Trump attacks DeSantis on vax status

[BugI02]

It's the only way to get Trumper's attention

Why does a sophisticated progressive like you want a Trumper's attention?

Does the anonymity of the internet allow you to salve the hurt of all that bullying in high school

 

[jamil]

So the sophisticated neverTrumpers vote for Trump twice?

 

[BugI02]

So the sophisticated neverTrumpers vote for Trump twice?

There is no 'proof' for that statement

 

[jamil]

There is no 'proof' for that statement

True. We only have his word for it. There’s no proof he’s a neverTrumper either though. Oh. Hold on. It’s been so long since you guys have trotted out this retarded term I almost forgot the definition. It’s anyone who is capable of pointing out anything negative about Trump ever. A non-sycophant if you will.

Am I a neverTrumper?

 

[BugI02]

A neverTrumper is a person who mindlessly insists he will never vote for Trump irrespective of circumstances, and attempts to convince others of the righteousness of that position

I have seen no 'proof' that you are, but am likewise aware of no 'proof' that you are not, so it could go either way. It's a spectrum of yesness

 

[BugI02]

... or something

 

[jamil]

A neverTrumper is a person who mindlessly insists he will never vote for Trump irrespective of circumstances, and attempts to convince others of the righteousness of that position

I have seen no 'proof' that you are, but am likewise aware of no 'proof' that you are not, so it could go either way. It's a spectrum of yesness

Hmm. The definition seems to have changed. I've seen this term thrown at people who've not displayed these exact characteristics be labeled as 'neverTrumper' on INGO. Who in this thread has?

 

[JettaKnight]

I've heard the term "Trump worshipper" thrown around. I've never met one or even seen one on TV.

I don't know if I've met one in person, but there's plenty around; look for the flags.

 

[ancjr]

I don't know if I've met one in person, but there's plenty around; look for the flags.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

View attachment 176412

 

[ancjr]

I assumed he meant the flag that the Democrats didn't like.

 

[BugI02]

Hmm. The definition seems to have changed. I've seen this term thrown at people who've not displayed these exact characteristics be labeled as 'neverTrumper' on INGO. Who in this thread has?

Although inexact, I would be willing to sanction the term's use for anyone who still defends their vote for Biden. I would also sanction the use of mental defective instead

If, by the formulation of that post you mean to imply that I have changed MY definition of neverTrumper in such manner, I look forward to your citation of the evidence

If you are unhappy with some of the positions I adopt, you should dig up that lawyer dude who told me I was a sophist - can't remember his name, JCrew or something

But while we're on the subject of you, and why you feign the inability to understand the criticism that some will use a requirement for absolute proof as a convenient excuse to not have to act on an inconvenient truth, please go on record. What say you of the position that the 2020 election was corrupted to an extent that changed the outcome on YOUR truth continuum

I thought based on body of work that you had come to that conclusion as well as being aware that 'the truth' will likely never be forthcoming - but I could have misjudged you

 

[BugI02]

I assumed he meant the flag that the Democrats didn't like.

You mean this one?

 

[jamil]

Although inexact, I would be willing to sanction the term's use for anyone who still defends their vote for Biden. I would also sanction the use of mental defective instead

Idunno. I think there is such a thing that fits the description you posted. Although I'd just simplify it to having an irrational fear of a Trump presidency. Not that Trump was a great president, everyone has their faults. But especially now, Joe has far exceed Trump's faults. Like I said before, I'd vote for the porn star ****er before I'd vote for the kid-****er.

If, by the formulation of that post you mean to imply that I have changed MY definition of neverTrumper in such manner, I look forward to your citation of the evidence

I'm saying your use of the term in this thread seems discordant with the definition you gave. You guys seem to revert to "neverTrumper" anytime someone says something negative about Trump. The poster said he wouldn't vote for Trump *again* and gave some reasons why. Sounds like at least a little mindfulness to me.

Of course he says he voted for Trump twice, and though we don't have proof that he did, he also gave no reason to suspect that he didn't. Now, if you really want me to go back through the thread and re-post what he said, and then what the "neverTrump" callers said, I can do that.

If you are unhappy with some of the positions I adopt, you should dig up that lawyer dude who told me I was a sophist - can't remember his name, JCrew or something

I don't have a problem with some of the positions you adopt. But you're gonna get pushback when I see inconsistency, just like I'd expect from you when you see it from me. And then we can talk about it. On friendly terms I hope.

But while we're on the subject of you, and why you feign the inability to understand the criticism that some will use a requirement for absolute proof as a convenient excuse to not have to act on an inconvenient truth, please go on record. What say you of the position that the 2020 election was corrupted to an extent that changed the outcome on YOUR truth continuum

I think you're thinking in binary terms here. Requiring "proof" isn't the same thing as requiring absolute proof. For a lot of what we're talking about, we can't have absolute proof. At some point it boils down to trust; our faith in a given source. I think bias fits so tightly into that decision-making that when it comes to belief, I don't always trust my instincts because I'm as biased as anyone.

I want what I commit to belief to represent reality as reasonably as I can do. That's not easy. My bias/instincts lead me to want to conclude a lot of the things that you do. And sometimes you and I end up arriving at the same place after more information becomes available. And sometimes we don't.

My standard isn't absolute proof and I've never said it was. It's "proof enough" to assure me that I don't believe something just because of bias/instinct. So. If it's something I can verify for myself, great. Then it's more sure. Otherwise, if I have to rely on the information from others, I have to be reasonably assured that I can trust that source. And it's proportional. Extraordinary "facts" require extraordinary validation.

I thought based on body of work that you had come to that conclusion as well as being aware that 'the truth' will likely never be forthcoming - but I could have misjudged you

Well, as I said above, for some "facts" that's true. I don't think we can know the whole truth about the origins of Covid, all the policies surrounding it, or even the real efficacy of vaccines. For now. All I can say is that I don't trust the powers that be. I don't think a lot of people are being honest. And I think Pfizer is getting very rich and has a lot of reasons to lie. I'm not gonna latch onto this or that conspiracy theory unless or until some pretty trustworthy evidence comes out to support it. And that's not exactly demanding "absolute proof". I'm satisfied with "true enough". But it actually has to be reasonably "true enough".

 

[jamil]

You mean this one?
View attachment 176452

See, for me, I'd rather subscribe to something more like, let's not get too excited about something until we know more about it. At the beginning of the pandemic, if you recall, I kept saying, "don't just stand there, do something" is the wrong policy. We should be saying, "don't just do something, stand there; until we can figure out what's best to do", or something like that.

That doesn't require faith. But it also requires one to ignore fear.

 

[Jaybird1980]

See, for me, I'd rather subscribe to something more like, let's not get too excited about something until we know more about it. At the beginning of the pandemic, if you recall, I kept saying, "don't just stand there, do something" is the wrong policy. We should be saying, "don't just do something, stand there; until we can figure out what's best to do", or something like that.

That doesn't require faith. But it also requires one to ignore fear.

We had a guy at work that would always tell the new guys. "Just do something, anything. I don't care if it's the wrong thing."
I always had to explain to them when they came and worked with me to ignore that advice. Doing nothing is far better than doing the wrong thing, doing the wrong thing can get people hurt and creates more work undoing the wrong thing. Sweeping the floor is more useful than screwing stuff up.

 

[jamil]

We had a guy at work that would always tell the new guys. "Just do something, anything. I don't care if it's the wrong thing."
I always had to explain to them when they came and worked with me to ignore that advice. Doing nothing is far better than doing the wrong thing, doing the wrong thing can get people hurt and creates more work undoing the wrong thing. Sweeping the floor is more useful than screwing stuff up.

In some situations it can be a great thing. In a controlled environment where people can't **** anything up, sure. Let 'er rip. Learn from your mistakes. You wouldn't tell a new pilot in a real ass plane, "just do something". But a trainer might say something like that if the new pilot is in a flight simulator to teach a specific lesson.

Often there are WAY more wrong things than there are right things. So the odds of making it worse are higher. That "two weeks to slow the spread" sure didn't pan out.

 

[JettaKnight]

View attachment 176412

That's not the flag I meant.

 

[Expat]

We had a guy at work that would always tell the new guys. "Just do something, anything. I don't care if it's the wrong thing."
I always had to explain to them when they came and worked with me to ignore that advice. Doing nothing is far better than doing the wrong thing, doing the wrong thing can get people hurt and creates more work undoing the wrong thing. Sweeping the floor is more useful than screwing stuff up.

I think it was my first boss that told me, you are more likely to get in trouble for doing nothing than doing the wrong thing.

 

[jamil]

That's not the flag I meant.

Nothing automatically wrong with that flag today. Having lived in the deep south for years, it's mostly about regional pride. It's considered a symbol of racism because people have made it that for political reasons. It's not surprising that people would put Trump on that flag, because many of the people in the South are Trump supporters.

Supporter doesn't mean "worshiper", and neither does putting his name on that flag. If you instinctively think that flag with Trump's name on it implies anything more than a supporter, you've probably been had.