Ideas in how to lower the temperature

[zh cohen]

Which one of my 10 grievances do you dispute?

Well, your first one for starters. He's explaining why Republicans who are against impeachment are against it. Saying that some Republicans have a different view, doesn't mean that he is wrong about the perspective of those he is describing.

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/uschamber/status/1349882017526255617?s=21

This is what you call unity, a mostly Republican body getting behind a mutually beneficial policy in pursuit of a common good, instead of obstructionist policies.

So lets review the whole quote including the sentence you deletedTHat they disagree with his conclusions and interpretations of what happened is all they and you seem to be complaining about. This is what you are calling objectively untrue. IF he was saying something inciteful etc then it would make sense. That they don't like his biased interpretation does not. Saying there should be pushback because of it is the opposite of having a civil conversation. From what I was able to glean from a quick review of what both of you wrote you may or may not have some good points, but nothing was there to give a reason not to have a civil conversation. Even if it actually is in bad faith that shouldn't lead to the pushback it did
Bad faith is you saying that the right needs to learn about civil conversation while defending those on the left who are refusing to do just that. You described yourself as trying to undertand the other side. This is a perfect example of how wildly unsuccessful you are.

You said the pushback was only because they disagreed. You couldn’t have known it without reading it, and it’s not true. I noted 9 demonstrably false arguments. Some wildly so. Bernie Sanders didn’t in any way use rhetoric that led to a staff member shooting.

As far as silencing, I said loud and clear from the beginning that it is wrong.

[aygart]

https://twitter.com/uschamber/status/1349882017526255617?s=21

This is what you call unity, a mostly Republican body getting behind a mutually beneficial policy in pursuit of a common good, instead of obstructionist policies.

You said the pushback was only because they disagreed. You couldn’t have known it Shiur reading it, and it’s not true. I noted 9 demonstrably false arguments. Some wildly so. Bernie Sanders didn’t in any way use rhetoric that led to a staff member shooting.

As far as silencing, I said loud and clear from the beginning that it is wrong.

That went right over your head. I give up.

[PlatinumGuy]

That went right over your head. I give up.

I'm amazed at how difficult it is for you to admit you were wrong. I literally caught you on two contradictory posts. You didn't read something, but know why people attacked it.

Well, your first one for starters. He's explaining why Republicans who are against impeachment are against it. Saying that some Republicans have a different view, doesn't mean that he is wrong about the perspective of those he is describing.

I genuinely don't understand the logic - he is saying Republicans are against impeachment because it is merely an attempt to cudgel them together with Trump, but voting for impeachment doesn't cudgel them with Trump, so how can the reason to vote Nay for impeachment be because you don't want to be cudgeled with Trump, when by your own admission if you vote Yay you're aren't cudgeled, and if you vote only by voting Nay you are cudgeled?

If the problem is that he shouldn't be invited to guest edit Playbook because he is a bad faith actor, then yes, you would need to show the kind of good faith actors that should be guest editing.

I think I meant something different than you by bad-faith - I meant making arguments he surely knows aren't correct. Good faith in this case for many republicans IMO is that impeachment is the right thing but will happen anyways and voting for it would accomplish nothing but hurt them with important voters, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Most of your points address Shapiro's piece as if history started in January 2021. If you aren't willing to look at things objectively and see how the way the left and the media (pardon the redundancy) brought us Trump, how can you reasonably expect anyone on the right to accept any culpability for their own actions?

I'm not sure I disagree with you. My argument was solely that this statement below was wrong, and there were other reasons not to publish it.

The entire pushback was simply that they disagreed with him.

[PlatinumGuy]

How did you feel about Columbia hosting Ahmedinjhad for a lecture? Do you think he should be silenced?

I'm not saying they are the same, but I think we all agree some things shouldn't be published. The only argument is where to draw the line, and that line will inevitably be biased.

[yesitsme]

Seriously, unity means the Republicans shouldn't harass the dems, where is your this is not unity mostly dems are fighting against trumps efforts for vaccination.......

[PlatinumGuy]

Seriously, unity means the Republicans shouldn't harass the dems

You missed the fact that it's now Republicans calling for unity, not dems

[YitzyS]

It's like me saying that Jeff Van Drew was a good-faith Democrat.

Jeff Van Drew is the NJ congressman who changed from D to R after the impeachment.

My point was that if the only Rs you call "good faith Rs" are those who are practically Ds, your name basically means that anyone you disagree with is a bad-faith R.

Can you name one good-faith Conservative? Someone like Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else with real convictions?

[aygart]

I'm amazed at how difficult it is for you to admit you were wrong. I literally caught you on two contradictory posts. You didn't read something, but know why people attacked it.

Maybe you should review my history on that front. They are not contradictory at all. If you would take your head out of your little self-made bubble there is so much more you would see that your version of reality. As I wrote, I give up. If you want to continue in this VR bubble go ahead.

[Yehuda57]

Jeff Van Drew is the NJ congressman who changed from D to R after the impeachment.

My point was that if the only Rs you call "good faith Rs" are those who are practically Ds, your name basically means that anyone you disagree with is a bad-faith R.

Can you name one good-faith Conservative? Someone like Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else with real convictions?

Oh come on, the only way McCain and Romney are Dems is because the definition of Conservative has become "He who pwns!1! the Libs". The only convictions Rush Limbaugh has come close to are the type that would come from a jury of peers.

[zh cohen]

Oh come on, the only way McCain and Romney are Dems is because the definition of Conservative has become "He who pwns!1! the Libs". The only convictions Rush Limbaugh has come close to are the type that would come from a jury of peers.

Romney was on the far left of the Republican party until he ran for President. McCain voted against the Obamacare repeal in order to pwns!1! Trump. Them being presented as principled and honorable Republicans is one more example of how we got Trump.

This isn't really connected to your post, but since the two of them were mentioned...

[Yehuda57]

Romney was on the far left of the Republican party until he ran for President. McCain voted against the Obamacare repeal in order to pwns!1! Trump. Them being presented as principled and honorable Republicans is one more example of how we got Trump.

This isn't really connected to your post, but since the two of them were mentioned...

How does this "McCain voted against the Obamacare repeal in order to pwns!1! Trump" lead to "Them being presented as principled and honorable Republicans is one more example of how we got Trump."?

Ein mukdam u'meuchar?

[Yehuda57]

Romney was on the far left of the Republican party until he ran for President. McCain voted against the Obamacare repeal in order to pwns!1! Trump. Them being presented as principled and honorable Republicans is one more example of how we got Trump.

This isn't really connected to your post, but since the two of them were mentioned...

These days, every politician has to check all the right boxes or we can't support them. Truthfully, if anyone had any principles, no single politician would match all your desired policies. One key way to see if someone is principled or is a bad faith sleazeball is by when they go against the grain. So yeah, Romney was left on some issues, and McCain wasn't perfect. But they were/are still infinitely more principled than the current crop of whatever you call what has become of Ted Cruz and company.

[aygart]

These days, every politician has to check all the right boxes or we can't support them. Truthfully, if anyone had any principles, no single politician would match all your desired policies. One key way to see if someone is principled or is a bad faith sleazeball is by when they go against the grain. So yeah, Romney was left on some issues, and McCain wasn't perfect. But they were/are still infinitely more principled than the current crop of whatever you call what has become of Ted Cruz and company.

+10000000000000 I will admit that I was wrong about Cruz. Here is the guy who said about Trump “I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father” who now pulled down his pants for Trump.

[Shaya E]

Jeff Van Drew is the NJ congressman who changed from D to R after the impeachment.

My point was that if the only Rs you call "good faith Rs" are those who are practically Ds, your name basically means that anyone you disagree with is a bad-faith R.

Can you name one good-faith Conservative? Someone like Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else with real convictions?

McCain and Romney were both literally republican presidential candidates. At one point at least, the majority of republicans felt like they represented them the best. Over thw last few years, the requirements to be a republican changed to never saying anything Trump did is wrong and so they're not republicans anymore.

Lots of good faith republicans retired over the last few years. That isn't to say a republican can't be good faith and support (some) Trump policies, but I find it pretty suspicious that suddenly his policies are the definition of being a republican, when he ran on being anti-establishment. That, combined with the fact that Trump is a notorious bully (see: Kemp) who attacks people who he considers disloyal, makes me think the republicans going along with him aren't "good faith republicans".

[biobook]

+10000000000000 I will admit that I was wrong about Cruz. Here is the guy who said about Trump “I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father” who now pulled down his pants for Trump.

How do you explain that?  Do you think Cruz was once admirable, and he became loathsome only during the Trump administration?  Or do you think he had always been objectionable, and you became aware of it only after Trump was elected?

[aygart]

How do you explain that?  Do you think Cruz was once admirable, and he became loathsome only during the Trump administration?  Or do you think he had always been objectionable, and you became aware of it only after Trump was elected?

I am not sure, but more likely that he was always this way.

[whYME]

At one point at least, the majority of republicans felt like they represented them the best.

Not really. They were both pretty unpopular candidates and were both being called RINOs before Trump was in the picture.

Getting the nomination involves many factors, "majority of [party] felt like they represented them the best" is pretty low on the list.

[biobook]

I am not sure, but more likely that he was always this way.

Which makes me wonder whether there were clues earlier that we missed.  Did those commentators who opposed his nomination in 2016 simply prefer a different candidate, or did they raise serious issues about Cruz's behavior?

[aygart]

Which makes me wonder whether there were clues earlier that we missed.  Did those commentators who opposed his nomination in 2016 simply prefer a different candidate, or did they raise serious issues about Cruz's behavior?

I think that there were. I don't think I ever thought of him as a "principled person". He is a politician, after all. I thought he was more principled that he actually is.