evil. There can be both too much and too little.
Best of luck!
You just told yourself that "You’re wandering back and forth between what is fact and opinion and that’s ok."kalm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 5:33 amYou’re wandering back and forth between what is fact and opinion and that’s ok. You have to sometimes to remain a centrist in a fluid system where the center is always shifting.kalm wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 2:03 pm
That’s why I asked. The impeachment “coup” would have resulted in the VP or someone else from Trump’s cabinet ascending to President. Going beyond that wanders deeper into conspiracy theory.
The two are not even close to the same. This where the ideology of “both sides do it” gets in trouble. It obscures reality.
Do obscure and obfuscation come from the same origin?
Like all polls (and opinions), it comes down to the details. But then you knew that.kalm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:23 amOf course I am silly. And the American voter according to years of polling is progressive on nearly every big issue from government corruption to monopolistic financial markets to drug legalization to increased wages to lgbtq rights to sensible gun control.
It’s not my fault you guys picked a bad time to defend the conservative right.
I'm not aware that I'm defending the conservative right, but as the kids used to say, "you go on with your bad self".kalm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:23 amOf course I am silly. And the American voter according to years of polling is progressive on nearly every big issue from government corruption to monopolistic financial markets to drug legalization to increased wages to lgbtq rights to sensible gun control.
It’s not my fault you guys picked a bad time to defend the conservative right.
I figured he was just trolling and decided to take a nibble.GannonFan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 10:19 amI'm not aware that I'm defending the conservative right, but as the kids used to say, "you go on with your bad self".kalm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:23 am
Of course I am silly. And the American voter according to years of polling is progressive on nearly every big issue from government corruption to monopolistic financial markets to drug legalization to increased wages to lgbtq rights to sensible gun control.
It’s not my fault you guys picked a bad time to defend the conservative right.
Btw, on your list that you claim has been polled, who's really for government corruption and monopolistic financial markets? I don't really see those on many placards and people actively pushing for those things, left or right.
In this case and few others we discuss, false equivalencies are enabling.GannonFan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 10:19 amI'm not aware that I'm defending the conservative right, but as the kids used to say, "you go on with your bad self".kalm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 9:23 am
Of course I am silly. And the American voter according to years of polling is progressive on nearly every big issue from government corruption to monopolistic financial markets to drug legalization to increased wages to lgbtq rights to sensible gun control.
It’s not my fault you guys picked a bad time to defend the conservative right.
Btw, on your list that you claim has been polled, who's really for government corruption and monopolistic financial markets? I don't really see those on many placards and people actively pushing for those things, left or right.
My morning dump has attained your level of enlightenment...
Interesting, you give 3 examples all from one side of the political spectrum. Your centralist position seems to be off to a rocky start.kalm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:24 pmIn this case and few others we discuss, false equivalencies are enabling.GannonFan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 10:19 am
I'm not aware that I'm defending the conservative right, but as the kids used to say, "you go on with your bad self".
Btw, on your list that you claim has been polled, who's really for government corruption and monopolistic financial markets? I don't really see those on many placards and people actively pushing for those things, left or right.
Well healed special interests benefit from corruption and monopolies. In fact, they pay handsomely for it…a cost of doing business.
Let me guess…you still think money is speech and have never heard of ALEC or Blackrock, or the Federalist Society.
Again, not my fault these are easy examples although ALEC at least used to portray themselves as neutral and certainly worked with legislators and groups from both sides. I’m guessing Blackrock is the same. Maybe there’s a pay to play court system influence that rivals the Fed Soc as well? Dunno.Winterborn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 3:16 pmInteresting, you give 3 examples all from one side of the political spectrum. Your centralist position seems to be off to a rocky start.kalm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 1:24 pm
In this case and few others we discuss, false equivalencies are enabling.
Well healed special interests benefit from corruption and monopolies. In fact, they pay handsomely for it…a cost of doing business.
Let me guess…you still think money is speech and have never heard of ALEC or Blackrock, or the Federalist Society.
Just giving you lip on your probation period.kalm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 3:57 pmAgain, not my fault these are easy examples although ALEC at least used to portray themselves as neutral and certainly worked with legislators and groups from both sides. I’m guessing Blackrock is the same. Maybe there’s a pay to play court system influence that rivals the Fed Soc as well? Dunno.Winterborn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 3:16 pm
Interesting, you give 3 examples all from one side of the political spectrum. Your centralist position seems to be off to a rocky start.
You dirty rotten son of a bitch!Winterborn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 4:18 pmJust giving you lip on your probation period.kalm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 3:57 pm
Again, not my fault these are easy examples although ALEC at least used to portray themselves as neutral and certainly worked with legislators and groups from both sides. I’m guessing Blackrock is the same. Maybe there’s a pay to play court system influence that rivals the Fed Soc as well? Dunno.
