QAnon Comes to Md Legislature (history, better, time)

[The Very Man Himself]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

And you're right. But because there are so many other factors to be considered, including the numerous negatives on the other side which need to be weighed into the overall decision that voters make, you think this should be the ultimate deal breaker--even though you have probably already identified many others that break your deal. The reality is that others will see things differently based on their overall policy positions and (hopefully) numerous factors. You take one issue in isolation and determine that the ONE factor should negate all others variables and determine someone's choice. Not to mention the subjective nature of the word "embrace" which you have applied to Trump. Your choice is clearly already made and I doubt you reached your decision based on one factor, so why do you think anybody else should base their decision on the one factor YOU see as the game changer? Arguments can be made that Biden "embraces" a whole range of ideas that many find unacceptable as they pertain to the direction they want the country to be moving in. This is the kind of black and white thinking that forms much of the foundation in the political polarization in the US. The notion that everyone is supposed to see things MY WAY with no nuance, in order to be morally virtuous, is really disturbing. This is in part connected to our high-tech fast-food style "soundbite" information diet, in my opinion. Any veering from the groupthink is met with disdain. This practice is particularly abhorrent from those who describe themselves as liberal, as it is decidedly illerable in nature.

An elected rep is supposed to be a community leader. When such a person embraces a low information cause it undermines their credibility. If they lack the critical skill of analysis in one area, it raises questions about where else they might lack that ability.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by The Very Man Himself

An elected rep is supposed to be a community leader. When such a person embraces a low information cause it undermines their credibility. If they lack the critical skill of analysis in one area, it raises questions about where else they might lack that ability.

LMAO. Thanks for letting us know you won't be running for elected office. Unfortunately only Biden and Trump are, and they both have plenty of baggage (and low information causes) to go around. The important questions now are the policy details not partisan dogma. Biden seems to have more serious issues right now and, of course, globalist/multinational big tech is trying to help him out. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/with-t...uppression-136


How do you feel about this elected rep? https://dailycaller.com/2017/05/10/d...a-connections/


This conspiracy theory?


https://dailycaller.com/2017/05/31/a...trump-elected/

[westsideboy]

Originally Posted by The Very Man Himself

Because you've offered no details on what specifically you're referring to, I can't address the rest of your post, but with regard to the bolded, that a politician would embrace what you call "a low rung on the information ladder" seems to me to be grounds to vote no at the next opportunity. Somehow I kinda doubt that will happen....

I have no desire to hijack the thread by bringing up sacred cow type issues that folks will feel compelled to defend. We can discuss them specifically in the appropriate threads.

People don't know what they don't know. Almost everyone overestimates how much they really understand about issues they care about. It isn't a partisan issue. In 2020 the basic assumption is that "the other side" is always less knowledgeable and more naive on "insert issue of your choice here."

Voting isn't that straight forward. A low information delegate is not my idea of the ideal statesman, but how a prospective delegate votes on bills generally matters more to me than their underlying ability to discern good sources of information from bad ones.

[The Very Man Himself]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

LMAO. Thanks for letting us know you won't be running for elected office. Unfortunately only Biden and Trump are, and they both have plenty of baggage (and low information causes) to go around. The important questions now are the policy details not partisan dogma. Biden seems to have more serious issues right now and, of course, globalist/multinational big tech is trying to help him out. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/with-t...uppression-136


How do you feel about this elected rep? https://dailycaller.com/2017/05/10/d...a-connections/


This conspiracy theory?


https://dailycaller.com/2017/05/31/a...trump-elected/

Relying on the Daily Caller to complain about conspiracies is a mug's game.

https://www.mediamatters.org/daily-caller

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/

If you had bothered to read beyond the headline on the Taibbi piece, you'd see he was claiming that the media censorship was likely worse than anything Hunter Biden may be accused of, let alone guilty.

[The Very Man Himself]

Originally Posted by westsideboy

I have no desire to hijack the thread by bringing up sacred cow type issues that folks will feel compelled to defend. We can discuss them specifically in the appropriate threads.

People don't know what they don't know. Almost everyone overestimates how much they really understand about issues they care about. It isn't a partisan issue. In 2020 the basic assumption is that "the other side" is always less knowledgeable and more naive on "insert issue of your choice here."

Voting isn't that straight forward. A low information delegate is not my idea of the ideal statesman, but how a prospective delegate votes on bills generally matters more to me than their underlying ability to discern good sources of information from bad ones.

So Ideology trumps competence. Depressing!

[westsideboy]

Originally Posted by The Very Man Himself

So Ideology trumps competence. Depressing!

Well, I'm pretty sure I have voted for a lot more Democrats, Libertarians, and Green party members than you have voted for GOP candidates, although you are free to correct me if I am wrong.

I agree that my 2020 take is depressing, it represents a grudging acceptance of the polarization of politics. I can only define my voting preference in the modern political climate as "anti-left." I have never been less enthusiastic to vote in my life as I am right now, and am so discouraged with politics my only hope is that some vestige of our Federal Republic and Western Culture survives this moment. I have accepted that the age of conservatism as a national political force has reached its end.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by The Very Man Himself

Relying on the Daily Caller to complain about conspiracies is a mug's game.

https://www.mediamatters.org/daily-caller

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/

Everyone knows Daily Caller is conservative. But you ain't going to read anything critical of Democrats unless you use other sources. But you didn't fail to fall into the "poisoning the well" fallacy logic I had predicted before posting it. The piece is well sourced.

Originally Posted by The Very Man Himself

If you had bothered to read beyond the headline on the Taibbi piece, you'd see he was claiming that the media censorship was likely worse than anything Hunter Biden may be accused of, let alone guilty.

Quite aware of the arguments made in the article. The fact is nobody, including the author, knows the extent of the Biden's involvement. But it doesn't look good! And yes, the point is that the media is in the tank for the Democrats, thanks for agreeing.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by The Very Man Himself

So Ideology trumps competence. Depressing!

This seems to be your position. Self awareness much?

[The Very Man Himself]

Originally Posted by westsideboy

Well, I'm pretty sure I have voted for a lot more Democrats, Libertarians, and Green party members than you have voted for GOP candidates, although you are free to correct me if I am wrong.

I agree that my 2020 take is depressing, it represents a grudging acceptance of the polarization of politics. I can only define my voting preference in the modern political climate as "anti-left." I have never been less enthusiastic to vote in my life as I am right now, and am so discouraged with politics my only hope is that some vestige of our Federal Republic and Western Culture survives this moment. I have accepted that the age of conservatism as a national political force has reached its end.

I hear ya. Currently I would describe myself as more anti right than pro left.
I've voted for several non D's including Hogan twice, Connie Morella, and a green whose name I don't remember.
Your concern for Western Culture suggests you feel it's under attack? From where?

[westsideboy]

Originally Posted by The Very Man Himself

I hear ya. Currently I would describe myself as more anti right than pro left.
I've voted for several non D's including Hogan twice, Connie Morella, and a green whose name I don't remember.
Your concern for Western Culture suggests you feel it's under attack? From where?

Again, not going to hijack the thread by poking the angry hornet's nest. If anyone doesn't know who these groups and individuals are by now, I can't be of much help.