Cam anyone explain to me why Mitch McConnell is a bogeyman to the dems in as few words as possible?

I think they would say he violates/skirts Senate rules to pass Republican bills and abused the rules he now skirts when he was minority leader

Which I can kind of get but they would have to ignore when they did the same thing

call out your own side? never

he's an old white man in charge of something

I think @micamike45 has it. He is evil because he is doing to the Democrats what they did to the Republicans when they were in control. Assuming he's actually doing that, at least. Color me shocked at the realization that people like San Fran Nan and Chucky Schmucky lie.

Because he's cocaine mitch

@IImploreYouToRemoveYourself she would be worse than Tulsi.

Pretty sure most these Dems (Hillary included) would have started WW3 by bombing the shit out of Iran by now

@Big T
No, @Shadows is just a contrairian. Tell him the sky's blue, he'll find a cloud.

Besides the fact it's impossible to really know that, using that to dismiss an argument deflates debate. If you sense there's a contradiction in someone's views, try and get them on it. Maybe there never was a contradiction

@RoadtoDawn
I've seen him at work. Trust me, he is.
And contrairian means you'll take an oppositional position just to take it.

Then I suppose you're keeping score of every single thing he's ever advocated? It's a prerequisite to have good reason to believe if someone is arguing only to argue. If you see someone contradicting themselves from an earlier argument, ask them about it and maybe you'll score a point if they're going back on what they said arbitrarily

It could be that they disagree with many of your viewpoints, and is the reason you argue a lot

I guess we smoked out the other contrairian...
And no. Of it were "just me" (which is what I assumed at first), it'd STILL be "just me."

There's too much to consider in order to use the word with confidence. And again, it just nukes debate

well-substantiated explanation

@RoadtoDawn, @WisdomVendor;
*"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced... [b]ut I know it when I see it ..."*
-Supreme Court Justice Potter STEWART hen asked to define *'obsenity'" in a porn case in 1964.

2A also got gutted in the same decade

@Mandatory Carry I have no doubt that's how you see things, fam

@Big T I was more then happy to follow up with Why i disagreed. But it wasn't even worth it at that point as he already put me in a position that the only possible reason i have to disagree was just do disagree.

@Shadows I would say to follow up with why in the same response. you are not pidgeon-holed into disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, as a response with a why (even after he calls you a contrarian) would still be something worthy of discussing.

@RoadtoDawn lol i see you met Mandatory Carry.

@Big T I'm not going to have a discussion when someone has already defined my position.

but that would be any discussion with someone on the opposing political side lol.

It can't really be helped for many issues, but its only really obvious when people are arguing in bad faith.

Sounds like I missed a goodin Bois. Verdammt

Yeah I think the distinction being made here is that there's a difference between someone assuming your stance, and someone asserting that your disagreement is in bad faith. That said, I read the first accusation of contarianism as a joke. There wasn't any more put into it than a single line, really

There's nothing wrong with contrarianism anyway as long as you're not totally beyond persuasion. Ideas need to be challenged to see how well they stand up.

I don't disagree with that, its just not something i do normally.

(outside of my own opinions)

I think there's definitely a lot of room for Devil's Advocacy as a whole, but people need to engage with ideas in a mature manner overall, with some leeway given for levity

There you go being contrary again @Shadows. Can't you just accept the labels others put on you without protest?!

XD

If only.

ACCEPT YOUR STATION @Shadows

Or perish...💀

The reason I dismissed his stance was because in the nine minutes he had between the initial claim and his response, all he came up with was "I disagree with that"
6 minutes GraveAxe came up with a potential argument against the initial claim, DJAnuz came up with an argument against the initial claim
Shadows stated his position and that was it, what is this a podcast? Claim and mull over the merits of said claim that's a debate. No one can go off of a stance how do you argue against a stance, it's a mode of being
That's why I assumed Shadows was simply arguing contrarian and in bad faith
Bandatori will fly out of the woodwork and put forth something anything to defend his position
RoadtoDawn while criticizing me for my actions, put forth more information than just his stance that what I did was wrong
There isn't a debate here because everyone is already agreeing with the standard that there is a time where there is no debate. RoadtoDawn proposes that dismissing an argument is the end of the debate
Shadows says that bad faith is the end of the debate. He thought I was in bad faith for dismissing his stance. And I thought his opening was in bad faith as it looked like he was memeing and not debating.
None of this is even relevant because Shadows can submit claims at this point, DJ just did. Though at this point nobody cares about the original topic

@DJ_Anuz Tulsi and Yang are basically the only exceptions. I did say any of the current Dem candidates so it's fair enough. Though they have a low chance of getting nominated, but Hillary didn't win either, so in either case we can't really say as Axe already pointed out. Also Yang especially has been bullied by the progressives, or maybe he really believes those things, into saying a lot of Identitarian things, so who knows how the nomination could further radicalize the candidates

Neat.

@RoadtoDawn
Your simplistic thinking is noted.
@uncephalized
*"There's nothing wrong with contrarianism anyway as long as you're not totally beyond persuasion."*
Yes on 1 no on two; *"Ideas need to be challenged to see how well they stand up."* And that's totally fair. But when **failure testing** moves from asked and answered into simple badgering (https://www.thelegalseagull.com/making-objections-trial/), it's not productive. You need not persuade the opposition if your own purpose is to develop yourself. (BTW,
@Shadows doesn't cross the line... but some of you do.)

Just a thought I have been having...
Do you thing America and Europe are in thier current political and cultural situation because of the collapse of Christian moral ethics and ideals?