Roe v Wade

[Iron-awe]

In between the leg pull and banter JI that the majority enjoy on here I think you will note that several facts about Trump and this particular incident about him being served with a search warrant to enter his house in Florida are actually true and a matter of law enforcement. You mention a political angle yet produce no evidence, this in itself has more than a hint of conspiracy theory from you. Just be honest about the situation but your last response is your traditional place of refuge on several things discussed over the years when you cannot really argue against facts. This is happening to Trump for a lawful legal reason and if you had taken in the tone of his Presidency and his reaction since losing power legitimately then you would be honest enough to admit the current situation surrounding him. Some guy from the right wing of politics in the USA has f****d up big time and it appears to be as a result of his own ego and never wanting to be proved wrong. Surely this is apparent to you? Go on be genuine about things.

[Just Iron]

My conscience is clear. If you reflect on my post you will see that I pointed out imbalance of approach and cited specific examples of this. The only direct reply was Sidey’s reference to that wonderful example of unbiased reporting …The New York Times. The truth on all of this will come out in time … and then we’ll all know to what extent we were misled, biased or partisan. Just because Trump has so many unattractive features does not mean that anyone on the opposing side of the spectrum should receive a free pass just as he should not be subjected to relentless and forensic scrutiny by the DOJ. Justice should be ‘blind’ or everything starts to unravel.

[Iron-awe]

Nobody is getting a free pass just because the law does not see your examples quoted as worthy of investigation. You probably got your angle on them from a certain style of media you regard as accurate, that is your prerogative but just to remind you JI the FBI is headed up by a Republican and I’m sure if he felt there was reason to investigate others you have portrayed as worthy of that then his agents would have done so. Just follow the facts not right wing media, you know it makes sense that any serious wrong doing by a Democrat worthy of investigation would have been done. That’s how the law works I believe. Follow the facts not the conspiracy theory.

[Just Iron]

Nope. ‘Any serious wrongdoing by a Democrat worthy of investigation would have been done.’Nope. Nope.
I gave several examples. Of course they are just right wing propaganda for you. That’s why I don’t keep pushing. It just becomes a tit for tat schoolyard spat if we go that route. Then the name calling starts.
The head of the FBI being a Republican looks like your clincher… unless he could be bought, or oppose Trump like Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger, or be in that overlap space where ‘moderates’ go with the flow and consensus rather than conviction or principle, or sees Trump as some sort of threat to the autonomy of the FBI or has been misled .. or a variety of reasons. Your world is easier to live in IA because it doesn’t have to see the nuances and allows quick categorisation. If the Republicans take the same approach to delicately balanced and slowly evolved institutions that we are witnessing under the present administration then the game is up in some sense for America with repercussions for all of us. I hope they don’t.

[Iron-awe]

No evidence as usual just a hunch based on maybe, you live your life like that if you wish JI that’s is your choice, I will continue living in the real world thanks

[Gurnelista]

IA, what we see among the so-called Christians on here, and elsewhere on social media, is an utter denial of observable reality; complete, blind subservience to belief and belief alone. I hear it from the Jehovah’s Witnesses on the doorstep. I hear it too, from fans of Farage and Trump. The followers aren’t interested in facts, evidence and argument. No, for them it’s about belief in an omnipotent authority figure, a cult leader, or an idea, no matter how stupid, bad or mad.

For the likes of BPG and JI, rational, evidence based argument is not the currency of debate. Instead, you get ‘whataboutery’, i.e. attempts to shift the discussion onto another topic, as we see in posts above. Classic cultist behaviour.

Take the current discussions about the importance of standards, integrity, honesty, probity decency and fairness in politics. It means going against pretty much everything the Tory right wing (and many Republicans) currently stand for. This means that no matter how egregious the abuse of power, no matter how serious the corruption, the cultists will still believe, because they see their leaders as infallible. Just like the Pope is for many Catholics, in fact.

Of course, there are many ‘normal’ Republicans, Tories and Catholics, who dislike their leaders and their policies as much as the rest of us. But they don’t take to social media with the burning sense of injustice which we see from the cultists, who defend them unquestioningly. To admit they might be wrong brings their whole psychological edifice crashing down.

Really, what anyone rational wants to see is a defence of decent political standards for all our sakes, whatever the political colours. But we should not expect the cultists to express an objective or reasonable viewpoint – because they can’t. They are destined to continue soiling themselves on social media as long as they can work a mouse.

[Just Iron]

… I knew it wouldn’t be long.

[Iron-awe]

What before you offered no serious considered response to a fact based discussion? No neither did I.

[Just Iron]

Ignoring detail that you don’t like and failing to recognise reasoned discourse because it doesn’t sit with your position. That’s why I can only walk so far with you IA. I also note that the tone changes when Gurney appears … and not only his.
At least my stating a different perspective has brought some kind of vitality to this part of the thread. Happy to have brought some colour into the monotone drabness.

[Iron-awe]

No change of tone at all only in your own head but you dont address facts with facts only maybe or perhaps, not good enough JI and you know it but choose to retreat to your normal sheltered position. Thats fine but its a disappointing outcome and usually you try to engage in a more measured way. I understand your position but find it disappointing all the same.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Just Iron wrote:

My conscience is clear. If you reflect on my post you will see that I pointed out imbalance of approach and cited specific examples of this. The only direct reply was Sidey’s reference to that wonderful example of unbiased reporting …The New York Times. The truth on all of this will come out in time … and then we’ll all know to what extent we were misled, biased or partisan. Just because Trump has so many unattractive features does not mean that anyone on the opposing side of the spectrum should receive a free pass just as he should not be subjected to relentless and forensic scrutiny by the DOJ. Justice should be ‘blind’ or everything starts to unravel.

Ah, yes, because the news outlet is one you dislike it must be wrong. The argument of all biased ideologues, just as when lefties dismiss the Daily Mail. It has said it was because of him witholding documents of national importance, but I am sure this can be ignored, because in your “balanced” world it means sticking fingers in the ears and pretending that any investigation into Trump has to be biased, because of unfounded nonsense you believe. If you can’t put up evidence, it’s not on us to accept it, and glib dismissals because you dislike the source is not convincing.

[Siderite]

Just Iron wrote:

Nope. ‘Any serious wrongdoing by a Democrat worthy of investigation would have been done.’Nope. Nope.
I gave several examples. Of course they are just right wing propaganda for you. That’s why I don’t keep pushing. It just becomes a tit for tat schoolyard spat if we go that route. Then the name calling starts.
The head of the FBI being a Republican looks like your clincher… unless he could be bought, or oppose Trump like Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger, or be in that overlap space where ‘moderates’ go with the flow and consensus rather than conviction or principle, or sees Trump as some sort of threat to the autonomy of the FBI or has been misled .. or a variety of reasons. Your world is easier to live in IA because it doesn’t have to see the nuances and allows quick categorisation. If the Republicans take the same approach to delicately balanced and slowly evolved institutions that we are witnessing under the present administration then the game is up in some sense for America with repercussions for all of us. I hope they don’t.

If you think the Republicans have been respecting the institutions for the past 10 years, I have a bridge to sell. This further convinces me of your partisan nature here.

Republicans gerrymandering, try to overturn a democratic result and “reasonable” JI thinks the issue is the Democrats because a Republican FBI head launched a search warrant. Interesting that Cheney was mentioned. One of the few who didn’t go with Trump’s cohort in trying to overturn a democratic election. Maybe she should have tried to overturn an election, as the “reasonable” JI would wish. Only partisans would want democracy to work. Balanced people want the Republicans to win no mattr what, under conspiracy theories. That’s how real democracy works. :-)

[Siderite]

JI, in short, if you’re making wild claims about conspiracies it’s your job to support it, not us to dismiss it. If you just dismiss anything without question, as if you’re the ultimate arbiter, you won’t be taken seriously. Unfounded accusations about conspiracies regarding favoured candidates are worrying because they undermine trust in democracy. Seemingly, you and the Republicans don’t care, because your guy might be guilty. Suppositions are all you have and that should tell you how credible it is. Not very.

[Just Iron]

Trump is not my guy. No wild claims made. The ref to N Y Times was nothing to do with the raid. Hilary disputed the 2016 election even before the outcome and continued to claim unfounded Russian influence even to this day… but no refs from any of you. Why do you throw this stuff out? Because your minds are made up so I have to be unreasoned,a ‘so called Christian’, part of a cult, avoiding engagement though engaged enough to draw all of the above, giving no detail even when examples given,partisan etc etc
In the words of one of my favourite songwriters ..
‘All lies and jest ..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest mmmhmmh …. lie di lie etc

Thanks at least for not turning to outright mockery and viciousness which has been the fate of previous contrarians who we no longer hear from. I guess it could kick in if I outstay my welcome. I am only a ‘casual’ anyway … sitting out Covid so more time on my hands than usual .. so, in the words of Capt Oates, ‘I’m off .. and may be gone some time.’

[Siderite]

I never said the NYT was due to the raid, it was clearly about the Epps claim.

Did Hilary try to overturn the election, culminating in a storm of the Capitol? No.

Russian influence of the 2016 election was shown. What wasn’t was direct Trump involvement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#:~:text=The%20Russian%20government%20interfered%20in,discord%20in%20the%20United%20States. I am not surprised you dismiss this, given your partisan nature. It’s hilarious how you cry martyr over being called partisan when you called others that. Seemingly it’s ok for you to say others should look in the mirror, but when directed at you it’s vile abuse, because you’re the most ‘reasonable’ among us.

Yet, despite being ‘reasonable’ you cannot accept that a search warrant of Trump’s home could be reasonable, and when asked to back up your statements you just shirk and put the onus on everyone else. I am rather weary of Republican authoritarians trying to justify their sore losing and inability to accept that their supported individuals should be investigated, and that doing so is not a crime. Such people want their supported guy to get away with anything, and come up with wild conspiracies to say otherwise. You claim to not be his guy, but your words betray you. Why should I take your words seriously, when you state that it was not the Republicans at fault for trying to overturn an election, because Clinton made a comment and never acted on it in the same way? Your bias is exposed and your credibility to a balanced opinion is, frankly, gone.

You will no doubt say the same about me, because I don’t both sides this specific issue; I don’t pretend the Democrats are as far gone as the Republicans, but that says more about you than me. I accept that there are many issues with the Democrats. The ‘Squad’ are worryingly anti-Semitic, and should never be placed an inch within power. The Democrats’ obsession with what they call trans rights makes them appear misogynistic; they do not care about women losing out in sport, they do not care about women having a place in refuges free from men, nor in dressing rooms, toilets or whatever, and refuse to listen, calling all opponents transphobes. I worry about how Democrat leaning students are so afraid of opposing viewpoints, due to claims of bigotry on topics like this, and how they might deal with politics as they mature and become the politicians of the future. Yet, because I do not both sides on how politics as it is now, I am some partisan, while you, who throws wild accusations with no evidence around expects to be taken as a neutral. Look at yourself in the mirror, before you start throwing accusations at others. You have assumed yourself to be a neutral arbiter, but your beliefs in whatever your bias takes you, with no evidence (crucially), shows you to be not.

I have had enough arguments with lefties to see the similarities between you and the Corbyn cranks. Any accusation against Corbyn has to be a conspiracy by the elite, I am some unreasoned fascist, according to them, I am some unreasoned lefty, according to you. C’est la vie from extremists. The left are just as lunatic as the right, and you sound just like them. ;-)

[Deereyme66]

‘Happy to have brought some colour into the monotone drabness.’

Oh come on JI. All we’re doing is chewing the cud on Bru non footy. No need for pedantry. It doesn’t suit you. What might make it less drab? An ex POTUS who’s filmed giving it large about feeling up women? This is the same man we’re talking about isn’t it? Ffs, how does that sit with you?

[Deereyme66]

‘so, in the words of Capt Oates, ‘I’m off .. and may be gone some time.’’

Very disappointing if you’re off again JI. Why is it that so many of you right wingers flee when questioned, when your values and beliefs are debated? We’re having a conversation here, no need to run off. Flip it. The so called lefty liberals on here did that and you’d rightly be saying they didn’t have the courage of their convictions.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Northumbiron, Iron-awe

[Siderite]

I do apologise for taking it a bit too far, JI. It’s no excuse for that, but I was fed up of the positioning of reasonability and trying to make others sound we’re being unreasonable, when it’s you who is on an unfounded position based on suppositions and zero evidence. I do not believe you to be balanced.

[billpuntonsghost]

The problem with JI is he needs a bunch of tulips.

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

‘Happy to have brought some colour into the monotone drabness.’

Oh come on JI. All we’re doing is chewing the cud on Bru non footy. No need for pedantry. It doesn’t suit you. What might make it less drab? An ex POTUS who’s filmed giving it large about feeling up women? This is the same man we’re talking about isn’t it? Ffs, how does that sit with you?

And now a former president who looks like he might have taken nuclear codes into personal hands (of course this may be mistaken/wrong). Evidently it’s ‘political’ to think he shouldn’t have them and potentially jeopardise the state, and only partisans would say otherwise!

