Calling it "Politically Motivated"

[Gunnar]

HoH, do you remember when Binger got on this same kick about Progressives? He was very Regressive in his thinking.

I would even say, ‘broke’.

Yeah, that too!

[Some Schmo]

I've had a couple people on this forum call me "angry," as though that was my default state. He's an angry guy and he's lashing out is the general subtext.

Of course we know there are people like this, whose default state is general anger, so I suppose this is the image these guys have of me. Given what I've written over the years, they're welcome to think it. It's not my problem.

I'll just point out to the people who aren't all consumed by political opinion that there's a difference between "angry guy" and "guy angry at a particular set of circumstances." I am massively critical of anyone who isn't observing what is currently happening to this country and isn't angry about it. The only way it will change is if more than a few people get angry. If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention or you're numb.

So "angry guy" is another dismissive term like "politically motivated." It's hollow, thought-free, and doesn't address the points being made, like most GOP talking points.

[Gunnar]

I've had a couple people on this forum call me "angry," as though that was my default state. He's an angry guy and he's lashing out is the general subtext.

Of course we know there are people like this, whose default state is general anger, so I suppose this is the image these guys have of me. Given what I've written over the years, they're welcome to think it. It's not my problem.

I'll just point out to the people who aren't all consumed by political opinion that there's a difference between "angry guy" and "guy angry at a particular set of circumstances." I am massively critical of anyone who isn't observing what is currently happening to this country and isn't angry about it. The only way it will change is if more than a few people get angry. If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention or you're numb.

So "angry guy" is another dismissive term like "politically motivated." It's hollow, thought-free, and doesn't address the points being made like most GOP talking points.

I certainly understand and appreciate those sentiments. I feel pretty much the same way, as I'm sure you already know.

[Markk]

I am not going to argue about whether you should personally live your values. I will argue that Progressive ideology and buzzwords are a PR disaster and should be avoided like the plague when trying to build a coalition to overthrow MAGA authoritarianism. The principal aim needs to be defeating authoritarianism, which will take a very broad coalition.

What are these progressive, so called "buzzwords" that you think are a PR disaster?

Isn't defeating authoritarianism itself a progressive ideal? Do you disagree with that, or just disagree with calling it that to avoid irrationally negative PR connotations?

As I see it, establishing the needed broad coalition to defeat authoritarianism is itself a progressive action. And to be a truly broad coalition necessarily implies diversity, equity and even (dare I say it?) inclusion, which only makes Trump all the more terrified of it.

As the highly qualified classics professor and historian I have come to love and respect, I'm sure you highly approve of continuing education and funding of basic scientific research, which is one of the biggest reasons our country has become one of, if not the most, scientifically and technologically advanced nations on earth. What can be more progressive than that?

Making it easier for all eligible voters to vote while also repealing legislation designed to suppress voting by minorities or anyone else not likely to vote Republican is yet another progressive idea, in my opinion. Do you disagree with that or disapprove of it?

Guaranteeing the right of freedom of speech, including the right to fact check and expose outright lies is another progressive idea, in my opinion. I know you approve of that.

Preserving and funding the social security system, including Medicare and Medicaid, and along with it, ACA is also a progressive benefit. Isn't it?

Yet another progressive idea that has widespread approval is universal healthcare, which is enjoyed by every advanced country, at as much as half the cost per person than what we pay. What is wrong with that idea?

Authorizing the government to negotiate drug prices, so we no longer have to pay as much as 10 times the cost of life saving medicines as other nations do, is yet another good, progressive idea. Do you object to that?

Of how about granting women the freedom to make decisions over their own reproductive healthcare, including abortion?

Not granting the wealthiest of the wealthy trillion-dollar tax breaks they neither need nor deserve at the expense of least economically advantaged of us is yet another worthwhile progressive idea.

Then there is the progressive idea of finding ways to reduce the poverty rates and homelessness rates.

Which of the above do you not agree are progressive, or disapprove of?

Or how about the progressive idea of amending the constitution to end the archaic Electoral College system of electing Presidents?

I don't think any of the progressive ideas listed above are inherently evil or irrational.

And I'm pretty sure that a majority of voters would approve of most, if not all, of them.

I haven't finished reading the rest of the thread yet, but this exchange is interesting. As a conservative, I see Kish saying the lefts talking points (buzzwords) as being a PR disaster as true. It was and is, it worked for Biden....however, I believe many that bought into them saw there was nothing behind them.

And I see Gunnar showing why in many ways, primarily because from what I have read of his posts, he can't elaborate on most of these talking points and take them to there logical conclusions. He just throws out these talking points from a progressive collective, without reading into what he is even cut and pasting, believing they are true.

In other words, buzz words are just that..... words thrown out there for effect, without any real substance behind them. I think Kish might get that.

[Some Schmo]

I certainly understand and appreciate those sentiments. I feel pretty much the same way, as I'm sure you already know.

It was my assumption, yes.

One thing I will say is that it's easy to spot a Trump lackey because they don't think for themselves; they are bound by the talking points they've memorized for the day. As soon as somebody says "woke," "DEI," "radical leftist," "TDS," or "progressive" in a Trumptard way, I know they aren't worth talking to because they are worthless thinkers. They'll never tell you what they think (assuming there's any content there at all), they'll only tell you what they're told to think.

So at least you can spot them right away and don't have to waste time listening to their brain vomit (regurgitated talking points that are impossible to swallow and keep down).

[Morley]

I haven't finished reading the rest of the thread yet, but this exchange is interesting. As a conservative, I see Kish saying the lefts talking points (buzzwords) as being a PR disaster as true. It was and is, it worked for Biden....however, I believe many that bought into them saw there was nothing behind them.

And I see Gunnar showing why in many ways, primarily because from what I have read of his posts, he can't elaborate on most of these talking points and take them to there logical conclusions. He just throws out these talking points from a progressive collective, without reading into what he is even cut and pasting, believing they are true.

In other words, buzz words are just that..... words thrown out there for effect, without any real substance behind them. I think Kish might get that.

In that case, you should really wade into debate with Gunnar. Challenge him on what he's saying. I think Gunnar is one of the more thoughtful posters here, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Maybe you could discuss the details on how Trump's plan to end the fentanyl crisis, by imposing tariffs on Mexican and Canadian automotive parts, is going to work to end American drug addiction. You've kind of defected on this issue, but maybe you could really engage on it with Gunnar.

[canpakes]

… elaborate on most of these talking points and take them to there logical conclusions...

In other words, buzz words are just that..... words thrown out there for effect, without any real substance behind them. I think Kish might get that.

In that case, you should really wade into debate with Gunnar. Challenge him on what he's saying. I think Gunnar is one of the most thoughtful posters here, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Maybe you could discuss the details on how Trump's plan to end the fentanyl crisis, by imposing tariffs on Mexican and Canadian automotive parts, is going to work to end American drug addiction. You've kind of defected on this issue, but maybe you could really engage on it with Gunnar.

This is a good exercise to run with the terms that Schmo has highlighted: "woke," "DEI," "radical leftist," "TDS," or "progressive" (when used as pejoratives, as especially). They just end up being empty placeholders substituting for any sort of real thinking.

[Markk]

I haven't finished reading the rest of the thread yet, but this exchange is interesting. As a conservative, I see Kish saying the lefts talking points (buzzwords) as being a PR disaster as true. It was and is, it worked for Biden....however, I believe many that bought into them saw there was nothing behind them.

And I see Gunnar showing why in many ways, primarily because from what I have read of his posts, he can't elaborate on most of these talking points and take them to there logical conclusions. He just throws out these talking points from a progressive collective, without reading into what he is even cut and pasting, believing they are true.

In other words, buzz words are just that..... words thrown out there for effect, without any real substance behind them. I think Kish might get that.

In that case, you should really wade into debate with Gunnar. Challenge him on what he's saying. I think Gunnar is one of the more thoughtful posters here, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Maybe you could discuss the details on how Trump's plan to end the fentanyl crisis, by imposing tariffs on Mexican and Canadian automotive parts, is going to work to end American drug addiction. You've kind of defected on this issue, but maybe you could really engage on it with Gunnar.

I would love to discuss with Gunnar, he is thoughtful, and I hope he will opine, it would be a great conversation.


I think what you asked me here lends to Kish’s point about Buzzwords. Trump's plan has nothing to do with auto parts, it is about leverage and fairness. Tariffs are just what we see, in regards to the effects of “fair trade,” and deserves a thread of it’s own. But in the case of fentanyl and other trafficking coming across the border, it is about leverage. He is using it successfully so far, to make a far more secure border. He has implicated other things and policies like I have explained along with this, such as deporting the gangs members that deal drugs, designating the cartel as terrorists, and securing the border from our side.

In regard to fairness, tariffs are about creating equality with our partners, both friends and foes. The bigger picture is about making it equal so we can get back to being manufactures, instead of just distributors. In simple terms creating living wage jobs instead of jobs that just require warehouse work and delivery. So if we were to put tariffs on auto parts, and the cost is equal with parts that we here can manufacture, then it is a win for us.

I drove by a Bob’s Big Boy, there are only a few left in Ca. That I know of, and haven't been to one in years and years, so I stopped and am writing this as I pound down a Big Boy Burger, so I’ll keep this short, but hopefully you see my point. You throwing out buzzwords or talking points like you did here, does not help the left in regard to giving confidence to folks that see past that approach. Traffic are just part or a much deeper issue, and hopefully in my opinion it will repair the damage that NAFTA and free trade has done to our middle class.

[Chap]

So if we were to put tariffs on auto parts, and the cost is equal with parts that we here can manufacture, then it is a win for us.

If ... indeed. How long do you think it would take for the US to construct all the manufacturing facilities and train the necessary workers to supply all the parts you need which are not currently being sourced from the US?

And, while you are waiting, every auto buyer will have to pay a higher price, since the parts needed to make their auto will cost more, because of the tariffs (it's the US buyer who pays those, not the foreign suppliers). Oh, and even in your 'win' scenario, the US buyer will go on paying more even when (eventually) the parts are made in the US.

Will your average US auto purchaser be happy about that, do you think?

[canpakes]

In regard to fairness, tariffs are about creating equality with our partners, both friends and foes. The bigger picture is about making it equal so we can get back to being manufactures, instead of just distributors.

Auto manufacturers, as an example, are not just ‘distributors’. Assembly and manufacturing still occur within this country to complement what is produced abroad.

Also, consider if we really want to be manufacturing everything that goes within an automobile. Is that the most efficient practice? How much will the cost of a given automobile increase just so that we can point out that we now manufacture, say, water pumps domestically instead of importing them, and hired 75 people total to do so? And will those new jobs completely compensate for the jobs lost on the importing, distribution and delivery side?

How efficient would your own business be, if you needed to institute a vertical manufacturing pipeline to produce all of the products you used? Would that be the most cost-effective approach?

In simple terms creating living wage jobs instead of jobs that just require warehouse work and delivery.

Careful. That sounds like a ‘progressive’ ideal, creating “living wage jobs”. What does that mean and how is that determined? How does your undefined living wage keep up with cost increases triggered by tariffs on everything? How do you balance a few new living wage jobs supposedly due to the imposition of tariffs, against increased costs of all goods that will then be paid by the other 100 million employed Americans?

So if we were to put tariffs on auto parts, and the cost is equal with parts that we here can manufacture, then it is a win for us.

Likely not. Continuing with this example, it might be a win for a few hundred folks who’d end up working in a facility that might pay them a living wage to produce water pump parts in America, but the higher cost will be passed on to all Americans through more expensive new cars, and will even affect used cars that require parts that must now be produced stateside.

hopefully in my opinion it will repair the damage that NAFTA and free trade has done to our middle class.

I think you’re leaving a few other factors out of that ‘what happened to our middle class’ equation, to put it lightly.