NYCFIO t1_jdssl7h wrote
Reply to comment by savageo6 in DA Alvin Bragg’s staffer hangs up on ‘bulls–t’ congressional phone call by Gaytaino
If it’s so clear to you all that democrats are all good and republicans are all bad and there’s never any nuance then we certainly shouldn’t need elections, right? Sounds like there’s really no point from your perspective. We have good guys (democrats) and bad guys (republicans) so why do we even bother with elections? Why don’t we just assert our moral righteousness and clear away any friction as necessary so we can achieve our societal goals of tolerance, equality, and freedom of (certain acceptable) expression? Since democrats never engage in tribalism or partisan political theater, I would be quite happy to just hand the reins over to whichever cuomo relative’s turn it is to bleed us dry to their benefit in light of all your conviction; so inspiring /s
There’s a difference between centrism and just being honest that these hyper-intense, dogmatic political loyalties are obviously not it. The world is too complex. Different politicians across all kinds of systems with different parties and ideological landscapes engage in similar tactics in similar situations. You can argue about the degree and who is worse and insist that your team is the less bad cheater if you think that kind of feckless discussion has a point (“at least the blue guys spit on theirs before shoving it up my ass!”) It is truly terrifying to see how stubbornly and ignorantly dogmatic so many of you are and it is abundantly clear where that self righteous stupidity and willful ignorance/arrogance is taking us. You’re all just mouth shitting what you think you’re supposed to say and it’s truly tragic.
Xendarq t1_jdstndk wrote
If you had even an iota of self awareness you'd see that you're engaging in classic whataboutism, as unproductive an argument as is possible to make.
NYCFIO t1_jdsue09 wrote
Help me understand how what I’ve said is whataboutism. It is literally a criticism of whataboutism.
If you are a politician who breaks the law, you should be prosecuted. If someone in a party is being legitimately prosecuted, others in that party shouldn’t interfere. Period. Both parties have done it. I don’t care which is worse because in any event it falls below the threshold of what is acceptable.
RayseApex t1_jdt0lic wrote
> If someone in a party is being legitimately prosecuted, others in that party shouldn’t interfere. Period. Both parties have done it.
Source?
NYCFIO t1_jdt2h4s wrote
If you actually need a source to believe something very much qed, then you’ll obviously just reject whatever source is put in front of you, further entrenching your childish heuristic. Also, if you actually have a sincere interest in determining whether there are instances of democrats interfering in prosecutions of democrats, you can look yourself or enroll in a U.S. history course of some kind since that is all it would really take. But you don’t and so an argument is futile. You’ve reached your conclusion and the threshold to change that doesn’t exist. I’m an experienced debater against authoritarians and know you’re tricks!
You’ve all wasted a bunch of time responding to a person who thinks this view you all hold that being loyal to something slightly less unacceptable (though part of the same broken machine) somehow gives you a moral high ground is moronic; you’re sinking time and text into a person who thinks you are actively lying to and deluding yourself for bullshit feel good points. I posted so that the other people whose jaws were dropping as they scrolled through just how simpleminded, irrational, hypocritical, and gullible your points are know that there are other sane people out there willing to embrace the downvotes of the hive mind and call out the infantile stupidity for what it is. I’m not even American lol.
RayseApex t1_jdt2mqq wrote
> then you’ll obviously just reject whatever source is put in front of you,
Brother, have you tried simply putting a source in front of me? You typed all that shit out (that I’m not gonna read) when I simply asked you to provide a source. One source.
NYCFIO t1_jdt4pc4 wrote
You are not asking for a source in good faith, but for fun I’ll let you waste some time explaining to me why Nancy pelosi shouldn’t have been charged for insider trading or maybe how Ted Kennedy ended up with a suspended sentence for murdering someone. But I have zero respect for you because you would line me up against a wall and put a bullet in my head for not failing in line. Your brain is broken and it’s not my job to fix it.
RayseApex t1_jdt50dc wrote
> You are not asking for a source in good faith,
My only comment in this entire thread was me asking for a source so I’d love to know how you came to that conclusion…
> I’ll let you waste some time explaining to me why Nancy pelosi shouldn’t have been charged for insider trading or maybe how Ted Kennedy ended up with a suspended sentence for murdering someone.
This is what I was asking for, just a more verifiable source…
[deleted] t1_jdt6prz wrote
[removed]
RayseApex t1_jdt6t3s wrote
That was after I asked for a source and you wrote a goddamn novel instead of just sending me a link or two like I asked… and that only applied to your novel, I read your previous paragraph and I’m still confused as to how you know so much about me based on me asking for a source.
NYCFIO t1_jdt75um wrote
It took me 3 minutes to write. It’s not a novel, you’re just outmatched.
RayseApex t1_jdt7jo3 wrote
It’s called hyperbole.
> you’re just outmatched.
I was unaware this was a competition..
NYCFIO t1_jdt7g6e wrote
A link or two lol??? You’re a dud, pal.
RayseApex t1_jdt7mi9 wrote
Yes.. I would’ve happily looked at a few links to verify what you were saying..
NYCFIO t1_jdt8q0d wrote
Re- read this back. I said you’d wack a mole if I engaged and that’s what you’re doing. Google is your friend. Then you don’t have to trust (and you can’t just dismiss) my sources. I have you two of the most obvious and basic examples. Google them and actually do something diligent on your own if you give a half a fuck. If you don’t give a shit and have no room to change your opinion (I.e. asking for a source in bad faith) then you’d do exactly what you’re doing right now.
It is the exception to the rule when parties DONT interfere with their people being investigated.
Here’s a big federal list. If you were sincere in wanting to answer the question “have democrats interfered with investigations of democrats?”, you can use your own brain and your own judgement by googling these instances yourself. I am not credible to you and therefore the more productive approach is to just give you instances. But you don’t have a sincere interest in answering the question, you already know the answer is “no”, and you’ve demonstrated that here just as anticipated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes
RayseApex t1_jdt9bqj wrote
> I said you’d wack a mole if I engaged and that’s what you’re doing.
No, you said I wouldn’t take your sources in good faith. You’ve yet to provide a source.. I’m still only interacting in hopes that you do.
> Google is your friend.
Surely you realize that it would be a biased google search, right? I’m asking you to provide me with information outside the echo chamber I’m trying to avoid. Yet here you are arguing with me about whether or not I’m engaging in good faith when all I did was ask for a source for your claims.
> If you were sincere in wanting to answer the question “have democrats interfered with investigations of democrats?”,
I didn’t ask that question, just give me a source to support your claims.
RayseApex t1_jdt9nor wrote
I hate when people edit comments after I respond already…
I didn’t ask for a list of convicted politicians, I asked for a source that proves Democrats interfered in the prosecution of another Democrat. If I’m as biased as you think I am then why don’t you think my google search would be biased?
NYCFIO t1_jdtaxaq wrote
You are truly not comprehending anything going on in this conversation. And I didn’t edit anything after you responded - certainly no material edits. I forgot to actually include the link the first time, that’s it and I added within 30 seconds; not sure what you’re suggesting there since you haven’t even attempted to articulate it. At this point your insincerity (or maybe you’re just really really dumb or very young) is confirmed.
RayseApex t1_jdtbcge wrote
Are we having the same conversation? Because I simply asked for a source and have yet to receive one.
I have no point to articulate because I only just wanted a source, I’m not here to “dunk on you” or some shit. I just wanted to read more about the shit you were saying from some source other than a Reddit commenter. You made this a whole thing because from the start you assumed I wasn’t “on your side.”
I have ZERO comments on this topic or on this post aside from me asking you for a source.
savageo6 t1_jdsukgd wrote
That there is some exemplary self fellating projection.
So as someone else in this thread mentioned...both sides bad right? So you can just jabber on from the sidelines bitching about how everyone is trying to fuck all of us and do absolutely nothing about it.
Because my friend the truth is you nor I can't do a fucking thing about it. It's too deep into people who have pockets and influence deeper than either of us will likely ever truly know.
Are they both fucking people over to get theirs absolutely. But I also live in the real world outside your dystopian soliloquy. Our choice is between the GOP full of literal white supremacist christo fascists funded by fundamental billionaires who want everyone in the world to be subservient to them and have zero rights to be who they are or do what we want unless we're in their club, which we will never be.
Or the Democrats, now a right of center party full of old as fuck white dudes who want to maintain their status quo power funded by the largest corporations. They don't want to shake the boat and quickly suppress anybody even in their party who they see as that. But generally they let people go about their lives and have implemented some generally good social platforms in the past. Is the same corruption and bullshit there absolutely. But there's at least a slight glimmer of potential progress. There isn't anywhere else outside of violently tearing it ALL down and hoping whatever survives is an improvement.
So I support the side for what tiny sliver of impact I have in order to keep that slight glimmer of potential progress alive. Because if the GOP rolls back into complete control they'll NEVER give it up again because it's the only way they can stay in power. Then we'll see real complete dystopia...
NYCFIO t1_jdsw457 wrote
I’m not telling you not to take a side, I’m saying hold your side accountable and don’t be a hypocrite. Both sides realize they have a bunch of useful idiots ready to die over their half baked incoherent platforms.
And most importantly - and people used to be more aware of this before 2016 - the conflict you observe between the two party system is synthetic and the power pillars you talk about are equally plugged into “both sides” to keep poor people arguing about pronouns and PTO.
It’s hilarious to be criticized in this way by someone who would actually put that last paragraph in writing.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments