Re: Question for John McAdams

On 11 Mar 2021 04:15:51 -0000, "Glenn V." <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 2:48:31 AM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 10 Mar 2021 22:21:40 -0000, "Glenn V." <[email protected]> wrote: 
>> 
>> >On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 3:15:07 PM UTC+1, John McAdams wrote: 
>> >> On 3 Mar 2021 05:12:05 -0000, "Glenn V." <[email protected]> wrote: 
>> >> 
>> >>
>> >John, 
>> > 
>> >I'd expected more from you. Much more. Your patronizing debate style 
>> >doesn't do you any favors, in my opinion.
>
>> Do you understand the irony of that comment, coming in a patronizing 
>> post by you?
>
>Not at all, but you don't understand - behind all of those ridiculous 
>attachments you have to arguments you don't like. That's not the man I 
>read, and liked based on his arguments 15 years ago about the JFK 
>assassination. Back then you always had valid arguments.
>

I could say the same thing about you.


>> >The way you just simply attack, 
>> >on a personal basis, those who don't agree with you, is remarkably 
>> >juvenile, being a professor and all. And no, I'm not neck deep into 
>> >anything at all that *you* understand. The GOP is, right now. 
>> >
>> You are neck deep in identity politics, playing the race card 
>> constantly.
>> >However, I'm very, very proud of never being called an ultraconservative 
>> >reality denier.
>> Have you been called an ultra leftist reality denier?
>
>Never. Even from my political opponents, and as much of a surprise as it 
>may be to you, not even about this crap you suggested where I have my 
>head.
>

That was a rhetorical question.

But maybe I should call you an ultra-leftist reality denier.

Since you have so much education (see below) you know that the proper
strategy in an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma is tit for tat.


>> >Moreover, I'll simply watch what happens in the US as far 
>> >as voter suppression, onwards. Then we'll see who can look back at this 
>> >thread with his head held high. 
>> >
>> The term "voter suppression" begs the question. You should know more 
>> logic than that.
>
>I do - quit questioning my knowledge. 

The why did you beg the question?

>You on the other hand, should not 
>even question others about this, but instead of dodging questions, answer 
>them.
>

I do, but you just don't like the answers.

>> >The GOP is on a slippery slope, depending on excluding as many as possible 
>> >from voting, instead of realizing the simple fact that they should think 
>> >twice about their policies in certain areas,
>> Like what?
>
>Ask them!
>

You mean like defunding the police?  A majority of blacks oppose that:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx

You white leftists don't represent the groups you claim to represent.


>> >instead of trying desperately 
>> >to apply various shortcuts in order to gain power and the trust of the US 
>> >people. The demographic changes in the US will, by necessity, make the GOP 
>> >choose their way. 
>> >
>> OIC. "People of color" are going to take over, and consign the GOP to 
>> oblivion. 
>
>No, the *minorities* (the ones you don't seem to believe exists) that the 
>GOP refuses to acknowledge - will destroy the GOP. if they continue on 
>this path.

"Minorities" and "people of color" mean the same thing.

And you have some issues like that in Sweden.


>
>> 
>> In the first place, the youngest cohort of white voters went for Trump 
>> in 2020. 
>
>Yes, exactly. And what other cohorts that demographics are pointing to as 
>the growing ones is that minorities, women did not.
>

White women did:

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results/0


>> 
>> https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results/5 
>> 
>> In the second place, about 30% of Latino voters went from Trump, and 
>> the number will increase as Latinos become more assimilated. `
>
>Yes. Because they were scared shit about the "socialism"  crap. That's 
>why. To quote your debate style -*Do you understand *why?

OIC.  Latino voters are stupid, in your view.

Amazing how quickly you leftists throw you favored victim groups under
the bus when they don't act as you want.

>
>> 
>> https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results/7 
>> 
>> Further, the black population is growing slowly, and black fertility 
>> is decreasing.
>
>The ^*migration* statistics, and that of *all minorites* says the opposite.
>

Which is why Democrats are big on illegal immigration.

But again, Latinos are likely to move to the center as they
assimilate.


>> >That is, certainly, if Trump long before then hasn't destroyed the GOP and 
>> >the conservative movement in the US. 
>> >
>> What Trump has done is make the GOP clearly the party that opposed 
>> arrogant elites. Like the tech giants that censor content they don't 
>> like.
>
>What an embarrassing statement, John. Read up on things before you utter 
>anything on this subject. 

You are embarrassing yourself by just berating me, and not making
arguments.

>Whether the elites are GOP or DNC I will leave 
>out, both probably. But as far as Trump, for heavens sake *do you not 
>understand* that the elites are his best friends? Those zero. point one 
>percent who gained 90 percent of his tax cuts?  Trump doesn't give a s**t 
>about his "base. Right now his about to milk them of millions of dollars 
>to a new fund. He's a grifter, John. Nothing else.
>

You hate Trump because his election was a kick in the teeth to
elitists with whom you identify.

The populist sentiment that elected him remains, and will have its
day, beginning in 2022.


>Read up, John, You are out of touch.
>

Again, you just berate me, rather than making an argument.

That's ad hominem.  Do you know what that means?

>My God. John. What you are defending is going to end up on the ash heap of 
>history. I would have never concluded this about you. This really isn't 
>about votes, is it?
>

That's an argumentum ad baculum.


>> 
>> I'm guessing you like Facebook and Twitter banning Trump. 
>
>Here we go again with the ridiculous patronizing. Again, and again you do 
>this, John. That's the really sad part of this discussion. I would have 
>thought much better of you. The truth is that some of those you can't 
>speak to in the JFK assassination, I can - and I do, they've all rejected 
>you because of exactly what I've said here: learn, do not patronize people 
>left and right, like you do.
>

Do you condone or object to Facebook and Twitter banning Trump?

ANSWER THE QUESTION!

>We're friends on FB, at your request. You know nothing about me, my 
>education, my experiences or anything else. You should learn how to treat 
>people who are not professors, and who are not a**holes.
>

More ad hominem. 

>So let me give you a taste, John. I'm an economist by profession, having 
>studied economics, political science and business administration for 
>almost five years All the years I've spent in both government and private 
>sector positions has been a fruitful experience, I don't degrade people 
>the way you do, constantly.
>

Argumentum ad hominem.

And argumentum ad verecundiam.  

I have a Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard, so I can beat you on
that kind of argument.  But it's a fallacy anyway.

>Simply speaking, I don't take this patronizing shit from you, shape up!
>

Says the fellow who dispenses patronizing shit.

>I demand respect from you, and the way you are dealing with me in this 
>thread, is not that of respect.
>

Irony alert!

You are treating simple disagreement as a "lack of respect."

>> 
>> And your time discussing voting in the US has been embarrassing, since 
>> you are attacking US Republicans for: 
>> 
>> 1.) wanting to ban mail-in voting. 
>> 2.) wanting voter ID 
>> 3.) wanting to ban ballot harvesting 
>
>They do. Look simply at the H.R.1 (I think the number is) which is going 
>through congress as we speak. Period.

Democrats controll Congress.  They are in favor of mail-in voting,
opposed to voter ID, and in favor of ballot harvesting.

>
>> 
>> All of which would make US elections more like Sweden! 
>
>Exactly. And we have no voter irregularities, no voter fraud. Again - 
>PERIOD. "Do you understand" - to quote yourself? Spend the resources to 
>make this happen, is the answer you don't want do hear - or *understand*?
>

"Resources" isn't the issue.  Rules that make cheating difficult are.


>"If it ain't a problem, don't fix it". Remember?
>
>- Make supporting voter lines in Georgia with food illegal, and make 
>  voting polls fewer and less frequent?
>
>Wake up, John. Your dinosaur views are gone help no one. Not you, not the 
>GOP and not real conservatives. Those real conservatives are going to 
>learn from what you are defending. They will have to.
>

Real conservatives want clean elections.  In Sweden, you have voter
ID, no mail-in voting, and no ballot harvesting.

It's Republicans who want elections like that.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm