War Room Lounge v69: Oh no not the bees! Edition

[Fawlty]

It's amusing to watch a foreigner make the same leap to "the American right is actually LiBeRaL" that actual American "conservatives" try to make.

 

[Falsedawn]

No idea how you arrived at that conclusion based off of what i wrote but if you are directly asking me than of course there is big portion that are conservative.

Actually that's more along the lines of what Jack over there is saying. Not me. Im not even talking about people.

If you're not talking about people, then you're addressing a fantasy, as Jack said.

You'd be the kind of dingbat that would call North Korea democratic just because it's in the name lol. iGnOrE tHe PeOpLE.

 

[Fawlty]

If you're not talking about people, then you're addressing a fantasy, as Jack said.

You'd be the kind of dingbat that would call North Korea democratic just because it's in the name lol. iGnOrE tHe PeOpLE.

This is the result of trying to define real problems out of existence. One big fingers-in-the-ears exercise. Same behavior as saying that "conservatives" want to "conserve" the environment and are therefore better environmental stewards than liberals.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

If you're not talking about people, then you're addressing a fantasy, as Jack said.

You'd be the kind of dingbat that would call North Korea democratic just because it's in the name lol. iGnOrE tHe PeOpLE.

Im talking about ideology. Not sure why this is escaping you as i have repeated this over and over. I have even criticized Trump for being more of a democrat than a traditional conservative myself.

It's amusing to watch a foreigner make the same leap to "the American right is actually LiBeRaL" that actual American "conservatives" try to make.

Im not understanding. Is the constitution a liberal document or is it not? Is strict adherence to the constitution a central tenant to American conservatism or is it not?

 

[Fawlty]

Im talking about ideology. Not sure why this is escaping you as i have repeated this over and over. I have even criticized Trump for being more of a democrat than a traditional conservative myself.



Im not understanding. Is the constitution a liberal document or is it not? Is strict adherence to the constitution a central tenant to American conservatism or is it not?

You can't define problems out of existence.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

You can't define problems out of existence.

And you apparently cannot answer a simple question. Or can you?

 

[Higus]

Debatable but also not relevant to what i said.
We are apparently discussing two different things here.

no shit

 

[Falsedawn]

Im talking about ideology. Not sure why this is escaping you as i have repeated this over and over. I have even criticized Trump for being more of a democrat than a traditional conservative myself.



Im not understanding. Is the constitution a liberal document or is it not? Is strict adherence to the constitution a central tenant to American conservatism or is it not?

The president of the United States, who ran in the Republican primary, ran in the general election as a Republican, won the general election as a Republican, and has Republican allies, acts too much like a Democrat? And despite acting like a Democrat, his Republican base supports him 100% and refuses to vote for Democrats in turn?

 

[Jack V Savage]

That is incorrect. It's anti-thetical.

To your private definition, but not to the definition of conservatism or the ideas held by the actually existing conservative movement.

Im talking about ideology. Not sure why this is escaping you as i have repeated this over and over. I have even criticized Trump for being more of a democrat than a traditional conservative myself.

But you don't see the issue here? Trump is more of a "Democrat" than a "conservative" by your definition, and Democrats are less "Democrats" than "conservatives" by your definition. Put those two facts together and what you see is that your definition of "American conservative" or "American right" applies better to Democrats than it does to Republicans.

Im not understanding. Is the constitution a liberal document or is it not? Is strict adherence to the constitution a central tenant to American conservatism or is it not?

The Constitution is a liberal document. Strict adherence to it is not a central tenant of actual American conservatism.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The president of the United States, who ran in the Republican primary, ran in the general election as a Republican, won the general election as a Republican, and has Republican allies, acts too much like a Democrat? And despite acting like a Democrat, his Republican base supports him 100% and refuses to vote for Democrats in turn?

Yeah, literally 90%-plus of Republicans are "Democrats" by his definition, and most Democrats are "American Conservatives" by his definition. Seems like the purpose of using that definition is to make a clear exchange of ideas more difficult.

 

[Falsedawn]

This is the result of trying to define real problems out of existence. One big fingers-in-the-ears exercise. Same behavior as saying that "conservatives" want to "conserve" the environment and are therefore better environmental stewards than liberals.

That's why I haven't entertained it. It's not based in any kind of reality, but they act like we're supposed to ignore the entirety of political thought in favor of their goofy redefinitions just because they scream louder than everyone else. No logic, no insight, just screaming.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

no shit

I have repeated this over and over. As you can see i hve to respond to the peanut gallery so things are getting lost in translation.

The president of the United States, who ran in the Republican primary, ran in the general election as a Republican, won the general election as a Republican, and has Republican allies, acts too much like a Democrat? And despite acting like a Democrat, his Republican base supports him 100% and refuses to vote for Democrats in turn?

Can you explain why any of this negates the existence of the nations status quo?

To your private definition, but not to the definition of conservatism or the ideas held by the actually existing conservative movement.

Actually according to the dictionary.

But you don't see the issue here? Trump is more of a "Democrat" than a "conservative" by your definition, and Democrats are less "Democrats" than "conservatives" by your definition. Put those two facts together and what you see is that your definition of "American conservative" or "American right" applies better to Democrats than it does to Republicans.

I need you to spot what your doing. I didn't say "American right" or "American conservative" this allows you to apply your own private definition rather than what the word actually means. Quoting me here is disingenuous because i didn't say those things did i?

add an "ISM" to the end and you will have gotten my actual intent.

The Constitution is a liberal document. Strict adherence to it is not a central tenant of actual American conservatism.

Yea that's false.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Yeah, literally 90%-plus of Republicans are "Democrats" by his definition, and most Democrats are "American Conservatives" by his definition. Seems like the purpose of using that definition is to make a clear exchange of ideas more difficult.

They are shifting heavily to the left. I have said this many times. Why you are acting suprised is beyond me. How they vote doesn't negate the existence of the status quo.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I need you to spot what your doing. I didn't say "American right" or "American conservative" this allows you to apply your own private definition rather than what the word actually means. Quoting me here is disingenuous because i didn't say those things did i?

add an "ISM" to the end and you will have gotten my actual intent.

What you're doing is defining "American rightism" as a doctrine that is not actually on the right, not actually held by American rightists, and held by most on the American left. You can see why that's confusing, no? Why not just keep the normal spectrum and describe real people accurately in a way that everyone understands?

Yea that's false.

What are you basing that claim on?

 

[Fedorable]

I thoroughly enjoyed the Corn Pop gang member story.

 

[Jack V Savage]

They are shifting heavily to the left. I have said this many times. Why you are acting suprised is beyond me. How they vote doesn't negate the existence of the status quo.

They're shifting to the right according to the normal spectrum. You're defining the left as the "American right" and then saying that the American right is shifting "left" (meaning right).

 

[waiguoren]

Jason Chaffetz: Ballot harvesting -- California's model to steal 2020

By Jason Chaffetz

The Heritage Foundation calls it the “tool of choice for vote thieves.” The convenient, innovative, and beloved mail-in ballot has been a source of contention due to its vulnerability to manipulation.

During the 2018 midterms, Democrats in California and a Republican consultant in North Carolina used a process called "ballot harvesting" to collect mail-in ballots for voters.

But there was a big difference between the two states, as I discuss in my new book, "Power Grab." In North Carolina, ballot harvesting is illegal. Congress refused to seat the winner of the 2018 midterm election between Republican Mark Harris and Democrat Dan McCready and a special election was held this month to replace him. Though Republican Dan Bishop managed to win the heavily Republican district last week, the history of "cheating" by the previous candidate weighed heavily, making the race far closer than one might expect in a district with an R+8 partisan lean.

In California, by contrast, ballot harvesting was legalized by Democrats in the state legislature. They don't consider it cheating in that state. It was used to flip seven Republican seats to the Democratic column in 2018.

Democrats have long dismissed claims that mail-in ballots are vulnerable to manipulation, pointing to what they call a dearth of voter fraud convictions. Nonetheless, they could hardly ignore the North Carolina race in which a Republican campaign operative illegally collecting ballots allegedly destroyed as many as a thousand ballots supporting the Democratic candidate.

The process of ballot harvesting should be illegal for very good reason. It violates the chain of custody, exposing the ballot to potential manipulation by campaign operatives or nonprofit political groups. They could harass voters to turn in ballots, “assist” them in filling them out, and potentially “lose” ballots that don’t support the candidate the ballot harvester is paid to help.

The indication that ballot harvesting made the difference in California can be found in the vote proportions. Studies of absentee voters have consistently shown they tend to reflect the population or lean slightly to the right. But when ballot harvesting was deployed in California, we saw late ballots break heavily for Democrats.

Take, for example, the race between former Republican Rep. David Valadao and Democrat T. J. Cox in California’s rural 21st district. When polls closed, Valadao led Cox by 6,000 votes — or 8 percent. That margin was wide enough for media outlets to call the race for Valadao.

However, late ballots delivered by third-party groups broke so heavily for Cox that he ultimately eked out an 843-vote victory. The results after ballot harvesting were very different from the polling before the race and since. In a July 2019 NRCC survey, Cox was polling at just 36 percent, while 52 percent said they would support "a potential Republican challenger." Valadao has since filed for a rematch.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that elsewhere in the state, Orange County voters on election night 2018 were calling the registrar’s office asking if it was legitimate for someone to come to their door and ask if they could take their ballot.

Who was coming to the door? According to a January 2019 Los Angeles Times story, illegal Dreamers were deeply engaged in the process — not just delivering ballots, but helping voters fill them out.

The Times reports on the experience of one Dreamer, Gabriela Cruz, who “found” a voter smoking a cigarette on a tattered old couch behind a group home hours before election day. He politely tried to wave her off until she "reminded him" he had a right that she as an immigrant without citizenship didn’t have. Half an hour later, she was helping the voter lookup candidates as he filled out his ballot by the light of her phone.

What are the implications of activists with an agenda “helping” voters look up candidates and fill out ballots? How many of those activists are willing to turn in a ballot that doesn’t help their cause? Should we be exposing people’s ballots to that kind of temptation?

Election security is more than Russian hackers trying to change votes. We must secure the chain of custody of ballots, validate the identity of the voter, and maintain updated voter lists. Thus far, Democrats have shown no interest in any of that.

Don't be fooled by cries for the Senate to pass so-called "election security" measures coming from the House. These measures are designed to enforce less secure voting processes on local communities, including the very vulnerable mail-in ballot. They are not about election security. They are about election manipulation in 2020.

If we want to get serious about securing our elections, state and local lawmakers and election officials must crackdown on the practice of ballot harvesting. Otherwise, Democrats will use it to manipulate the results of the 2020 elections.

Link

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hey, let's hear what a loony CTer, former Congressman, and dyed-in-the-wool partisan has to say about expanding democracy. It's bad, I bet.

 

[Trotsky]

is strict adherence to the constitution a central tenant to American conservatism or is it not?

LOL no. Are you fucking serious?

The conservative movement has made all the gravest attacks on the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments: they opposed the initial invocation of First Amendment rights, jailed various groups for political speech, sought to censor major media institutions, and regularly contravened rights against search and seizure under Nixon, Reagan, and GWB, variously asserting that the government interest in preventing crime, dissent, etc. outweighed the Fourth Amendment rights of accused persons. The American conservative movement has never been more constitutionalist or libertarian than the left.

 

[Higus]

I have repeated this over and over. As you can see i hve to respond to the peanut gallery so things are getting lost in translation.

You don't have to respond to me. Semantic arguments are a red-flag that you are dealing with a dishonest loon. Instead of trying to frame things as conservative and liberal, maybe you should focus more on what is good and bad, like, "the GOP's policy on ____ is good because____", and then we can have an interesting conversation.

Slightly off topic, this reminds me of the Flat-Earth thread where AbiG was congratulating himself how on smart he was because no one could convince him the earth was round.