SCOTUS stops the election interference....cold!

More ad hominem. And you’re projecting: I’m not insecure. I simply refuse to accept the narrative. It’s proved repeatedly to be false. They’ve cried wolf too many times. The comparisons to naziism have lost all their power. Do you stop to think why so many people finally say “to hell with it” and vote for a trump or, in your schema, a hitler? It’s not as simple and neat as a powerful cult of personality. A more accurate, though also simplistic explanation is that it just great big middle finger to those who pretentiously claim to be “our betters”.

The political class has told too many lies. Sure trump has capitalized on the discontent but he himself is irrelevant. Anyone with the will to say what we’ve all seen, despite the constant gaslighting, could take his place and probably do it better since he is so clearly flawed.

The notion of scapegoating to appeal to the “insecurities” of us white, hetero, middle aged, tax paying, males is also absurd. How can I enjoy all this unearned privilege and be insecure? But it’s no more absurd than the other things the political class has tried to feed us.

There are ONLY two sexes. Genetic defects do occur but they are just that, defects. Deny it as many times as you will, and invent a plethora fictitious ones as well, but the fact remains.

The BLM riots were planned and paid for, and thoroughly televised to scare the swing voters into voting correctly.

The only difference between the right and left wings of the war party is a side order of Jesus.

Straight people are not homophobes. We don’t fear homosexuals. If we think about them at all we feel pity and maybe a little icky if we actually form a mental image.

The CPI is pure bullshit and easily proven so by creating a mathematical model with the historical data. Inflation is nothing more than excess taxation; a monetization did the debt.

Our own country has overthrown more democratically elected governments than any other in history. WE are the biggest threat to democracy, not Putin or Xi, or even Trump.

The rest of the world does not want our “enlightened western values” and “freedoms”. They think we’re degenerate idiots and they’re not wrong.

 

...

 

...

 

Again, it appears as though you’re projecting. I’m not afraid of losing anything. I’ve done well enough and am on the back nine anyway. We all get replaced in time. And there’s no privilege to be lost. This privilege that the victimhood industrial complex promoted is a fiction. Stick your finger in your ears, and scream the lie repeatedly all you want but it’s still a lie. Having two parents, a desire to learn and improve myself, a bit of self control and consideration of the consequences of my actions is not privilege. I did luck out a little in the genetic lottery but I’ve seen many others who didn’t do anywhere near as well in that regard lead exemplary lives.

As to my lack of patriotism; speaking the truth is not unpatriotic. It is simply truth. Also, fresh out of high school I spent 4 years in uncle Sam’s infantry and 4 more in the reserve. That’s how I paid for my education. I’m rather fond of this country and am thankful for the opportunity I had to serve. The political class and their masters, however, are not the country nor do they represent it.

 

...

 

...

 

Maga material eh? Ok. I guess I’ll wear that one for you as well as racist, sexist, homophobe, oh let’s throw in antisemite while we’re piling it on and you want to speculate that I’d also be a holocaust denier. Got any others I should add? Oooh how about conspiracy theorist? In one sense at least that one would be true; as a former infantryman, I do not believe it was possible for Oswald to make those shots, from that angle, with that rifle.

So I guess I’ll be maga for you. In fact, this year, for the first time since bush v. Gore (I voted gore by the way), I will actually vote. And if he doesn’t get RFK’d, I’ll even vote trump. Not just as the aforementioned middle finger to the uniparty, but satisfy your preconceptions about us evil white hetero males. You’re welcome. Once again, your prejudices about the common man have been confirmed and you can revel in your moral superiority.

 

...

 

That's asking a lot, MeAgain. One thing you may have noticed about Bocci is that although he claims to read a lot (preferably of older, dated material) and gets some current news from NPR (lol), he's not into giving sources and specifics to back up his claims. Early on he invited us to check his claim about the U.S. agreement with Russia over NATO and it didn't go well for him. I don't think he's done anything like that since.

 

Bloodbath:

Well the news cycle has validated my point somewhat. This Candidate is discusing an economic bloodbath concerning importation of Autos assembeled in Mexico with Chineese enginering & parts. Our Mainstream Media is spinning this as an actual bloodbath " Titilating thier audiences with fear" I am very sure that your buddies in the UAW have taken note and are more clear eyed on this issue, perhaps they will cross the asile and vote for The Monster?

Our two party system is a mirror image of distatefullnes and crudity. we are all the loosers here.

 

...

 

You’re right. I have not done so. I will not invest the time in an anonymous online conversation to use APA style format and footnotes. Plus, sources I would cite would be cherry picked like yours to support one side of the argument and easily dismissed by searching and citing counter sources. Your sources don’t convince me and I do not expect mine would convince you.

Some here like to mention dunning-Kruger. It’s a handy shorthand to dismiss opposing views as uninformed/unenlightened. Oh well. Better than using Freud I suppose.

 

Sorry, pal, but if you can't back up what your say with facts and sources (APA format not necessary) there's no reason to take you seriously. Of course, the facts and sources you bring out can and will be challenged, but that's the whole point of discussion. And while we may not convince each other, our audience might exercise some judgment to decide which one seems more convincing.

 

This peppering with questions and the dissection and restatement of every statement is an old legalistic and interrogation technique. I will not play this game. Regardless of where objective truth may lay, that technique is not so much designed to arrive at it as it is to harass the interrogated into submission and probe for slight weaknesses that can be exaggerated to discredit the whole argument.

 

I cannot imagine someone being so bored as to play audience to our conversation. But maybe that is just my own limitation. Anyway, as a former presenter, I have found less can truly be more. Make a few clear concise statements. Ask a few questions of your audience. Let them evaluate your statements and pursue the answers to your questions if/as they wish. People will convince themselves one way or the other. A list of “facts” and sources does little good unless you’re simply confirming what they already believe. Even then, they will soon be forgotten.

 

Thank you for taking the time to investigate the matter. Reading the transcript myself, it seems clear to me as well what he meant. Trumps rambling, staccato way of jumping around and speaking “stream of consciousness” like he does, is what allowed this to be taken out of context and exploited. Can’t blame the dems for using it: the population has such a short attention span that most stop at the headline. This headline probably secured some more votes for them.

 

In other words, don't confuse you with the facts? The nerve of anyone challenging your extraordinary claims! If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

Sounds more like a propagandist. Is "presenter" what they call those now? Anyhow, what you've just presented in this post strikes me as a transparently lame excuse for not being able to back up what you say. We'll let the audience, if any, decide that.