- Joined
- Sep 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,327
- Reaction score
- 429
- Location
- Nevada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I had the pleasure of discussing politics at a bar last evening with a total stranger. After some small talk he asked what I thought of the "Mueller Report." I replied that I thought it was a "nothing burger" and the discussion was on. As it turned out I had the advantage in that I actually read the report. He admitted that he had not, but had read "The Atlantic" "review" of the report. He also saw Mueller's recent 9 1/2 minute speech regarding the 450 page report.
His argument basically came down to: Putin/Russia wanted Trump to win, therefore, Trump is bad, immoral and trying to hide something. He stated at least five times, with slight variation, "Do you think it is a good thing that Russia favored Trump in the 2016 elections?" This seemed to be his response anytime I tried to present a fact or counter argument. Now I don't fault him for not liking Trump, that is his prerogative. He didn't think Trump should be impeached in spite of his "obvious immorality" because that would not be politically expedient. (Ironic?)
In the course of our conversation he found it necessary to justify his moral superiority through obvious lies and mischaracterizations. He based his moral repugnance with the Russians on 'remember[ing] climbing under the desk in school" for [duck and cover] drills during the cold war. At 62, I am about 10 years older than him. I vaguely recall duck and cover drills in the early grade school. He later stated he "went to school in the 80s." This seemed odd to me but I searched it just in case I missed something. Duck and cover drills took place in in the "50s and early 60s." Why would one need to lie about such a thing?
In the course of our discussion he argued that NPR was not a leftward leaning source of political news. He is entitled to his opinion. However, he sited as evidence that Devin Nunes has been on NPR as much as his Democratic opposition. I listen to NPR Politics podcasts (just to get the other sides insight) and doubted that NPR had ever had Nunes on an interview. Maybe we were comparing apples and oranges? Nope, a quick search of NPR/Devin Nunes/interview (and various macerations of this) indicates no (certainly recent) interview with Nunes. This search topic refers to quotes from Nunes "interviewed in his office" by other individuals but not NPR. The same search parameters ("Nunes") mentions interviews with Adam Schiff on at least two occasions since the Mueller Report! Let me know if I missed something.
This gentleman is an obviously intelligent individual. He has a graduate degree and is employed by a large academic and referral hospital in a highly technical field. He offered that he grew up in the "Central Valley" of California (incidentally this is Nunes' district) as a Republican, "went through that Libertarian thing that all young men go through." Huh? He then became a Democrat and volunteered that, "now I just wish that all Republicans would go away."
Yet, he wanted to debate the Mueller Report without having read it! He sited the "Atlantic review." I searched again. I don't read the Atlantic but it appears that his source must be from their "Ideas" section. These "reviews" from various angles are just opinion pieces on the Mueller Report. Even the titles are obviously left leaning in my opinion. One rating site lists their news reporting as "accurate" and their editorializing as "center-left." Looks far left to me but I'll stipulate this could be an accurate rating. Why would a Liberal elite adhere to such a strong opinion without having independently looked at the facts? I found that I was constantly noting that I really couldn't argue with the way he "felt" about Putin/Trump, but, association does not imply that Trump is guilty of colluding with the Russians. He could not give the slightest information or any names associated with the obstruction issue but essentially quoted Mueller's brief comments that there were "ten" of them.
It is apparent to me that many Liberals tend to fall back on their virtue signaling arguments anytime actual facts will not support their long held opinion. Lying to justify your moral superiority doesn't seem like an effective tool. This gentlman denied watching MSNBC on any regular basis but much of his ideology seems right out of Rachel Maddow's commentary. Perhaps this is just a result of being exposed to liberal academia most of his life? Is it just that Liberal elites don't know any better as they are constantly surrounded by other Liberal elites with the same ideology? Has mainstream media managed to seep into the liberal/Democratic mindset in such a way that they are even unaware of it?
Search - The Atlantic
The Mueller Report Is an Impeachment Referral - The Atlantic
Remember "Air Raid Drills" in Schools From the 1950s and Early 1960s? I Do Remember Them! | LetterPile
His argument basically came down to: Putin/Russia wanted Trump to win, therefore, Trump is bad, immoral and trying to hide something. He stated at least five times, with slight variation, "Do you think it is a good thing that Russia favored Trump in the 2016 elections?" This seemed to be his response anytime I tried to present a fact or counter argument. Now I don't fault him for not liking Trump, that is his prerogative. He didn't think Trump should be impeached in spite of his "obvious immorality" because that would not be politically expedient. (Ironic?)
In the course of our conversation he found it necessary to justify his moral superiority through obvious lies and mischaracterizations. He based his moral repugnance with the Russians on 'remember[ing] climbing under the desk in school" for [duck and cover] drills during the cold war. At 62, I am about 10 years older than him. I vaguely recall duck and cover drills in the early grade school. He later stated he "went to school in the 80s." This seemed odd to me but I searched it just in case I missed something. Duck and cover drills took place in in the "50s and early 60s." Why would one need to lie about such a thing?
In the course of our discussion he argued that NPR was not a leftward leaning source of political news. He is entitled to his opinion. However, he sited as evidence that Devin Nunes has been on NPR as much as his Democratic opposition. I listen to NPR Politics podcasts (just to get the other sides insight) and doubted that NPR had ever had Nunes on an interview. Maybe we were comparing apples and oranges? Nope, a quick search of NPR/Devin Nunes/interview (and various macerations of this) indicates no (certainly recent) interview with Nunes. This search topic refers to quotes from Nunes "interviewed in his office" by other individuals but not NPR. The same search parameters ("Nunes") mentions interviews with Adam Schiff on at least two occasions since the Mueller Report! Let me know if I missed something.
This gentleman is an obviously intelligent individual. He has a graduate degree and is employed by a large academic and referral hospital in a highly technical field. He offered that he grew up in the "Central Valley" of California (incidentally this is Nunes' district) as a Republican, "went through that Libertarian thing that all young men go through." Huh? He then became a Democrat and volunteered that, "now I just wish that all Republicans would go away."
Yet, he wanted to debate the Mueller Report without having read it! He sited the "Atlantic review." I searched again. I don't read the Atlantic but it appears that his source must be from their "Ideas" section. These "reviews" from various angles are just opinion pieces on the Mueller Report. Even the titles are obviously left leaning in my opinion. One rating site lists their news reporting as "accurate" and their editorializing as "center-left." Looks far left to me but I'll stipulate this could be an accurate rating. Why would a Liberal elite adhere to such a strong opinion without having independently looked at the facts? I found that I was constantly noting that I really couldn't argue with the way he "felt" about Putin/Trump, but, association does not imply that Trump is guilty of colluding with the Russians. He could not give the slightest information or any names associated with the obstruction issue but essentially quoted Mueller's brief comments that there were "ten" of them.
It is apparent to me that many Liberals tend to fall back on their virtue signaling arguments anytime actual facts will not support their long held opinion. Lying to justify your moral superiority doesn't seem like an effective tool. This gentlman denied watching MSNBC on any regular basis but much of his ideology seems right out of Rachel Maddow's commentary. Perhaps this is just a result of being exposed to liberal academia most of his life? Is it just that Liberal elites don't know any better as they are constantly surrounded by other Liberal elites with the same ideology? Has mainstream media managed to seep into the liberal/Democratic mindset in such a way that they are even unaware of it?
Search - The Atlantic
The Mueller Report Is an Impeachment Referral - The Atlantic
Remember "Air Raid Drills" in Schools From the 1950s and Early 1960s? I Do Remember Them! | LetterPile
