On 11 Mar 2021 04:15:51 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com
>On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 2:48:31 AM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 10 Mar 2021 22:21:40 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com
>> >On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 3:15:07 PM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>> >> On 3 Mar 2021 05:12:05 -0000, "Glenn V." <flex...@gmail.com
>> >I'd expected more from you. Much more. Your patronizing debate style
>> >doesn't do you any favors, in my opinion.
>> Do you understand the irony of that comment, coming in a patronizing
>> post by you?
>Not at all, but you don't understand - behind all of those ridiculous
>attachments you have to arguments you don't like. That's not the man I
>read, and liked based on his arguments 15 years ago about the JFK
>assassination. Back then you always had valid arguments.
I could say the same thing about you.
>> >The way you just simply attack,
>> >on a personal basis, those who don't agree with you, is remarkably
>> >juvenile, being a professor and all. And no, I'm not neck deep into
>> >anything at all that *you* understand. The GOP is, right now.
>> You are neck deep in identity politics, playing the race card
>> >However, I'm very, very proud of never being called an ultraconservative
>> >reality denier.
>> Have you been called an ultra leftist reality denier?
>Never. Even from my political opponents, and as much of a surprise as it
>may be to you, not even about this crap you suggested where I have my
That was a rhetorical question.
But maybe I should call you an ultra-leftist reality denier.
Since you have so much education (see below) you know that the proper
strategy in an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma is tit for tat.
>> >Moreover, I'll simply watch what happens in the US as far
>> >as voter suppression, onwards. Then we'll see who can look back at this
>> >thread with his head held high.
>> The term "voter suppression" begs the question. You should know more
>> logic than that.
>I do - quit questioning my knowledge.
The why did you beg the question?
>You on the other hand, should not
>even question others about this, but instead of dodging questions, answer
I do, but you just don't like the answers.
>> >The GOP is on a slippery slope, depending on excluding as many as possible
>> >from voting, instead of realizing the simple fact that they should think
>> >twice about their policies in certain areas,
>> Like what?
You mean like defunding the police? A majority of blacks oppose that:
You white leftists don't represent the groups you claim to represent.
>> >instead of trying desperately
>> >to apply various shortcuts in order to gain power and the trust of the US
>> >people. The demographic changes in the US will, by necessity, make the GOP
>> >choose their way.
>> OIC. "People of color" are going to take over, and consign the GOP to
>No, the *minorities* (the ones you don't seem to believe exists) that the
>GOP refuses to acknowledge - will destroy the GOP. if they continue on
"Minorities" and "people of color" mean the same thing.
And you have some issues like that in Sweden.
>> In the first place, the youngest cohort of white voters went for Trump
>> in 2020.
>Yes, exactly. And what other cohorts that demographics are pointing to as
>the growing ones is that minorities, women did not.
White women did:
OIC. Latino voters are stupid, in your view.
Amazing how quickly you leftists throw you favored victim groups under
the bus when they don't act as you want.
Which is why Democrats are big on illegal immigration.
But again, Latinos are likely to move to the center as they
>> >That is, certainly, if Trump long before then hasn't destroyed the GOP and
>> >the conservative movement in the US.
>> What Trump has done is make the GOP clearly the party that opposed
>> arrogant elites. Like the tech giants that censor content they don't
>What an embarrassing statement, John. Read up on things before you utter
>anything on this subject.
You are embarrassing yourself by just berating me, and not making
>Whether the elites are GOP or DNC I will leave
>out, both probably. But as far as Trump, for heavens sake *do you not
>understand* that the elites are his best friends? Those zero. point one
>percent who gained 90 percent of his tax cuts? Trump doesn't give a s**t
>about his "base. Right now his about to milk them of millions of dollars
>to a new fund. He's a grifter, John. Nothing else.
You hate Trump because his election was a kick in the teeth to
elitists with whom you identify.
The populist sentiment that elected him remains, and will have its
day, beginning in 2022.
>Read up, John, You are out of touch.
Again, you just berate me, rather than making an argument.
That's ad hominem. Do you know what that means?
>My God. John. What you are defending is going to end up on the ash heap of
>history. I would have never concluded this about you. This really isn't
>about votes, is it?
That's an argumentum ad baculum.
>> I'm guessing you like Facebook and Twitter banning Trump.
>Here we go again with the ridiculous patronizing. Again, and again you do
>this, John. That's the really sad part of this discussion. I would have
>thought much better of you. The truth is that some of those you can't
>speak to in the JFK assassination, I can - and I do, they've all rejected
>you because of exactly what I've said here: learn, do not patronize people
>left and right, like you do.
Do you condone or object to Facebook and Twitter banning Trump?
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
>We're friends on FB, at your request. You know nothing about me, my
>education, my experiences or anything else. You should learn how to treat
>people who are not professors, and who are not a**holes.
More ad hominem.
>So let me give you a taste, John. I'm an economist by profession, having
>studied economics, political science and business administration for
>almost five years All the years I've spent in both government and private
>sector positions has been a fruitful experience, I don't degrade people
>the way you do, constantly.
Argumentum ad hominem.
And argumentum ad verecundiam.
I have a Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard, so I can beat you on
that kind of argument. But it's a fallacy anyway.
>Simply speaking, I don't take this patronizing shit from you, shape up!
Says the fellow who dispenses patronizing shit.
>I demand respect from you, and the way you are dealing with me in this
>thread, is not that of respect.
You are treating simple disagreement as a "lack of respect."
>> And your time discussing voting in the US has been embarrassing, since
>> you are attacking US Republicans for:
>> 1.) wanting to ban mail-in voting.
>> 2.) wanting voter ID
>> 3.) wanting to ban ballot harvesting
>They do. Look simply at the H.R.1 (I think the number is) which is going
>through congress as we speak. Period.
Democrats controll Congress. They are in favor of mail-in voting,
opposed to voter ID, and in favor of ballot harvesting.
>> All of which would make US elections more like Sweden!
>Exactly. And we have no voter irregularities, no voter fraud. Again -
>PERIOD. "Do you understand" - to quote yourself? Spend the resources to
>make this happen, is the answer you don't want do hear - or *understand*?
"Resources" isn't the issue. Rules that make cheating difficult are.
>"If it ain't a problem, don't fix it". Remember?
>- Make supporting voter lines in Georgia with food illegal, and make
> voting polls fewer and less frequent?
>Wake up, John. Your dinosaur views are gone help no one. Not you, not the
>GOP and not real conservatives. Those real conservatives are going to
>learn from what you are defending. They will have to.
Real conservatives want clean elections. In Sweden, you have voter
ID, no mail-in voting, and no ballot harvesting.
It's Republicans who want elections like that.