 |
| "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." - Matthew 15:14 (Chris Kimball/Facebook) |
I debated Chris Kimball in April 2020. She made statements against President Trump and his supporters that were provably false. She was motivated purely by her anti-Trump emotions.
This was a semi-religious thread, as the thread starter consistently posted religious-themed posts.
Chris Kimball pushed the narrative that President Trump was an "anti-Christ". She proceeded to insult those of us who support him. I'm a Trump hat wearing Trump supporter. I didn't recognize myself, nor other Trump supporters, in her description of us.
I back him based on the facts that I've gathered from two main interests. The first one is on my being a news junkie since 1982. The second one is on my being a history junkie since 1979. Get knee-deep involved with current events and history-related information gathering and you'll be bound to notice patterns in the facts. Not just any patterns, but predictable patterns.
Add to this my experiences from a quarter of a century, cumulative, worth of military service and you have someone that's naturally conservative. In the military, there's a heavy emphasis on basing information on the facts. Not just on any amount of the facts, but an extensive amount of the facts. The success of the mission, even people's lives, depends on this.
This is a reason why most veterans, of the old military, lean conservative. Now, there are other people, who are conservative, who don't have military service under their belt. Many similar factors that lead service members to being conservative exist elsewhere.
Conservatives share a common trait. This includes pursuing the complete set of facts, detecting a pattern in these facts, and finding cycles that repeat themselves in both history and current events. This habit leads people to being conservative.
So, when Chris Kimball argued that we "loved" our "anti-Christ", she implied that we were the opposite of who we truly are. She implied that we blindly followed emotion and not fact and that we followed President Trump out of "cult of personality".
This further implied that what belief she held, regarding President Trump and the issues that we debated, was "factual". If only we "saw" things "her way", we'd break from that "cult of personality hypnosis.
This, of course, was Chris Kimball demonstrating narcissism, control issues, and anger issues. In order for us to abandon the conservative argument, in favor of the one that Chris Kimball et al embraced, we would have to abandon fact, reason, and logic. We would have to vote against our conscience.
We refuse to do that. However, people like Chris Kimball refuse to see things from that perspective. They'd rather we go against our conscience and vote for politicians that we disagree with. They want us to vote for politicians who would push for policies that we disagree with if it means that they get their way.
The next series of posts represent our argument. The last three posts are my counter rebuttal to her rebuttal to me... What she would've read had she not blocked me. This act showed me that she knew, deep down inside, that she had no argument. Her blocking me was her attempting to regain control in a situation she was losing control in... An indication that she subconsciously knew that she got destroyed in the debate.
As usual, I didn't edit the opposition's writing. Chris Kimball's comments are as she typed them during the debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment