I think there is a pretty easy litmus test to tell if someone is truly interested in getting to the truth of a matter or not. A truly objective person understands the value of opposing arguments and uses them to test their own beliefs and has no problem in deferring to the better argument. A dogmatist sees opposing arguments as an attack, no matter their merits, and will try to dispute or discredit opposing arguments with any means at their disposal. The same is true for democratic vs. authoritarian regimes. Democratic systems value the opposition as a check on arbitrary power. Authoritarian systems see the opposition as a threat to the exercise of arbitrary power. The first is loud and chaotic but agile, productive and strong. The second is fixed, boring as hell, woefully inefficient and unfair. Choose your camp.
I see no willingness to even consider an opposing view to the ones routinely expressed in here.
And any messenger with an opposing view is shot at in here instantly with no regard to the message attached.
So you are saying that there are some positive things about Trump and MAGA ?
I think there is a pretty easy litmus test to tell if someone is truly interested in getting to the truth of a matter or not.
A truly objective person understands the value of opposing arguments and uses them to test their own beliefs and has no problem in deferring to the better argument.
A dogmatist sees opposing arguments as an attack, no matter their merits, and will try to dispute or discredit opposing arguments with any means at their disposal.
The same is true for democratic vs. authoritarian regimes.
Democratic systems value the opposition as a check on arbitrary power.
Authoritarian systems see the opposition as a threat to the exercise of arbitrary power.
The first is loud and chaotic but agile, productive and strong.
The second is fixed, boring as hell, woefully inefficient and unfair.
That is what you get for interjecting yourself into someone else's discussion ... steeler is an attorney and you are not. I wanted his opinion, not yours.
I know you’re new here… but this is a public forum. DM him if you need advice.
A predictable response. You just can't resist. I asked for an opinion, not advice. I guess that you do not know the difference.
You felt the need to defend and interpret steeler's thoughts as if he is incapable of speaking for himself.
You have a compulsion for putting words in other peoples mouths. Much like the good captain does ...
Let's see if you got it right when he does respond.
I was addressing steeler on this not anyone else. But since you interjected yourself into this ...
Everyone had classified documents in their possession, correct ?
In that case, everyone should have been arrested, prosecuted and all the differences that you brought up would be sorted out in a trial. Not interpreted on the fly by those whose job it was was not to make these decisions. Their jobs were to arrest, not judge. Same goes with Clinton and Comey who famously said that no prosecutor would take her case. It was not Comey's decision to make.
Guilt or innocence is determined by the courts and the courts only.
You literally can't help yourself...
Whatabout...whatabout...whatabout....ignore the Trump facts... whatabout.
It was Steeler's point (I think).
At least you agree that Trump is a felon and sexual abuser... since it was determined by the courts.
... They all had classified documents, yet only one was prosecuted. Should no one have been prosecuted or all of them ? Help me out here.
This is precisely the point. You either lack the intelligence to understand differences, or have decided to ignore any and all facts associated with politicians in defense of the tribe. ...
Either you see the difference and don't care (in this case, you seem to care a great deal about details for others), or you're not intellectually capable of understanding the differences. Which is it?
I was addressing steeler on this not anyone else. But since you interjected yourself into this ...
Everyone had classified documents in their possession, correct ?
In that case, everyone should have been arrested, prosecuted and all the differences that you brought up would be sorted out in a trial. Not interpreted on the fly by those whose job it was was not to make these decisions. Their jobs were to arrest, not judge. Same goes with Clinton and Comey who famously said that no prosecutor would take her case. It was not Comey's decision to make.
Guilt or innocence is determined by the courts and the courts only.
Location: At the dude ranch / above the sea Gender:
Posted:
Oct 29, 2025 - 8:16am
rgio wrote:
This is precisely the point. You either lack the intelligence to understand differences, or have decided to ignore any and all facts associated with politicians in defense of the tribe.
Regarding the docs:
Biden voluntarily returned classified documents once discovered, consented to searches, sat for voluntary interviews, and cooperated fully with investigators.
Trump refused to return documents despite multiple requests, falsely claimed he'd fully cooperated, and enlisted others to obstruct justice, destroy evidence, and lie about the situation.
Either you see the difference and don't care (in this case, you seem to care a great deal about details for others), or you're not intellectually capable of understanding the differences. Which is it?
...
They all had classified documents, yet only one was prosecuted. Should no one have been prosecuted or all of them ? Help me out here.
This is precisely the point. You either lack the intelligence to understand differences, or have decided to ignore any and all facts associated with politicians in defense of the tribe.
Regarding the docs:
Biden voluntarily returned classified documents once discovered, consented to searches, sat for voluntary interviews, and cooperated fully with investigators.
Trump refused to return documents despite multiple requests, falsely claimed he'd fully cooperated, and enlisted others to obstruct justice, destroy evidence, and lie about the situation.
Either you see the difference and don't care (in this case, you seem to care a great deal about details for others), or you're not intellectually capable of understanding the differences. Which is it?
The problem I have is that you often appear to be focused to the point of obsession with what you see as double standards. In doing so, you often are not defending alleged misconduct in and of itself, on the merits, but instead asserting your belief that someone else had done the same or worse without consequence. This is an example, albeit it is one that I could care less about. You do it routinely in your defense of Trump, his conduct, or that of his supporters. And you are not alone in doing that. I would say it is a defining trait of Trump supporters — decrying a perceived double standard and crying out for retribution against liberals, the elite, the Deep State.
A short time ago, in the Trump thread, you stated: “Comparing Trump to Biden is not whataboutism. It is germane and legitimate.” Right before that statement, in the same post, you state: “It is patently impossible to be worse than Joe . . .” A defense of Trump on this basis, then, would only mean he is better than Biden, not necessarily that he is any good.
Then you post that posting of a conservative purporting to express all the reasons she feels justified in doing the same kind of things she alleges liberals have been doing and that she claims to deplore. This smacks of two wrongs do make a right. A prime example of this is Trump seeking vindication by demanding the prosecution of his political enemies by the DOJ, claiming he is justified in doing so because Biden “weaponized” the DOJ against him and his supporters. So, the answer to the alleged weaponization of the DOJ by Biden is to engage in your own weaponization of the DOJ?
The same specious reasoning was applied to the prosecution of Trump for possession of classified documents. Trump supporters did not purport to defend him on the merits. Instead, they claimed a double standard because Biden was not being prosecuted for his possession of classified documents (neither was Pence).
It is whataboutism, but it is not just a tactic. It is an engrained belief.
you wrote :
The problem I have is that you often appear to be focused to the point of obsession with what you see as double standards. In doing so, you often are not defending alleged misconduct in and of itself, on the merits, but instead asserting your belief that someone else had done the same or worse without consequence. ... This smacks of two wrongs do make a right. A prime example of this is Trump seeking vindication by demanding the prosecution of his political enemies by the DOJ, claiming he is justified in doing so because Biden “weaponized” the DOJ against him and his supporters ... The same specious reasoning was applied to the prosecution of Trump for possession of classified documents. Trump supporters did not purport to defend him on the merits. Instead, they claimed a double standard because Biden was not being prosecuted for his possession of classified documents (neither was Pence).
I am having a hard time following your logic.
In the last paragraph, you cite the claim of a double standard because Biden was not prosecuted, along with Pence, for possession of classified documents and Trump was. With that are you saying that Trump should not have been prosecuted at all or are you saying that Biden should have been prosecuted along with Trump ? They all had classified documents, yet only one was prosecuted. Should no one have been prosecuted or all of them ? Help me out here.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Oct 28, 2025 - 8:03pm
kurtster wrote:
So you just want to censor me ? Everything must meet your approval.
None of my "loyalist bullshit" but everyone else's is OK. Like our friend the red dragon.
He obviously has your blessing and you agree with everything he posts, cuz you have zero to say about his posts.
Life just got simpler. Based on that alone I can use his POV and substitute it for your POV since you approve and agree with him.
The problem I have is that you often appear to be focused to the point of obsession with what you see as double standards. In doing so, you often are not defending alleged misconduct in and of itself, on the merits, but instead asserting your belief that someone else had done the same or worse without consequence. This is an example, albeit it is one that I could care less about. You do it routinely in your defense of Trump, his conduct, or that of his supporters. And you are not alone in doing that. I would say it is a defining trait of Trump supporters â decrying a perceived double standard and crying out for retribution against liberals, the elite, the Deep State.
A short time ago, in the Trump thread, you stated: âComparing Trump to Biden is not whataboutism. It is germane and legitimate.â Right before that statement, in the same post, you state: âIt is patently impossible to be worse than Joe . . .â A defense of Trump on this basis, then, would only mean he is better than Biden, not necessarily that he is any good.
Then you post that posting of a conservative purporting to express all the reasons she feels justified in doing the same kind of things she alleges liberals have been doing and that she claims to deplore. This smacks of two wrongs do make a right. A prime example of this is Trump seeking vindication by demanding the prosecution of his political enemies by the DOJ, claiming he is justified in doing so because Biden âweaponizedâ the DOJ against him and his supporters. So, the answer to the alleged weaponization of the DOJ by Biden is to engage in your own weaponization of the DOJ?
The same specious reasoning was applied to the prosecution of Trump for possession of classified documents. Trump supporters did not purport to defend him on the merits. Instead, they claimed a double standard because Biden was not being prosecuted for his possession of classified documents (neither was Pence).
It is whataboutism, but it is not just a tactic. It is an engrained belief.
I've never seen your lamentation on the time that Dahmer spit his gum on the sidewalk therefore you are okay with cannibalism and keeping people's decapitated heads in a freezer.
Why would I or anyone else comment on something no one has brought up before other than you right now that I know of ?
I've never seen your lamentation on the time that Dahmer spit his gum on the sidewalk therefore you are okay with cannibalism and keeping people's decapitated heads in a freezer. Based on this alone, I can see how you aren't bound by speed limits and anyone who's name starts with a letter in the first half of the alphabet is free to remove the tags from their mattress (bunch of elitists).
So you just want to censor me ? Everything must meet your approval.
None of my "loyalist bullshit" but everyone else's is OK. Like our friend the red dragon.
He obviously has your blessing and you agree with everything he posts, cuz you have zero to say about his posts.
Life just got simpler. Based on that alone I can use his POV and substitute it for your POV since you approve and agree with him.
I've never seen your lamentation on the time that Dahmer spit his gum on the sidewalk therefore you are okay with cannibalism and keeping people's decapitated heads in a freezer. Based on this alone, I can see how you aren't bound by speed limits and anyone who's name starts with a letter in the first half of the alphabet is free to remove the tags from their mattress (bunch of elitists).
I do not "crawl up my ass for the slightest error", I call you out when you post misinformation, specious reasoning, or fawning loyalist bullshit. It's not about making me happy, if you don't like being called out, don't do it. If you want us to all do better, then post better information, better reasoning, and less loyalist bullshit, that would be better.
So you just want to censor me ? Everything must meet your approval.
None of my "loyalist bullshit" but everyone else's is OK. Like our friend the red dragon.
He obviously has your blessing and you agree with everything he posts, cuz you have zero to say about his posts.
Life just got simpler. Based on that alone I can use his POV and substitute it for your POV since you approve and agree with him.
