Kevin's Watch

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Sarge, go reread the comments relating to that article Wosbald posted about the British cross-dresser (is that still a word?) who spoke with both conservatives and liberals and which group he found to be "nicer".

Erm...

Point of order. It was me that posted the article about Grayson Perry (and I bet that Wos is as amused as I am at anyone mixing us two up).

Now I know the article I posted was merely an opinion piece from one single individual, so anecdotal in the extreme. However what made it mildly more noteworthy is the fact that Grayson Perry is himself very definitely Left-leaning.

I found some random person on the street that says liberals are nicer.

Cherrypicking information that supports your political narrative is not intellectually honest.

Ur - test your theory. Wear a Maga hat to a liberal riot. Wait, last guy to do that was murdered. Don't do that please.

ur-Nanothnir wrote:I found some random person on the street that says liberals are nicer.

Cherrypicking information that supports your political narrative is not intellectually honest.

Nano... *sigh*

Did I not just specifically and categorically say that this was just one single person's opinion and therefore supremely anecdotal?

The only mildly interesting thing to me was that this single opinion comes from a significantly Left-leaning and relatively perceptive (you'll just have to take my word for that) artist and social commentator - again as clearly stated just now. So at least in this one example, comments of "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" become irrelevant.

Regardless, I am sure that my exemplar has been plainly and expressly caveated and qualified enough to make any accusation of "intellectual dishonesty" itself intellectually dishonest.

However what is most ironic is the crushing lack of self-awareness (NB not just from you). Every single time someone on either side of the divide posts a spun news story or op-ed piece from one of their favourite media vehicles that (duh!) "supports their political narrative" (in that it of course slams the "hated others"... which is precisely why they've posted it), what they're doing is of course exactly the very cherry-picking you're so roundly condemning.

I'm actually surprised you don't seem to realise that, especially because you do this every bit as much as anyone else?

No, I was actually agreeing with you. I just made a smartass comment making fun of the idea you were critiquing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44745676

https://www.wdel.com/news/woman-charged ... e71b6.html

Follow up to.last story

https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/natio ... 305d316de5

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... p-hat.html

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/adu ... rump-sign/

TheFallen wrote: Is it time yet for the US to split into two separate nations? How long before it doesn't become a matter of choice, but of necessity?

No need. Dems only need to wait about 20 years, and the GOP will no longer be relevant. Rapid demographic shifts and beliefs among younger voters do not work in the Republicans' favor. We already have a Purple Texas in the making. How much longer until Texas goes Blue and the GOP is well and truly screwed? It's actually a common talking point among the Right. It is something they worry about quite a lot.

We'll end up with a moderate party similar to the UK Conservatives and a progressive party.

The GOP is suffocating on their own aspirations, bellowing out "leftist thugs!" with each dying breath.

ur-Nanothnir wrote:We'll end up with a moderate party similar to the UK Conservatives

Oddly I enough i live in Texas and we aren't freaking out over turning blue. The big cities [Houston, Dallas. San Antonio, Austin] are liberal. Thd rest us pretty conservative. And green new deals don't do well with people who work in energy production. Neither does ing the cattle industry that you'll be doing away with meat.

At some point I pray that people see abortion like we now see slavery. But Planned Parenthood does make a lot of money and gives Democrats money to sell their souls. But might makes right. The unborn don't have a voice. Just like blacks didn't have voice [according to Democrats] until Republicans forced Democrats to give up their slaves.

Why does for Democrats progress mean the dehumanizing of either blacks or the unborn?

Re the demographics of voters, I suspect there may be more to it than that - even though it's undoubtedly true that older voters tend on average to be more right- leaning (or conservative, if you'd rather).

So why is there more to it? Simple... because there will always be older voters and I for one strongly suspect that, on average as one gets older, one is much more likely to become less idealised (which is probably synonymous with more real-world). Obviously not if we're talking about age-related mental impairment, but apart from that...

I'll again quote my father and his very astute observation that "when you're younger, you tend to vote with your heart, but when you get older, you tend to vote with your head". I think there's a whole heap of truth in that. Plus older people are much more likely to be less radical and more reactionary.

This has always been true and will always remain so - so it's simply not a question of waiting for the current generation of "fuddy-duddy stick in the muds" to die off... because the inexorable age conveyor belt is constantly bringing more new ones along.

I would absolutely welcome the reappearance of more centrist options available to be voted for in the US. Centrism is without any doubt of a far greater appeal and thus far more liable to get itself elected. That's exactly why the UK's current Conservative government got elected. It's not very credible (nor ever was) but it had a far higher appeal than the fringe inane Leftist burblings of the definitively too socialist Labour party under Corbyn.

NB that is categorically NOT saying that our current mob in power are any good. Over here, we could seriously do with hem being a whole load more joined-up and competent... so be careful what you wish for, when it comes to current Brit style conservatism.

All of which goes to explaining my extreme bafflement at the fact that BOTH parties in the US have chosen to go extreme - at least in terms of their messaging. To me, that's simply nuts.

During the confirmation of Kavanuagh I was ashamed. What a shitstorm. Glad I had no international travel during that time.

That’s all I have to say about that,

Expect the Democrats to be even worse during this confirmation hearing. They are desperate and will be willing to try anything.

I fear that the peaceful rioters will be emboldened.

What about all the times that Trump voters have openly said they wish for a civil war so they can murder liberals with impunity?

Feel free to post the links. But words vs. deeds.

The left is actively rioting. The are actively attacking police . The are actively burning cities.

Words vs. deeds.

TheFallen wrote:Point of order. It was me that posted the article about Grayson Perry (and I bet that Wos is as amused as I am at anyone mixing us two up).

Now I know the article I posted was merely an opinion piece from one single individual, so anecdotal in the extreme. However what made it mildly more noteworthy is the fact that Grayson Perry is himself very definitely Left-leaning.

Whoopsie--that one's on me.

Indeed, Mr. Perry is not the person whom most would think would strike any sort of positive chord with stereotypical "conservatives".

The possibility exists that Texas will go blue again at some point. That depends entirely upon how Democrat treat Hispanics, who are set to become the majority here before 2025. Keep pushing abortion, which is a Catholic no-no, and they risk losing the Hispanic vote altogether. Interestingly, many Hispanics who have immigrated here legally (including the ones who have become naturalized) are strongly opposed to the support Democrats keep giving towards illegal immigrants--another political topic where they risk losing the vote here.

Biden was right about one thing, though--if Democrats increase the number of Justices on the Court then what is to stop Republicans from increasing it again later or rolling it back to only 9, with seniority being the determining factor as to who stays and who leaves? Thinking "we'll pack the Court" is a path to victory is ridiculous.

The question ultimately facing us is not "will a Trump nominee be confirmed to the SCOTUS before the election?" but "who will Trump nominate?". The confirmation is all but assured.

sgt.null wrote:Feel free to post the links. But words vs. deeds.

The left is actively rioting. The are actively attacking police . The are actively burning cities.

Words vs. deeds.

Rice on a cracker Null ... can you stop with the unsupported sweeping generalisations... FFS

And isn’t this thread about RBG?

Where are Bidens suggestions? Not seen them. The Dems have the opportunity for input.

I, too, would love to see his suggestions. However, it is unlikely that they will mean anything because the GOP is hell-bent on getting a Supreme Court justice appointed before they lose in November.

The focus is more on attacking Trump and the GOP for so callously rushing to appoint a new, conservative justice just hours after RBG's death. Trump wants a conservative replacement so they can use a 6-3 majority to destroy the Affordable Care Act on November 10, just a week after the election. They also want to overturn Roe v Wade and women's rights, LGBT, etc.

Yes that IS true.

Well that was always to be expected sadly on the passing of this great woman.

Ur - Trump is president, he gets to nominate whomever he likes. It was Obama who said elections have consequences.

Sky - again, you do not have to protect other posters. If he wants to make unsupported sweeping generalizations I can ask for proof.

I can post any number of videos of liberals rioting, looting and arsoning. What number would you like?