You know, zk and Harvey, fuck you both for calling me a Trump supporter.
[/quote]
I didn’t call you a trump supporter. I agreed with harvey’s statement that trump supporters have concluded that it’s wrong for trump non-supporters to attack him personally and that only attacks on his policies are valid.
I could have included a sentence stating that sdduuuude isn’t necessarily a trump supporter, and I probably should have, but I didn’t think it was necessary at the time.
[/quote]
OK. I’ll buy that and retract it for you, but not Harvey.
[quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]
Just because I say the liberals are acting like morons, and they are,
[/quote]
How are liberals acting like morons, exactly?
[/quote]
They are getting sucked in by Trump’s antics, playing his game. Trump plays the “any publicity (bad or good) is good publicity” game and he baits the liberals and the liberal side of the press with every word and they fall for it every time.
[quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]
doesn’t mean I’m a Trump supporter or a Republican or a Fox watcher.
[/quote]
No, but your position seems to be more consistent with fox propaganda than it does with common sense. And you’ve always seemed a common-sense type of guy, outside of politics. Hence the conjecture that you probably watch fox.
[/quote]
What exactly is my position ? I have taken two positions in the two threads, both presented from a position that is neither conservative nor liberal.
Both you and Harvy and the other ultra-liberal (Hi Flyer, I think) seem to have taken me for a conservative, trump-supporting Fox-watcher simply because I don’t agree with the liberals on every point. It is a highly annoying straw-man type of approach that makes a reasonable argument impossible, and why the “F-you” message to Harvey still applies.
Just because I’m watching the Chargers play and I say “I think the Chargers are going to win this game” doesn’t mean I’m a Chargers fan.
Just because think the liberals are getting their asses kicked, and will continue to do so for some time, doesn’t mean I’m a Trump supporter.
Position 1, regarding “Trump Presidency Death Watch”
I disagree that the Trump Presidency is in jeopardy – in terms of him actually getting removed from office before his term ends. That is my position.
The liberal side seems ineffective in pinning Trump to anything that is a specific reason for getting impeached.
The liberal side cries “foul” at every little thing so that when he does do something really bad, the complaints feel old and weak.
Position 2: from “Right-Wing Media are Destroying Our Country”
My position is that Fox news is not responsible for the Trump victory, nor is Trump’s Presidency destroying our country any more than it has already been destroyed by the Republicans and Democrats before him.
Does that make me a Fox watcher ? No.
I think a point you are missing, very badly, is that Fox news is a result of Conservative views, not a cause of them. The Republican Party has been around longer than Fox News.
Some people, even me, will hold opinions that match up with what Fox is spewing just out of random chance. That Fox takes those to the extreme should not confuse you into thinking that Fox has driven people in a direction that is different from one they have been going their whole lives.
Also, I believe that Fox news was born out of an environment where the existing networks were becoming less and less objective – and more and more liberal.
Does this belief make me a Fox watcher ? No.
Does it even make me a Republican ? No.
Does it make me a hater of both the the biased liberal and conservative news programs that want us to believe they are objectively presenting the news ? You bet.
[quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]
Trump is making the liberals look like fools. Plain and simple.
[/quote]
How is that, exactly?
I would argue that he’s making his supporters (and therefore a sizeable majority of republicans) look pathetic and disgusting for supporting such a vile human being, and I’m quite curious to see how you think he’s making liberals look like fools.
[/quote]
The Trump haters think themselves very clever and righteous when they point out Trump’s character flaws even though such flaws are blatantly obvious to everyone. They fail to realize that many people were left in the lurch by liberal politics so they are willing to put up w/ those flaws to undo the effects of Obama.
This isn’t my position. This is my description of what is happening. I hope you understand the difference.
The liberals think they are in an intellectual battle with a complete moron so they should be winning. They are wrong. And they are losing.
As such, they are fools.
[quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]
The liberals sent Hillary to battle. She sucked so badly that Trump, even with all the adjectives you use to describe him, beat her. Strangely, you blame Fox news for this and not the shortcomings of the liberal message.
[/quote]
Hillary was a very weak candidate. Mostly because many Americans had a very dim view of her, which was mostly due to fox et al. besmirching her for the past 30 years. Regardless of why she was weak, she was weak, and the democrats did send her to battle. Big mistake, I agree. But even with the dim view that most Americans had of her, she wouldn’t have lost to trump without a lot of help from fox (in addition to the help they provided by smearing her for decades). She wouldn’t have lost to a man who doesn’t deserve to be a high school teacher, let alone the president.
So I do blame fox (and the rest of the right-wing noise machine). They took a woman who was brilliant and tough, but lacked vision and warmth, and they tore her down while they built up trump, and they conned millions of Americans into thinking a man who is neither brilliant nor tough, and who also lacks vision and warmth, and who has the temperament of a 3rd grade bully, among countless other disqualifying personality traits, was better than her.
[/quote]
Many high school teachers would be insulted by that comment.
[quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]
When Clinton was getting his cigar smoked by “that woman” the message from the Democrat side was that the character of the person didn’t matter, it was what he accomplished as President.
[/quote]
See, it’s that kind of faulty reasoning that makes me think you watch right-wing media. I don’t understand how, without some kind of manipulation having occurred, a smart guy like you can’t see the problem with that logic. To wit: Getting your cigar smoked by an intern does not make you an ineffective president. Trump’s human failings do. If you can’t see how trump’s personal flaws make him a terrible president, ask me for a list. (If you do partake of non-right-wing media, you’ll already know this, as items on said list are reported by the NYT and WAPO quite regularly. One generally doesn’t see them on fox, though.)
[/quote]
As I have said – I don’t partake in either CNN or Fox type news watching.
It isn’t faulty reasoning at all. It is an objective description of the past. Clearly the story spun by the Democrats was exactly as I said – that fooling around on one’s wife indicated no character flaws that would suggest he is unfit to be president.
To me, fooling around on your wife is quite awful, by the way. It shows a lack of loyalty and makes it impossible to believe one’s commitments. So, that would translate pretty badly into being a good President.
I am pointing out that you can’t have it both ways – Either point to character flaws and say they matter or say they don’t – not that they matter for one and not for another.
With that said, though, I tend towards the idea that the measure of the Presidency is the political direction taken under his watch and little else. I am consistent in that for either Repub or Demo – unlike Trump or Clinton supporters.
I thought Obama was a highly respectable person and very articulate, though I dislike the direction the country took under his watch.
Trump is an awful person and makes a mockery of the Presidency but we have to wait and see where he takes us – if anywhere.
[quote=zk][quote=sdduuuude]
Let the sour grapes continue.
[/quote]
Sour grapes means that you want something but can’t have it, and therefore conclude that that thing you wanted before you found out you couldn’t have it is bad. Doesn’t apply in this case.
[/quote]
I’ll give you that one because of logical perfection. Well said.
