DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Christian Nationalism

So you don’t have any specifics? And can’t point to anything of significance? Gotcha.

You're still going for a strange "gotcha" pigeon-hole angle here, but I'll play anyhow:

1. He's clearly in a state of elderly mental decline. The gaffes related to that are well-publicized.
2. The pullout from Afghanistan (while negotiated by Trump) was badly botched nonetheless.
3. Some of his early actions, like the stimulus money, was an inflation contributor. I know both administrations botched on that front, but one doing it doesn't justify the other also doing it.
4. Yes, the far right wing of the Republicans botched the most recent border deal, but I do not ever recall him actually placing a growing emphasis on securing the border prior to the collapse of the bipartisan deal.
5. His budgets still call for a vast amount of deficit spending with no real clear plan in sight to deal with the deficit or debt.
6. He has turned a blind eye to price gouging in the military.
7. I think he has been to weak on the Ukraine front in terms of stipulations he placed on the Ukrainian military, while giving Israel a "no holds barred" approach. Is he lightyears ahead of the right wing in terms of Ukraine, IMO? Yes, but their ineptitude is not an excuse for lesser ineptitude.
8. He needs to take a stronger stance on China.

These are just to name a few. Honestly, Biden has been in politics for five decades. He is emblematic of the career politicians who got tied into the maelstrom of US decline in the current big-money-controls-politics era and he's one of the politicians who set the stage for voter discontent, disillusionment, and rage, which opened the door to the crapstorm of 2016 that continues today. It was both sides of the aisle, and I do fault Republicans more for their part, but to act like he was not a cog in the political oligarchy machine, I think is naive.

Would I vote for him over Trump? Hell, I'd vote for a vacant office over Trump. Inaction is better than bad action. It's a pipe dream at this point, but the president and politician we need to strive for is one who is not controlled by special interests, who has a financially sound future plan, who legitimately wants to de-couple us from foreign leverage (political, economic, and social), and who genuinely looks for improving the country over self. The problem there isn't really the politicians, though. It's people who seem content to do nothing or point guns at each other while the ship is sinking.

Not doing anything significant (in a good way) is kind of my issue. Of course, you don't want me to talk about the issues I have with him. Having the power to do good and not doing essentially anything isn't ideal to me.

You seem to want me to stick within some fabricated parameters so you can feel better about your choices. (Or you so need a "win," that you don't care if your argument is pointless) Telling people to argue a point that they aren't arguing for is a rather underhanded tactic. Only arguing for a point you aren't even trying to make doesn't make a whole lot of sense. So, I won't play your game any more.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Biden seems pretty good at not doing much of anything.

Thank you.

Good points. Biden is old and weak on some issues including issues trump created. Something the BULL needs a surrogate to answer. Wonder why.

None of those show Biden is evil which is the task you keep asking me to perform. Making an argument to defend a stance that you don't have makes no sense.

While 05 certainly pointed out some weaknesses it seems some also wish to ignore what he's accomplished by pretending it's nothing.

One of the largest infrastructure program ever.

Wages are outpacing inflation.

More people working than any other time in America.

More people with health insurance than ever before.

There are more of what some of us would call accomplishments than others would so I won't get into those. But I believe these are accomplishments most could get behind.

And I'm by no means claiming Biden is some great president. I'm disappointed by the choice both parties have given us. But pretending he has done and tried to do nothing isn't quite accurate either.

And BTW 05, Biden gave Ukraine the go ahead to use weapons provided by the U.S. to be used against Russia on Russian soil and Ukraine has already began doing so. Russia is losing their minds over it.

It was a simple question not a task, that anyone else could answer concisely, as shown. Instead BS from the bull.

Yeah, I won't argue with you, especially on the infrastructure front. That needed to happen big time. My post was oriented to specifically addressing what I consider to be shortfalls.

I do wish Ukraine had been allowed to target Russian soil from the get-go. There is a lot of hesitation that not just we - but more Europe - seem to be employing which I don't get behind when you're dealing with someone like Putin. Like I said before, though, the alternative candidate would likely have already acknowledged Ukraine as part of Russia.

I certainly didn't mean to fault you for pointing out his weaknesses. I think you can see I'm not a glowing fan of his. I agree with you about Ukraine and the west hogtying their ability to strike back at Russia on their own soil. I'm glad that has changed and feel it should have been that way from the very beginning.

Libertarians are figuring that out, well except the one who trolls here. They booed Trump off the floor.

Biden should have pulled a bay of pigs in Ukraine and sent in enough nukes to wipe Russia off the map. But for some weird reason, everybody fears Putin will unleash WW3 and let all of his nukes fly. The only way Ukraine will be safe while Putin remains in power is great deterrence.

That's how people feel who don't see things from the big picture. China, N. Korea, Russia, Iran and other nations are now aligned. Your suggestion would most likely be the start of WW3 on a very grand scale.

It's not "just Putin".

Your entire post is correct and exceptionally well put.

But the part I quoted is what I want to focus on because democrats didn't seem to learn their lesson in 2016, and they didn't in 2020 when GOP lost the presidency but gained big in Congress. People are fed up with the status quo and dems keep pushing the likes of Hillary and Biden. I get what you're saying about the GOP being more culpable, but I kinda disagree because I feel like they were poised to score big wins if they could've just come up with someone different than Biden (as you mentioned, been a cog in teh system for 50'ish years and who's best days are behind him).

I will just say that Biden is not evil.

The reality is that many believe that he is too old for the job.

Grandpa Joe is still a better choice than crooked Don.

Biden is a nonstop liar, just like the devil.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...s-biden-lied-plagiarized-and-exaggerated


https://oversight.house.gov/blog/jo...imes-about-his-familys-business-schemes/


https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/larry-kudlow-biden-keeps-spreading-lies-about-trumps-record

Google has a lot more articles. Biden lies constantly about everything and anything. Tell me thats not evil.

Libtards lap up his lies like they are ice cream. Suckers.

The way your logic seems to work:

Okay let me ask you a simple question. What did the flying spaghetti monster do to cause global warming? You have to answer that question and just that question. With specific examples. Come on, it's a simple question. Anyone else can answer it concisely.

Someone answers a different question and you like the answers, you say, wow, great post.

Nevermind that your initial question is some gotcha quagmire referring to a point that nobody made.

Thanks man, appreciate that, especially coming from you, but how dare you disagree! You know you're not allowed to do that with me!

No, I think that's a fair point, and I don't think we really disagree. What I should have specified is that I fault Republicans more for their part in allowing the party to be taken hostage by the 2016 movement and wholly failing to rein that in. The fact that Trump even remains a viable candidate to win the election, combined with the fact the Democrats really have nobody except Biden to even challenge him (both in 2020 and now) shows that Dems are not trying to revitalize the party and work to recapture votes like they should be doing. If someone like Haley got the nomination, and I'm not a huge fan of hers either, I think Biden would have gotten pummeled in the general election. But now we're in a scenario where Republicans seem to have a monarch and a platform of revenge (I honestly don't know what their policy platforms are anymore besides revenge), and the Democrats' biggest platform seems to be "Well at least we're not the crap show that the other side is." Meanwhile, very few in office seem to care about recapturing disillusioned voters.

If the Republicans can somehow ditch the MAGA movement (which would require a big L this year, among other things), and return to common sense politics and ACTUAL conservativism, the Dems I think would be in trouble. They rested on their laurels and their strong-armed candidate in 2016 and currently have Biden at the helm. They need to start thinking about a "refresh" as well...big time.

If the Republicans could have gotten past the MAGA cult in 2020 they would be in full control of the White House, the House and the Senate right now.

Yeah, right, Eve. Like they'd eat ice cream. Biden said ice cream is a dastardly Republican dessert, and its production is an attempt to overthrow the Union. Trump's ice cream caused inflation. Lactose-free, illegal immigrant made sorbet is the dessert of choice of all "discerning" Biden supporters. Ice cream? Pfffft.

Sorry, when someone's response to something is to simply "roll on the floor laughing," I can't help but try to imagine the level of ridiculousness that must be going through their heads to do such a thing.

I gave it the exact response it deserved. You seem to give it more credence than that. But I'm not surprised by that. Of course i'm sure you love people calling others libtard and that isn't personal. You deserve "roll on the floor laughing" for that one too.

Then there is the hypocrisy involved in her post which it seems you are totally unaware or fail to acknowledge as well. But I'm not surprised by that either.

Interesting podcast on (White) Christian Nationalist Evangelicals and the threat they represent.

Libtards plural isn't personal. If one considers one's self a libtard, I could see how it feels personal. It wasn't even replying to you.

Personally, I'm not a fan of using the word, but rolling on the floor laughing seemed a strange response.

I don't find hypocrisy funny. Apparently, you do. I found trying to figure out what you found funny funny.

Finding "roll on the floor laughing" the exact response deserved by anything would seem to say a lot about your relationship with exactitude. Maybe a grown man rolling around on the floor is normal for you. For me, it seems a rather odd thing to do.

Picking fights on multiple fronts is bad strategy. The "enemy of my enemy" is my friend. Why would I pick a fight with Eve? She didn't call me a libtard. While I don't like the word choice, I empathize with the sentiment, especially when certain to remain unnamed individuals are involved.

The maybe you should abstain from that and stop pretending you're the White Knight coming in on your trusted steed.

I'm sure you don't see calling those who disagree with you a libtard as "starting a fight". I do understand how taking one's own advice is difficult but I'm not surprised by that.

You're the one that thinks he's a white knight. I'm a battered grey knight at best, but realizing that there are no purely "white" or "black" knights is an early step in the path to understanding that you seem intent on avoiding.

I never said it wasn't starting a fight. It wasn't starting a fight with me. I didn't start a fight with her because I'm in a neverending one with you. While I could stop visiting the boards to end that "war," I've grown attached to DawgTalkers. That one fight is more than enough for me. You are the one that seems intent on starting a fight with everyone, over everything. When you pick a fight with me (and when don't you?), I'm going to fight back and try to "win." (More defend my sanity than actually win.) Occasionally your "pals" will pick a fight, too, and I'll respond. I'm not going to pick a fight with someone I generally like, when someone I generally don't does something seemingly nonsensical in an argument.

