Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Bill Barr Triggers CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, Won’t Back Down on Voting For Trump
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThatRobGuy" data-source="post: 77657847" data-attributes="member: 123415"><p>Well, obviously... Reasonable is always preferable to unreasonable.</p><p></p><p>But Collins isn't unique in their approach to the "box them into a corner" style of questioning... that kind of stuff is happening even in non-interview settings...just in casual conversation.</p><p></p><p>This notion that because people can snip out sound bytes and/or zero in on flaws about "the other guy", and that's somehow supposed to pressure people from the other team into voting for the other side is a premise/expectation that's absurd on its face.</p><p></p><p>Not sure who remembers some of the details of this particular election that took place:</p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Louisiana_gubernatorial_election[/URL]</p><p></p><p>I was just barely old enough to remember some of the details of it since I was in elementary school at the time.</p><p></p><p>But the slogan of that election was </p><p>"Vote For The Crook: It's Important."</p><p></p><p>At least people were being honest (in a tongue-in-cheek way) about the realities of a two-party system lol.</p><p></p><p>For example:</p><p>If someone prioritizes universal healthcare as their number #1 issue, it's a red line issue for them, and a deal breaker. Doesn't matter what the Democratic candidate is being charged with or suspected of doing in another realm, they should vote for the Democrat. A Democrat who happens to be being charged with a heinous crime is still more likely to represent their interests more than a clean cut crime-free GOP candidate who's in bed with the fossil fuel industry.</p><p></p><p>A person who prioritizes pro-choice values above all else should vote for a Democrat who runs dog fights in their basement before they vote for Ted Cruz.</p><p></p><p>All I'm saying, is that logic applies and is valid in the opposite direction as well.</p><p></p><p>I think the disconnect happens when people don't respect the fact that some people can be just as passionate about the opposing side of an issue that they find important. As an example: For every one person who is deeply passionate about restricting guns, there's another person who's just as passionate about preserving gun rights. Neither has an obligation to vote against their own interests simply because a party decided to cling to an idiot.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThatRobGuy, post: 77657847, member: 123415"] Well, obviously... Reasonable is always preferable to unreasonable. But Collins isn't unique in their approach to the "box them into a corner" style of questioning... that kind of stuff is happening even in non-interview settings...just in casual conversation. This notion that because people can snip out sound bytes and/or zero in on flaws about "the other guy", and that's somehow supposed to pressure people from the other team into voting for the other side is a premise/expectation that's absurd on its face. Not sure who remembers some of the details of this particular election that took place: [URL unfurl="true"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Louisiana_gubernatorial_election[/URL] I was just barely old enough to remember some of the details of it since I was in elementary school at the time. But the slogan of that election was "Vote For The Crook: It's Important." At least people were being honest (in a tongue-in-cheek way) about the realities of a two-party system lol. For example: If someone prioritizes universal healthcare as their number #1 issue, it's a red line issue for them, and a deal breaker. Doesn't matter what the Democratic candidate is being charged with or suspected of doing in another realm, they should vote for the Democrat. A Democrat who happens to be being charged with a heinous crime is still more likely to represent their interests more than a clean cut crime-free GOP candidate who's in bed with the fossil fuel industry. A person who prioritizes pro-choice values above all else should vote for a Democrat who runs dog fights in their basement before they vote for Ted Cruz. All I'm saying, is that logic applies and is valid in the opposite direction as well. I think the disconnect happens when people don't respect the fact that some people can be just as passionate about the opposing side of an issue that they find important. As an example: For every one person who is deeply passionate about restricting guns, there's another person who's just as passionate about preserving gun rights. Neither has an obligation to vote against their own interests simply because a party decided to cling to an idiot. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Bill Barr Triggers CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, Won’t Back Down on Voting For Trump
Top
Bottom