Common Sense 316 - The Day of the Dove

[heydaralon]

The funny thing is, Dan talked to a shitload of different third party candidates during the 2012 election season from Buddy Dyer to Gary Johnson to Jill Stein. He never said which one he supported, but he flat out said that none of them had any good answers to fix the system. Then, when Trump came along Dan decided that the system wasn't so bad after all. However you want to spin it, he changed his tune a lot in 2016. Smitty summed it up perfectly: Faux Rabble Rouser.

[TheReal_ND]

He seems himself knowledgeable enough to talk about the altright of course. Just like the rest of the pos MSM

[SuburbanFarmer]

And another thing; when all of us were critical of Trump for bombing Syria you didn't join in. The MSM praised him to high heaven calling him "presidential." Instead you tacitly encouraged it and despite the opportunity for uniting on an issue the Alt-Right got those Antifa faggots to go pro war. Some of you are so lost we can actually troll you into being pro Trump when he's pro war. That's how stupid some of you are.

Pretty sure you're not talking to me. I was terrified by it, because I was told that there were Russian soldiers at the base. Turns out it was just some kabuki theater though, so w/e.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The funny thing is, Dan talked to a shitload of different third party candidates during the 2012 election season from Buddy Dyer to Gary Johnson to Jill Stein. He never said which one he supported, but he flat out said that none of them had any good answers to fix the system. Then, when Trump came along Dan decided that the system wasn't so bad after all. However you want to spin it, he changed his tune a lot in 2016. Smitty summed it up perfectly: Faux Rabble Rouser.

I disagree. It was a choice between 2 odious candidates, and one of them was elected. Pretending that Trump is some kind of 'savior of the people' at this point is just pathetic.

To quote the Apeman - "Just because a meth head shows up at your house with a broom, doesn't mean you hire him to sweep your floors."

[TheReal_ND]

And another thing; when all of us were critical of Trump for bombing Syria you didn't join in. The MSM praised him to high heaven calling him "presidential." Instead you tacitly encouraged it and despite the opportunity for uniting on an issue the Alt-Right got those Antifa faggots to go pro war. Some of you are so lost we can actually troll you into being pro Trump when he's pro war. That's how stupid some of you are.

Pretty sure you're not talking to me. I was terrified by it, because I was told that there were Russian soldiers at the base. Turns out it was just some kabuki theater though, so w/e.

Fairly certain you tacitly endorsed intervention because some civies got gassed but w/e. I didn't see you protesting Trump over that. Iirc you had your head stuck up the MSM's ass making prediction about what a Pence presidency would look like because MUH RUSSIA

[SuburbanFarmer]

And another thing; when all of us were critical of Trump for bombing Syria you didn't join in. The MSM praised him to high heaven calling him "presidential." Instead you tacitly encouraged it and despite the opportunity for uniting on an issue the Alt-Right got those Antifa faggots to go pro war. Some of you are so lost we can actually troll you into being pro Trump when he's pro war. That's how stupid some of you are.

Pretty sure you're not talking to me. I was terrified by it, because I was told that there were Russian soldiers at the base. Turns out it was just some kabuki theater though, so w/e.

Fairly certain you tacitly endorsed intervention because some civies got gassed but w/e. I didn't see you protesting Trump over that. Iirc you had your head stuck up the MSM's ass making prediction about what a Pence presidency would look like because MUH RUSSIA

hmmm Not Russia, per se, but I still predict (even now) that Trump doesn't go a full term. Moderate chance that he doesn't even make it long after the midterms.

I was all for intervention in Syria, until I learned (shortly before the missile attack) that Russia had declared them an ally. I don't want any part of Russia, and their arsenal. Yes, we all know the US could walk all over them in any war, but those nukes are not something to fuck with.

[heydaralon]

The funny thing is, Dan talked to a shitload of different third party candidates during the 2012 election season from Buddy Dyer to Gary Johnson to Jill Stein. He never said which one he supported, but he flat out said that none of them had any good answers to fix the system. Then, when Trump came along Dan decided that the system wasn't so bad after all. However you want to spin it, he changed his tune a lot in 2016. Smitty summed it up perfectly: Faux Rabble Rouser.

I disagree. It was a choice between 2 odious candidates, and one of them was elected. Pretending that Trump is some kind of 'savior of the people' at this point is just pathetic.

To quote the Apeman - "Just because a meth head shows up at your house with a broom, doesn't mean you hire him to sweep your floors."

Well for the record, I'm not a Trump fan. There are a lot of things about him that are troubling. However I am glad he won, (hopefully) putting a stop to Hillary's political aspirations, and a lot of the stuff he said while campaigning did resonate with me. Ironically, the stuff that liberals lose their shit about, like this manufactured Russian nonsense, is not what bothers me about Trump. There are plenty of real issues with the Trump presidency without having to cut fake media ones from whole cloth.
Anyway, Dan had no problems calling for radical change when there was no risk. For instance, he was pointing out in 2013 how a Romney republican presidency would be better for the country than an Obama democratic one, because the press would call out a republican presidency for civil liberties violations and remain silent when a democratic president does the same thing. I agree with him, but making claims like that after the election are not terribly brave. Dan did not necessarily support these third party candidates on all the issues, but he supported the idea of them being a disruptive force that shows how barren the current political landscape is. He often fondly remembers the Ross Perot campaign from the 90's. This election represented a perfect chance to test some of Dan's political theories about establishment, outsiders and so forth, but he didn't have much to say. All of a sudden, he sort of drifted back toward the middle, and revealed some of his true colors. I don't hate the guy, he still makes a good history show, I just feel like much of his pod casting and calls for change was kind of an act.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The funny thing is, Dan talked to a shitload of different third party candidates during the 2012 election season from Buddy Dyer to Gary Johnson to Jill Stein. He never said which one he supported, but he flat out said that none of them had any good answers to fix the system. Then, when Trump came along Dan decided that the system wasn't so bad after all. However you want to spin it, he changed his tune a lot in 2016. Smitty summed it up perfectly: Faux Rabble Rouser.

I disagree. It was a choice between 2 odious candidates, and one of them was elected. Pretending that Trump is some kind of 'savior of the people' at this point is just pathetic.

To quote the Apeman - "Just because a meth head shows up at your house with a broom, doesn't mean you hire him to sweep your floors."

Well for the record, I'm not a Trump fan. There are a lot of things about him that are troubling. However I am glad he won, (hopefully) putting a stop to Hillary's political aspirations, and a lot of the stuff he said while campaigning did resonate with me. Ironically, the stuff that liberals lose their shit about, like this manufactured Russian nonsense, is not what bothers me about Trump. There are plenty of real issues with the Trump presidency without having to cut fake media ones from whole cloth.
Anyway, Dan had no problems calling for radical change when there was no risk. For instance, he was pointing out in 2013 how a Romney republican presidency would be better for the country than an Obama democratic one, because the press would call out a republican presidency for civil liberties violations and remain silent when a democratic president does the same thing. I agree with him, but making claims like that after the election are not terribly brave. Dan did not necessarily support these third party candidates on all the issues, but he supported the idea of them being a disruptive force that shows how barren the current political landscape is. He often fondly remembers the Ross Perot campaign from the 90's. This election represented a perfect chance to test some of Dan's political theories about establishment, outsiders and so forth, but he didn't have much to say. All of a sudden, he sort of drifted back toward the middle, and revealed some of his true colors. I don't hate the guy, he still makes a good history show, I just feel like much of his pod casting and calls for change was kind of an act.

Any sane person should be drifting back to the Middle right now. I like some of Trumps blather too, but then he contradicts himself based on crowd noise. He has no stance or solutions except to promote himself, which is (amazingly) even worse than Hillary.

[heydaralon]

I disagree. It was a choice between 2 odious candidates, and one of them was elected. Pretending that Trump is some kind of 'savior of the people' at this point is just pathetic.

To quote the Apeman - "Just because a meth head shows up at your house with a broom, doesn't mean you hire him to sweep your floors."

Well for the record, I'm not a Trump fan. There are a lot of things about him that are troubling. However I am glad he won, (hopefully) putting a stop to Hillary's political aspirations, and a lot of the stuff he said while campaigning did resonate with me. Ironically, the stuff that liberals lose their shit about, like this manufactured Russian nonsense, is not what bothers me about Trump. There are plenty of real issues with the Trump presidency without having to cut fake media ones from whole cloth.
Anyway, Dan had no problems calling for radical change when there was no risk. For instance, he was pointing out in 2013 how a Romney republican presidency would be better for the country than an Obama democratic one, because the press would call out a republican presidency for civil liberties violations and remain silent when a democratic president does the same thing. I agree with him, but making claims like that after the election are not terribly brave. Dan did not necessarily support these third party candidates on all the issues, but he supported the idea of them being a disruptive force that shows how barren the current political landscape is. He often fondly remembers the Ross Perot campaign from the 90's. This election represented a perfect chance to test some of Dan's political theories about establishment, outsiders and so forth, but he didn't have much to say. All of a sudden, he sort of drifted back toward the middle, and revealed some of his true colors. I don't hate the guy, he still makes a good history show, I just feel like much of his pod casting and calls for change was kind of an act.

Any sane person should be drifting back to the Middle right now. I like some of Trumps blather too, but then he contradicts himself based on crowd noise. He has no stance or solutions except to promote himself, which is (amazingly) even worse than Hillary.

Didn't Dan basically spend his whole podcasting career addressing this type of thinking? Remember how he'd do the impressions of "Centrists?"

"But Dan, if you don't vote for [insert Democratic candidate] the [insert other candidate] will get to pick the supreme court justices. Dan this election is not the time to mess up the established order. Dan we've got midterms coming up. If the [insert other party] wins, they will pass this abortion or gun bill etc."

that was always the first part of Dan's podcasting act to set up a fake centrist argument and then defeat it by saying something: "Folks, we need some change in this system.." etc.

I'm not even arguing for a particular policy atm, I'm just saying Dan did dozens up episodes with that fake dialogue and now he decided to change his policy in 2016. Interesting timing. Idk.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Well for the record, I'm not a Trump fan. There are a lot of things about him that are troubling. However I am glad he won, (hopefully) putting a stop to Hillary's political aspirations, and a lot of the stuff he said while campaigning did resonate with me. Ironically, the stuff that liberals lose their shit about, like this manufactured Russian nonsense, is not what bothers me about Trump. There are plenty of real issues with the Trump presidency without having to cut fake media ones from whole cloth.
Anyway, Dan had no problems calling for radical change when there was no risk. For instance, he was pointing out in 2013 how a Romney republican presidency would be better for the country than an Obama democratic one, because the press would call out a republican presidency for civil liberties violations and remain silent when a democratic president does the same thing. I agree with him, but making claims like that after the election are not terribly brave. Dan did not necessarily support these third party candidates on all the issues, but he supported the idea of them being a disruptive force that shows how barren the current political landscape is. He often fondly remembers the Ross Perot campaign from the 90's. This election represented a perfect chance to test some of Dan's political theories about establishment, outsiders and so forth, but he didn't have much to say. All of a sudden, he sort of drifted back toward the middle, and revealed some of his true colors. I don't hate the guy, he still makes a good history show, I just feel like much of his pod casting and calls for change was kind of an act.

Any sane person should be drifting back to the Middle right now. I like some of Trumps blather too, but then he contradicts himself based on crowd noise. He has no stance or solutions except to promote himself, which is (amazingly) even worse than Hillary.

Didn't Dan basically spend his whole podcasting career addressing this type of thinking? Remember how he'd do the impressions of "Centrists?"

"But Dan, if you don't vote for [insert Democratic candidate] the [insert other candidate] will get to pick the supreme court justices. Dan this election is not the time to mess up the established order. Dan we've got midterms coming up. If the [insert other party] wins, they will pass this abortion or gun bill etc."

that was always the first part of Dan's podcasting act to set up a fake centrist argument and then defeat it by saying something: "Folks, we need some change in this system.." etc.

I'm not even arguing for a particular policy atm, I'm just saying Dan did dozens up episodes with that fake dialogue and now he decided to change his policy in 2016. Interesting timing. Idk.

I remember those episodes, sure. And I agree, and I'm sure he still does too. But that doesn't make Trump an acceptable option.

It was clearly understood that he was calling for a cleansing of corruption, and a limiting of government. Trump (so far) has shown himself to be at least as corrupt as Hillary, if not more, and while he's certainly rolled back minor regulations, he's also just handed the MIC another fat wad, and made a mockery of the office.

Linda McMahon running Small Business? Betsy Devoss on education? Omarosa in the White House?? It's a total clown show, and no amount of willful blindness is making it any better. This really is the fulfillment of Idiocracy. I don't even dare imagine how he could make things worse at this point.