Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nathanbedford

You don’t seriously expect a Trumpster to engage in thoughtful discourse, do you?


79 posted on 04/16/2016 6:57:58 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]


To: Mr. Lucky
You don’t seriously expect a Trumpster to engage in thoughtful discourse, do you?

How perfectly condescending, perhaps that's the reason your candidate is being shellacked at the polls. You might want to think about that.

Now, I've responded to him twice, and he can't rebut.

And he won't. Just watch.

And neither will you.

What you did, that's called projection, btw.....

82 posted on 04/16/2016 7:02:00 PM PDT by Lakeshark (One time Cruz supporter who now prefers Trump. Yes, there are good reasons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: Mr. Lucky; Lakeshark; Gaffer
My problem with the Trump supporters is they resort to shooting the messenger to divert criticism away from Trump. Trump's qualifications, or lack of them, for the office of President of the United States of America have nothing to do with me.

Perhaps my age is showing, but I am getting tired of defending myself rather than speaking to the issue. I am tired of the personal vituperation which is dripping from every thread in this forum. I believe this is a foretaste of the degrading of our civil society should Donald Trump become president. I have campaigned against political correctness in this forum for years but opposition to political correctness is not the equivalent of license. Opposition to political correctness does not mean there is open season on the character of the people who oppose Donald Trump.

Worse, we are seeing a swelling evidence of Trump supporters seeking to impose censorship in this forum against anyone who might speak out against Donald Trump. Nothing could be more harmful to Free Republic than the dead hand of the censor which will ultimately bring the best conservative forum to ruin.

I think over the years and thousands of replies I've established a reputation on this forum that I will engage the issues and try to do so respectfully and without resorting to the ad hominem.

Sometime ago I wrote a reply which incorporated previous replies setting forth my conception of how one who contributes to this forum should conduct himself and I incorporate it again here knowing that it will make this reply even longer:

----------------------------------

You make several very important points in your well constructed vanity.

Your observation that Free Republic is, "the greatest conservative site in the sorry history of the internet" is inarguably true and that truth should be restated and broadcast often.

As I have often posted, I do not come on to the threads of Free Republic to discuss the weather (unless we are confusing whether with climate "change"). I come here to be informed and, primarily, to persuade. That is why I sport the avatar below, because I want readers to know whose ideas they are dealing with and to take the time to read them. I want them to expect a reasoned contribution because of the name and avatar.

I do not expect anyone to accept my point of view merely because it is my point of view, it is my responsibility to persuade. I hope the avatar induces Freepers and lurkers to read what I write so that I have a chance to persuade. But once we posters have a reader's attention we owe him a duty to accurately inform and rationally argue.

From a reply of mine in August, 2015:

"Imagine some youngster awakening to politics and venturing into this forum to get a taste of conservatism only to be met with cheap shots. People who pepper their replies with condescension, derision, snarkiness, and in general indulge in ad hominem attacks which do not advance their arguments and certainly would not make any converts of the kinds of youngsters that we would want to join the conservative movement. It seems to me that the last way I would choose to get voters for Donald Trump is to comport myself like Donald Trump. Usually these tactics are resorted to not to win an argument but to make the poster feel better about himself, to paper over insecurity, or to distract the argument from the issue. I also find unappealing the use of ":-)" or "LOL" as though that clinches an argument. It reveals instead an absence of resources.

On October 27, 2010 I responded to a newbie asking Free Republic how he should conduct himself and how he should post:

Speak your mind, tell the truth, do not post without reason or for its own sake or for your own sake, but post only when you can contribute value added, never post out of malice, ad hominem, or pique. Do not troll for disputes or to be pointlessly argumentative, or to shore up your own ego, but defend your good name and reputation to the last extreme. Post as though every word were to be read and measured by a young mind seeking a political ideology and your post alone will fix his future worldview forever. Finally ask yourself, what would that half born American, Winston Churchill, say?

Welcome to the greatest forum on the Internet. I look forward to being edified by your posts.

.............................................


86 posted on 04/16/2016 8:21:56 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson