It's so random that you showed up right after me talking about the amount of hatred here. You take the cake on that one. I don't want an answer from you but you should ask yourself this. Do you have this much hatred generally? I can't imagine an otherwise normal person would say the things you say. There are other guys on here like Kicker who clearly hate Trump, but it comes off as a normal, sane hate. There's nothing wrong with that. Yours on the other hand comes off as almost dangerous.
Trump supporters, how do you square this?
- Thread starter CP87
- Start date
I assume you don't listen to the other side because you straight up say you don't. Hell you just said you don't on this post. I don’t really listen to many podcast so no I don't listen to others. But listening to Rogan is 100% based on the guest he has on. It's not even about him. He has guests from both sides. So you asking if I listen to Podcasters on the other side doesn't really make sense because I'm hearing both sides when I choose to listen to his guests.
If you can't trust yourself to form a decent opinion on what's right or wrong if you listen to people so you choose to not listen to anyone, then I guess that's one way to do it. But one thing I find interesting is very few people on the left will commit to going on a long form interview to discuss their beliefs.
I listened to one recently with Gavin Newsome (so I do sometimes listen to other things) and he had to downplay his side so much as to not come off as insane that he ended up pissing off his own side. It was a courageous effort for him to try it, but I'm willing to bet he learned from his mistake and won't be doing that again. Another guy I come across from time to time is Como. He's a decent guy to listen to, but he also has to tow the line of trying to defend his side without sounding too crazy. He had a fairly long discussion with a guy named Dave Smith that I listened to fairly recently. He's also the guy who went from villianizing ivermectin to taking it.
As far as facts go. It's really tough to decide what a fact is these days. I've seen a lot of people say things as "fact" on here that I know aren't really facts. I've also said things on here I think are facts that other people dismiss. It goes both ways on that one. For instance, you can say it's a fact that Trump is a 34 time convicted felon. And sure you can call that a fact. But I also know that at best Trump committed one crime that they twisted into 34. So is it really a fact? Sure I guess. But even with facts there is usually more to a story. I can say it's a fact that Joe Biden got the prosecutor fired that was investigating the company Hunter Biden worked for. Is it true that that's a fact? Yes it is. Could there be more to the story? Maybe. But will you just let me get away with saying that's a fact without trying to defend the other side? Or will you simply conceed that's a fact and let me go on believing something that you don't think is true? Maybe you think that prosecutor got fired for a reason other than Hunter's company and the fact that he was investigating his son was just a coincidence. Doesn't that make it less of a fact if that's true? I'd say yes, that sometimes even with facts, more context is needed.
RFK provides lots of facts about vaccines. Facts that you can research and find to be true. Does that mean you should just let other people say it's all facts? Or is it possible he is twisting and manipulating facts to point towards something that might not be true? Does that matter? I think it should.
If there is really no hatred there, than that's good. But boy do your posts read as serious hatred.
Here's one thing I will say about Trump. I'm hearing a lot from both sides about Canada and Greenland. If the left is right on the is one, or if Trump tries to take either with force or even economic force, then he will lose all support from me, regardless of any other good I think he might be doing. Not that that support really matters anymore because he will be gone next term anyway. But I don't see a situation where I would vote for Vance either if it plays out that bad. Of course, if our country isn't noticeably improved in 4 years, I will have given up on politics completely and won't ever vote again anyway.
Hay Man
Well-Known Member
Both sides are going to twist facts to make themselves look right. Even the littlest fact is spun. Both sides have done plenty of wrongs to make it hard to believe who really is speaking truths. Everyone that's sat in the Oval Office has stretched the truth and done things that are on the wrong side of what I believe in. We're just here to argue who's right and who's wrong.
Nobody is upset at the idea of trying to make government work more efficiently. They are upset because this effort is being run by a small cadre of unelected individuals without the necessary expertise to understand how our large and complex government works. Further, they seem as interested in ideological issues as they do efficiency (see USAID, as an example). Their claims of savings have been shot full of holes, with errors and either misunderstandings or lies being frequently highlighted, drawing their competence into question. They have also made notable mistakes that they have tried to scramble to undo. Ultimately, it is pretty clear that they are working from a stance of: Government is terrible, we need to tear it down. Government has problems, but it also does a lot of good. They will end up harming a lot of people in their teardown effort. I do think there is a chance that much good comes from their efforts, as well, but I think this whole undertaking could have been more thoughtful and legal, and still been approached with similar vigor.
Also, Musk is an egomaniac closely aligned with far-right parties around the globe, so for all of his brilliance, I do not trust him to make reasoned decisions across all areas of a complex government. Being really good at engineering and entrepreneurism does not make one really good at redesigning government.
Couldn't agree more. Trump said he would bring prices down day one. That was always a lie.
So serious question. What do you think will always happen when someone wants to limit corruption and overspending? Do you think they will just sit back and take it? I can't imagine a scenario where they would. The reporting of errors and lies were always going to happen no matter what. What's more likely, there errors are actually occuring or its pushback to stop them? I'm guessing a little of one and a lot of the other. But when the people that are doing the spending are put in this position, they have two options. One is to just sit back and take it. The other is to fight back. My guess is we are seeing the fighting back.
As far as being unelected officials goes? The people in their roles with always be unelected officials. Which elected officials are available to do this audit? A president can't do it. Should congress audit their own spending?
As far as Musk goes, he was a Democrat yesterday. You say he's affiliated with far right across the globe. I assume that's from the one story in Germany. Musk is clearly against the mass influx of illegal immigration. The only reason he's backing this far right party is they align with him in that regard. People act like that means he wants mass genocide because they love to throw around the word nazi.
One thing I do agree with you on is the people doing the auditing have political beliefs and they will make decisions on spending based on that. That's an unfortunate outcome that we don't want. But remember, they only find the corruption. The people who decide what to do with it are elected officials.
But I couldn't disagree more with the thought that people are just upset HOW it's being done. I saw a tweet from Seth Davis (I think) that said "people always say they aren't upset that their coach is leaving, they're upset how he's leaving. Wrong. They're upset THAT he's leaving". I think that's true and I think that applies here. People are upset that the wrong side is doing it and they know that's dumb so they look for reasons/excuses to justify why they're upset.
One last thing on the people getting hurt from these cuts. That will do doubt happen. But what's the alternative? Continuing to spend 50 million dollars to feed 5 people (that's a made up example) for the next 30-50 years until we go completely bankrupt and can't help anyone? The money being spent is almost certainly helping some people (I'd like to think). But if you pocket 90% of all money used to help people and only use 10% to actually help people, it's unfortunately not a worthy cause. DOGE lays out everything that's being spent that they think is waste. The only argument against them is they are lying. You have to think it's all a big lie. That's the only defense. Musk even says himself in the video. The people complaining never defend the itemized lines they show. Because the itemized lines are indefensible.
I'm now stupider for watching the video that stat came from so that's for that. I personally think the government should be involved in helping fund a space program but get it if other people don't like it. I also personally don't think the government needs to be involved with spending for electric vehicles but understand how almost everyone on the left thought they should before recently. I just can't believe how easy it is for people on the left to pretend they care about the environment (like it's the most important thing in the world) to trying to destroy the leader in making the environment better. So fake.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
I was agreeing with your comment about "the best and the brightest". Many will believe anything he wants them to regardless of how idiotic or fabricated it is and once the lies start rolling off his tongue they don't stop.
I opposed wasteful spending venomously back when Obama pretended something needed to be done.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
We definitely just found one more thing we agree on.
To be fair, that story made a lot of sense. That town had a lot of Haitians. There was a story that Haitians eat cats and dogs in ceremonies or something like that. Not sure if that part ever got confirmed but other cultures have weirder things so wouldn't be surprised wither way. Then there were two stories. One of someone actually eating a cat and one of someone carrying a dead goose. It turns out both were old stories unrelated to that town. But the point is, someone put that story together to make it look like they were eating cats and dogs in that town. It was fairly elaborate. And like I said earlier, the way Harris pretended she was blown away by hearing that story for the first time at the debate, it couldn't be more obvious what happened there. They got him good.
I didn't mean to make it sound like I was insinuating. You have told me you do. My point was, some people are reasonable with how they articulate their hatred. Others are not.
kicker22
Well-Known Member
No I totally agree with you. And to be perfectly fair if I knew him I'd probably use less harsh terms, because I'm honestly a person that dislikes very few people, because generally while I may not like someone I can find something about them that I respect or admire regardless of whether or not I agree with them.
That was my point with Bernie Sanders too. I couldn't disagree more with him politically. But watching a three hour conversation with him completely changed my view of him. It didn't make me like his politics more. But it did make me understand it more and see where he was coming from. I think people should do more of that. It really bugs me when people say "i don't need to listen to him because I already have my opinion". In my mind it's so counter productive to think that way. Sure maybe the person can duped by the person because maybe they tell a lie. But it's more likely to be duped by people talking about the person. Because they might lie, they might exaggerate. They might intentionally mislead. They might be just flat our wrong on what they're saying. There are so many variables when you unnecessarily bring in a middle man.
HawkIowa44
Well-Known Member
Question for you: What do you think the right (yourself included) would be saying if it was Soros in the extact same place with his people doing exactly what Musk is doing? Wouldn’t you be wondering what they’re doing and how they’re decided on what they claim is ”Fraud, Waste & Abuse”? Not trying to “gotcha”, just wondering
Thats a very fair question. It's also both a really good comparison and a bad one. It's good in the sense that they are both foreign billionaires that have "picked a side" politically. But it's also bad in the sense that Soros is already known for his work buying radical left judges and DAs. Those Soros backed individuals are always behind violent criminals being released from prisons and committing more crimes. It seems pretty clear there is some real anti-america going on there. So to answer your question, I'd say I wouldn't like it with Soros. But plug in damn near any other billionaire and I wouldn't be nearly as skeptical. The crazy thing about Musk is the only reason for the left to not like him is because he didn't like the direction the left was going so he decided to support Trump.