1984 in 2018

[_DarkHelmet]

No, I hadn't heard of Arthur Jones - or the others examples you provided (Thanks for pointing them out) but I do share Ted Cruz's clear condemnation of Jones.

Why would you trust Lyin' Ted Cruz? His dad killed Kennedy and his wife is ugly.

[_Chap]

But if there is any truth in what we find here, I hope that there are also some people on the right who find Canda Owens just a teeny bit embarrassing too:

Are you equating the expressed personal opinions (no matter what they are or who they are from) with a violent mob that gathered and attacked two American citizens eating breakfast in America?

Let's see. I began by quoting Schmo:

The left is rationally embarrassed by the crazy behavior of their radicals.

Then I went on to say:

I have never heard of this person before, and I don't approve of people breaking the law by assaulting people with eggs.

But if there is any truth in what we find here, I hope that there are also some people on the right who find Canda Owens just a teeny bit embarrassing too:

How on earth could a rational person come away from reading my post with the question:

Are you equating the expressed personal opinions (no matter what they are or who they are from) with a violent mob that gathered and attacked two American citizens eating breakfast in America?

Nope, they couldn't. But you somehow managed it ... even if to do so you had to omit my explicit expression of disapproval of the assault committed on these people.

Still, that's how you work isn't it? Such a sweet little innocent, misunderstood by everybody ...

[_Some Schmo]

How on earth could a rational person come away from reading my post with the question:

Are you equating the expressed personal opinions (no matter what they are or who they are from) with a violent mob that gathered and attacked two American citizens eating breakfast in America?

Nope, they couldn't. But you somehow managed it ... even if to do so you had to omit my explicit expression of disapproval of the assault committed on these people.

Still, that's how you work isn't it? Such a sweet little innocent, misunderstood by everybody ...

He's having trouble reading people's posts with the beam stuck in his eye.

[_Ceeboo]

How on earth could a rational person come away from reading my post with the question:

Are you equating the expressed personal opinions (no matter what they are or who they are from) with a violent mob that gathered and attacked two American citizens eating breakfast in America?

Well, I never claimed to be rational but beyond that you wrote......

But if there is any truth in what we find here, I hope that there are also some people on the right who find Candace Owens just a teeny bit embarrassing too

So it was the "teeny bit embarrassing too" part that made me think you were suggesting that the mob attack at the coffee shop were both merely "A teeny bit embarrassing."

You have explained that you were not equating the two and I accept that. My apologies.

Still, that's how you work isn't it? Such a sweet little innocent, misunderstood by everybody ...

Right.

[_Chap]

You have explained that you were not equating the two and I accept that. My apologies.

Accepted. But please don't make it a habit to cut my posts and then mischaracterise them.

[Guest]

Personally, I think there were countless reasons that he should have been eliminated from the possibility of becoming the elected President - Being a birther is on the bottom of page two of that list in my opinion.

Where it fits on your personal list is really beside the point I was making. And this has to be more than just what you happen to personally feel on a topic. The point is that being a Birther is such an obvious thing one can point to that should clue people into serious problems in reasoning; the fact it was not a problem was and is a very bad sign.

As to the part of your quote I bolded above: Your use of political rhetoric didn't add any strength to your position. Your position was well stated and strong without it, in my opinion, and adding it, at best, distracted from your position. At worst..................

I am sorry that correctly identifying a problem within a group is somehow disqualifying to you. It shouldn't be. The issue is entirely salient within the framework of the discussion. How can we discuss the problems with rhetoric and reasoning on the Right without talking about them? I am happy to acknowledge the existence of wacky conspiracy theories on both sides of the political spectrum. I am not aware that CNN or MSNBC has given attention to conspiracy theories in the way FOX News aided and abetted Birtherism. I am not aware of a phenomenon in the Center or on the Left in which people come to rallies identifying with a particular conspiracy theory in the way Qanon has flourished in the Trump Movement.

I feel no responsibility to play the game of false equivalencies simply because hearing about the problems on your side of the political spectrum is a turn off for you.

Thank God we can count of the Left for 100% of earnest and intelligent discourse.

Did I say that? No, seriously. Did I say that? Please don't put words in my mouth or make it seem like I approve of ideas I do not approve of. If this is you being flip or sarcastic, fine. But I don't agree with it. If this is you saying that I am somehow putting myself forward as an arch Leftist who is locked in combat with the Right, then knock it off.

Obviously there are problems everywhere, but degrees of problem do make a difference. Please direct me to the James O'Keefe of the Center or the Left. Please show me the other presidents who promoted conspiracy theories the way Trump did. And, furthermore, let's be even clearer: it is a disservice to conservatives even to count Trump among their number. Trump is a nationalist, a demagogue, and a whole host of other bad things, but he is not a conservative. He is more alt-right than he is Right.

It is a shame that he was successful in hijacking the Republican Party, because the Republican Party of old was way too sound and respectable to suffer the fate that it is currently enduring. William F. Buckley may have been an asshole with smelly opinions, but at least he was a reasonably serious and intelligent person with actual ideas. Reagan may have been a professional performer and shallow ideologue, but he cared enough to be serious and both learn and internalize a set of ideals. George W. Bush may have been a sub-par intellect, but he was a genuine person who took his responsibilities seriously.

Trump and Trumpism are a blight on the political landscape. Sober serious Republicans know that. I didn't come up with this myself by watching MSNBC. I am not even a Democrat. I spent most of my life as a Republican and I am registered as an Independent. To me this is not a Left/Right question. This is a saving our political system from authoritarianism and corruption kind of question.

No, I hadn't heard of Arthur Jones - or the others examples you provided (Thanks for pointing them out) but I do share Ted Cruz's clear condemnation of Jones.

Good. Now tell me why these characters are not running as Democrats or Independents.

[Guest]

Personally, I think there were countless reasons that he should have been eliminated from the possibility of becoming the elected President - Being a birther is on the bottom of page two of that list in my opinion.

I would certainly like to see the list of reasons that precede Bitherism. Regardless, there’s a subtle point being made by Kish about this, that speaks to the ludicrousness of Birtherism and yet how it was seized upon and amplified by such a large component of right-leaning voters. That this was the case speaks to what is driving the voting decisions of these people.

Although the specific birther claim itself may seem trivial, the fact of its widespread effect on and appeal to certain voters speaks to a significant problem, both for the candidate who promoted that claim and for the folks that gleefully repeated it.

ETA: looks like Kish just posted a similar response about this portion of the post.

[_Kishkumen]

Although the specific birther claim itself may seem trivial, the fact of its widespread affect on and appeal to certain voters speaks to a significant problem, both for the candidate who promoted that claim and for the folks that gleefully repeated it.

You put it much better than I did. Thanks.

[_Ceeboo]

God, I'm getting freaking destroyed in this thread! (I'm out of here)

(Kish - Thanks for taking me to the woodshed your replies to me. :)

[Guest]

Before you leave, Ceeboo, I’m curious about your opinion as to why the birther claim gained so much traction amongst Republican voters.