I know that following your own advice is something that you appear to struggle with. Taking someone else's advice or even comprehending what that advice actually is also appears to be an issue for you.

I don't like the word libtard or its use as a generalization. Some individuals seem to fit the concept, though, despite my wishes that it weren't so. Your feeling that the generalization personally applied to you would seem to imply that you feel it fits some people, too. Maybe you should listen to your subconscious and stop doing the things that make you feel like a word you don't like fits you.

As much as you've been following me around it's almost as if I adopted a new puppy. Good boy! Sit!

Being labeled as something doesn't make you that. It doesn't apply to me but to insinuate it's not a derogatory term is false on any level no matter how much you protest to the contrary.

And it's convenient to call discussions and differences of opinions "fights" to present your narrative. But that's all it is. Maybe you don't understand that this forum is to discuss and debate different perspectives. Otherwise it would be called the Kum Ba Yah forum.

Try harder next time.

Everywhere I go on the boards, there you are. There is no need to follow you. In fact, I try to avoid you. Unfortunately, I go to threads with titles that sound interesting. Since you are in every thread, you are to my unending annoyance in all the interesting ones. Once again you seem to overestimate your own importance or just completely don't understand the word "follow." I guess some people find that a hard one.

I didn't protest that it was a derogatory term at all. Applying labels doesn't make you something. Being something makes you something. What do they say about shoes fitting?

You don't have discussions. You say the same thing over and over again and make up things that other people didn't say.

This forum is to discuss and debate things. Butchering logic, putting words in other people's mouths, and moving goalposts are neither of those things.

Those are rather "aggressive" actions, so the comparison to a fight seemed to make sense. It seems that making sense and you may not be on speaking terms. The frequent "rolling on the floor," laughing or otherwise, with no other words could bring up some questions for some folks.

Why try harder when some people make it so easy? Work smarter, not harder. I suppose that might not be possible for some individuals.

Unfortunately, hard work can't actually overcome some things. I can't decide if someone continuing to try is admirable or sad.

Edit: You didn't adopt a puppy. You constantly harass a "Bull_Dawg." When you try to "cram things in my mouth", I "bite." Savvy?

Even PPE had to call out out on your mindless drivel in the tailgate lot on the QB purgatory thread. I believe you think you're better at this than you actually are.

Awwww. The poor man is rolling on the floor again. And his mind seems to be wandering away from a harsh reality.

Somebody help, he's fallen and he can't get up!

The depths to which you have fallen knows no bounds. At this point I don't believe you even take yourself seriously. That's the harsh reality.

If you're not going to listen to reason, I might as well have fun with it.

Besides, you're the one with the thing for being on the ground (and apparent underhanded tactics.) I prefer the big picture from above approach. Instead of banging my head against a wall, I figured I'd try other approaches.

If it takes jokes to make you see how ridiculous your actions seem, that's a "boundary" I'm willing to cross.

It's you that I have a hard time taking seriously. If anything, taking things too seriously is something I struggle with.

If you're truing to use other tactics I strongly suggest you try some that will work for a change. Maybe using some facts rather than some grandiose suppositions would be a good place to start.

You seem to be intractable to everything anyone on the boards has ever tried. I'm not sure there is a tactic that could possibly work. Using facts isn't a tactic that seems to work with you. Many have tried. It's a horrible place to start as it has failed repeatedly.

I tried a different tactic. It seems to have struck a nerve. I'm also starting to wonder if I've accidentally stumbled upon a reason for all the Biden support and minimizing age concerns. Harsh truths suck.

I understand that logic from someone who can't accept decades of independent research from different scientists as factual based on a 97% consensus. If that's what you consider reasonable I won't be joining you.

I don't minimize Biden's age. I'm not happy about either of the two candidates. But I also don't focus on one factor while neglecting everything else. You should give that a try some time.

yes, harsh truths do suck. For you.

Disagreements, what's new. Christian Nationalism supports Trump- Steve Bannon, right hand man for Trump is quoted , "Darkness is good: Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing."-- My question is HOW can Christians side with folks who state darkness and Satan are good.

Are those positions opposites.

Religion. The downfall of humanity. War and destruction in the name of a god is ridiculous.

Alito has to go. His impartiality is completely exposed here.

That's a bad look for Alito. Horrible look actually. Glad Roberts came through on his end, which is part of the reason he is probably my favorite justice. The ironic thing is that Alito is an originalist and he is clearly deviating from what the framers intended his position on SCOTUS to be.

I'm a Christian. I am still frightened by what she claims about it being a Christian nation. If our founders intended for us to be a Christian nation, they would not have constructed the Constitution in the manner that they did.

I am also Christian, specifically Catholic. But our nation was not founded as a Christian nation. It was founded as a nation of religious freedom.

I am Catholic like you and I agree.