As with Russian interference, verified by the US Special Counsel’s report, it all has to be lies. Which is an odd take for those who claim to respect law and order, and pertain to be balanced. I don’t think wild and unfounded accusations are balanced, and are typically the reserve of the ideologues who can’t take their side being wrong on something.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Deereyme66 wrote:

‘so, in the words of Capt Oates, ‘I’m off .. and may be gone some time.’’

Very disappointing if you’re off again JI. Why is it that so many of you right wingers flee when questioned, when your values and beliefs are debated? We’re having a conversation here, no need to run off. Flip it. The so called lefty liberals on here did that and you’d rightly be saying they didn’t have the courage of their convictions.

I may have took my tone way too far, so in a way, maybe I don’t blame him. That was my error of judgement.

Though, I guess I felt a little bit let down. I thought JI had a reasonable nature, and this latest episode has destroyed that image. I thought he could make reasoned criticism of his own side, but seemingly that is not the case; any suggestion that Trump has committed wrongdoing is covered by the idea that there’s a conspiracy. If he’s not guilty, JI will say he was right, if guilty it’s because the elites were out to get him, and we can’t trust the judgement*. So, I feel like a jilted lover (an analogy; I don’t love anyone on here like that). JI has pertained to balance, yet if their only comebacks to criticism of their beliefs are “I don’t like that source” or wild, and unfounded conspiracies and refusing to acknowledge facts obtained from governmental reports, such as Russian influence in 2016 (the only accusation possibly made here is that the nation level report was a lie, which is not a balanced and reasonable view to take, unless you have some evidence, which goes beyond suppositions), then they are not the ones being neutral. It’s a partisan position.

*JI will say the same about me, but I will say that if it is found that Trump had documents of national importance for some good reason or if it was mistaken, then I will accept it and not say it’s a conspiracy by Trumpist elites. I don’t see any good reason for him to have important documents like this, but I don’t want to rule out being wrong for whatever reason.

[Deereyme66]

Aye, if this turns out to be true, what a ‘f***ing moron’ indeed.

‘Another possibility Rofer pointed to is that Trump could have retained his nuclear “biscuit”, a piece of plastic like a credit card with the identification codes necessary for nuclear launch. Those codes would have been changed however the moment Biden took office’

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/12/fbi-search-trump-mar-a-lago-home-classified-nuclear-weapons-documents-report?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[Siderite]

Regardless of whether Trump’s done a wrong here, it’s coming clear that the FBI have reason to believe sensitive documents were there, which makes the idea that retrieving them was a ‘political’ move to be more preposterous by the day. I try to be as objective as possible, but I see no reason how it could be wrong for the FBI to retrieve such documents, if they believed there was a possibility of them being there (even Trump is not denying and encouraging public information being made available for this, so the idea that this is all a conspiracy by the elites, is just silly and partisan nonsense). It is, frankly, dangerous for anyone to have them in such a personal setting.

[Iron-awe]

Wow can’t believe JI quoted a line from The Boxer, referred to Captain Oates, then left. I guess he does know 50 ways to leave your lover after all.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Northumbiron]

“Another possibility Rofer pointed to is that Trump could have retained his nuclear “biscuit”, a piece of plastic like a credit card with the identification codes necessary for nuclear launch.”

Shouldn’t that be nuclear “cookie”?

[Iron-awe]

With all the outrage from Trump and the right wing media over the search of Mar- a -Lago, I’m surprised he hasn’t released details of the FBI search warrant to try to curry popular support for his position, he’s quite within his legal right to do so if he wishes, now why wouldn’t he 🤔

[BobbyGmeister]

If this is the ‘official’ non footy thread can I just say that we are in for a seismic shift in U.K. politics at the next General Election…

[Deereyme66]

Coalition bobby?

[Iron-awe]

billpuntonsghost wrote:

The problem with JI is he needs a bunch of tulips.

Is this a reference to the old schoolboy joke bill, ” Do you prefer roses on your piano or tulips on your organ ” 🤔

[Siderite]

I see Trump has now leaked the warrant to Breitbart, containing names of agents involved, and they have published it. I would say this is worrying and dangerous, but I am sure that’s my partisan nature, and that a balanced view is to accept that it’s ok for right wing rags to publish private details of evil elites who tried to take down Trump.

[Author]

Posts