Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant[quote=zk]
How are liberals acting like morons, exactly?
[/quote]
[quote=sdduuuude]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]
I think you’re giving trump more credit than he deserves. Take his rally in Phoenix, for example. If you think that trump’s game is to bait what you see as the liberal side of the press rather than trump just being unable to control himself, I think you’re seeing something that isn’t there.
And, if that really is his game, he’s playing the wrong game. He’s the president of the United States now. He doesn’t need publicity. He needs to get things done. And he needs to bring the country together. Just by being president he’s going to get all the press necessary or desirable and then some. The “any publicity is good publicity” game is played by candidates or actors or salesmen. Not presidents.
Most important, if he says and does things that are bad for the country, those who oppose him are supposed to ignore it for fear of giving him publicity? That doesn’t make sense to me.
[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]
[quote=sdduuuude]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.
[/quote]
I didn’t say you’d taken a conservative position. I said (implied) you took a fox position.
[quote=sdduuuude]The liberals have cried “wolf” too much on Trump and have not picked their battles well at all.
Rather than pointing out specific policies that have resulted in specific problems, they just attack Trump personally.
When something concrete emerges, will they be able to take advantage of it ? I doubt it.[/quote]
That’s a fox position. Fox will tell you that unless a “specific policy” is involved, there can’t be a problem. There doesn’t need to be a specific policy for there to be a problem. Trump has divided the country and the world. He has pissed off our allies and played dangerous games with our enemies. Those are serious problems, caused by trump’s ignorance and bad temperament (among other traits).
[quote=sdduuuude]
Both you and Harvy and the other ultra-liberal (Hi Flyer, I think)
[/quote]Whoa, stop right there. Ultra liberal? You’re kind of doing the same thing there as you accuse me of. I have not indicated any policy positions that would identify me as “ultra liberal.” I hold positions on some issues that are right of center. All my positions probably used to add up to “centrist” or something a little left of that until the events of 2008 convinced me that some higher level of regulation and oversight are necessary in the financial sector (and probably in general). That moved me left on that issue, and further left overall. But I am far from an “ultra liberal.” Not that there’s anything wrong with being more liberal, but I think being “ultra” anything is unlikely to be a well-reasoned position.
What you might be seeing and mistaking as ultra liberalness are two things:
I despise lies and propaganda because they manipulate people into acting against their own interest and against the interests of this country, and they push people into doing the bidding of those who manipulate them. And conservatives are infinitely better at propaganda than liberals. And they have, with their propaganda, created an alternate reality for conservatives that has caused many of them (I’m not talking about you, I’m talking in general) to be unresponsive to actual facts, reason, and logic. And, being very much a facts, reason, and logic kind of person, that is particularly galling to me. I’d be happy to agree to disagree with anyone who is dealing from truth and disagrees with me. But when someone is swallowing and regurgitating lies and emotions that have been fed to them and is unable to see the truth anymore, I’m no longer happy to disagree with them. I’m disgusted and angry and fearful for our country.
The second is my hatred of trump. I don’t hate him because he’s conservative. I disagree with him because he’s conservative. I hate him because he’s a terrible human being. And his terrible traits are doing great damage to our country.
[quote=sdduuuude]
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.
[/quote]The democrats are surely not playing this hand as well as they could. But Trump’s approval rating is 35%, and he has basically no legislative achievements. I don’t see this as getting their asses kicked.
[quote=sdduuuude]
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.
[/quote]Here’s my prediction: As soon as Mueller comes out with his report, trump will quit. There will be so much in there that shows the country, even the republicans, that he needs to be impeached (mostly financial dealings, and possibly obstruction of justice) that impeachment and removal from office will be inevitable. So he’ll quit before that happens. Of course he’ll blame the “liberal media” and the democrats and anybody else that pops into his line of sight at the moment. It won’t be his fault he has to quit, of course. But he’ll quit. And if he doesn’t quit (which he will), he’ll be impeached and removed from office.
[quote=sdduuuude]
The liberal side seems ineffective in pinning Trump to anything that is a specific reason for getting impeached.
[/quote]
Republicans control congress, and it won’t matter what the democrats do until republicans are on board. Granted, the democrats are pretty lame at getting republicans on board with anything. But one party getting the other party on board with anything ended a long time ago in Washington.[quote=sdduuuude]
The liberal side cries “foul” at every little thing so that when he does do something really bad, the complaints feel old and weak.
[/quote]“Every little thing” that liberals cry foul about is a thing that used to be a thing that would cause a massive uproar in this country. Trump does one of those things almost every day. You’re suggesting that we just let the country slide into a new normal where the president can just lie right to our faces and yell at and hang up on foreign leaders and not condemn nazis and attack members of his own party and make stupid, dangerous, off-the-cuff comments about the most dangerous situation in the world and accuse his predecessor of an impeachable offense with no evidence and do all the other “little” things he’s done?
[quote=sdduuuude]
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.
[/quote]Hmmm. Ok. But if you can’t see the damage that trump is doing that republicans and democrats before him haven’t done, that’s probably because you only think that “specific policies” can cause damage. I’d be interested in hearing why you think that.
[quote=sdduuuude]
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.
[/quote]I think it’s more complicated than that. Yes, republicans have been around longer than fox. But the republican party of today is not the same as the republican party before fox news. Not by a long shot. And I think a big part of that change has been the right-wing noise machine.
Conservatives are much less tolerant than they used to be of any views different from theirs. Fox has been telling them for decades that conservatives are strong and manly and self-reliant while liberals are pansies and snowflakes and lazy moochers. They’ve vilified the other side to a degree that wasn’t there before. And when the other side is villains rather than people that you disagree with, there’s going to be less tolerance of their views. Yes, liberals have become less tolerant also. That’s a continuation of the divide that was turned, by the right-wing noise machine, from a sometimes-contentious dislike for each other into divisive hate.
Conservatives are much less willing to work across the aisle. Back in the Reagan era, there was much more compromise and negotiation. Now it’s anything you can do to win and fuck the other side. I think they can get away with that now more than they could before because nowadays Americans are more divided and they want their politicians to say, “fuck the other side.”
Conservatives are much more willing to obstruct. For 8 year under Obama, all republicans wanted to do was cause Obama to fail. Their goal wasn’t for America to succeed (which, I think we all agree, should be their goal), it was for Obama to fail.
So republicans have been around longer than fox, but the republican party that exists today was not around before fox. It is, in my opinion, largely a result of the cultural and political changes wrought by fox and the rest of the right-wing noise machine.
Fox et al. took conservatives’ hopes and dreams and, mostly, fears and hatreds and stoked them. They stoked them for all they were worth. Conservatives (humans) feel good when their fears and hatreds and hopes and dreams are acknowledged and validated and encouraged. For most humans, if you have a tv station that acknowledges and validates and encourages your fears and hatreds and hopes and dreams and tells you that you’re right and righteous and strong and manly and great and that those on the “other side” are wrong and weak and lazy and stupid, that’s going to make you feel really, really good, and you’re going to watch that tv station.
And that’s what fox does. And that has taken a disagreement and cultivated it and encouraged it stoked it and and turned it into an intense, visceral hatred. It has changed our culture, and it has changed our politics. And its focus on emotion and away from reason has created a country where we can elect a man who, among countless other disqualifying traits, is clearly a bald-faced liar with the temperament of a wasp who’s spent 40 minutes on musical hold.
(I wish I could take credit for that joke. There are some very funny insults in here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/27/frankie-boyle-donald-trump-embodies-twitter )[quote=sdduuuude]
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.
[/quote]
As I said above, while they might’ve started off in a particular direction, if that direction was to the right, fox has taken many of those people who were headed in that general direction and herded them to a much less reasonable and more extreme place.[quote=sdduuuude]
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.[/quote]
Well, that certainly was fox news’ point of view. If it’s one that was yours coincidentally, that’s cool. It’s one I disagree with.
[quote=sdduuuude]
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]
Well, I hate both of them, too. But our opinions on which is which undoubtedly differ.[quote=sdduuuude]
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]
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. They’re fools because they think they’re in an intellectual battle (and you think they’re not), or because they think trump’s a moron (and you think he’s not), or because they are and he is and (you think) they’re losing anyway?[quote=sdduuuude]
Many high school teachers would be insulted by that comment.
[/quote]
I did say “isn’t qualified to be a high school teacher.” But yeah, I don’t know why I picked high school teacher. That was stupid. That’s an extremely important job and one that should have very-highly-qualified candidates. And I should’ve picked a job that requires really low qualifications and said trump wasn’t qualified for it. If I ran a school and trump was the janitor’s assistant I’d fire him.[quote=sdduuuude]
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.
[/quote]I’m not trying to have it both ways. I agree that fooling around on your wife is quite awful. And it is definitely a strike against your character. Clinton had that one strike on his character that didn’t, as far as anybody has ever shown me, affect the way he conducted business. It is ludicrous to equate that to trump’s obvious, numerous, and massive character flaws that almost continually affect the way he conducts business, and in an obviously detrimental way.
[quote=sdduuuude]
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.
[/quote]I’m very curious what a non-fox-influenced person disliked about the direction Obama took the country on his watch. I’m not being snarky or anything. I really want to hear what you have to say about that.
[quote=sdduuuude]
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]
He’s already taking us somewhere. He’s taking us to a place where our allies are angry at us, our enemies are more dangerous to us, the world is disgusted by us, and our people are more divided than ever.Participant[quote=spdrun]
Scary s**t, makes me want to move to Argentina.[/quote]
Now when I hear “GOAL ARGENTINA!!!!” I’ll hear “Goal: Agentina.”
Participant[quote=flu]
You know guys. Instead of congregating here and being unhappy about Trump, have you guys considered going to Breibart, registering for the forums, and trolling the regular alt-right posters there? It seems like for the same amount of time you would be spending, it would be a lot more entertaining for you. Plus you can affirm everything you already think about them.
[/quote]
That would be entertaining. Trolling just isn’t my thing.[quote=flu]
Congregating here seems more like trying to form a support group. Which no offense looks pretty pathetic imho… No offense…
[/quote]Not trying to form a support group. Huge swaths of the of the country are pretty much a support group right now if I needed that. But I don’t need that.
What am I doing here? That would be a fine question. It really is a waste of time. I’m not changing anybody’s mind.
Sometimes it’s a challenge to understand an issue and then to frame a concept and to write a post well. Gotta work the brain sometimes. Although I have been rushing my writing recently. Maybe that’s the first step to quitting.
[quote=flu]
And it’s pretty interesting there these days after Bannon got fired.. you actually have a bunch of hardcore Bannon supporters there that are now calling Trump and Ivanka a liberal. And you have a bunch of hard core Trump supporters calling Breibart and Bannon fake news now…. It’s very entertaining. At the very least, you can try to understand how some people tick. Just a thought. I am there just to understand people I would never know in real life. I consider it an educational exercise.
[/quote]That’s admirable. It would certainly help if we all understood each other a little better. I’d be curious to hear any other insights you might’ve gained about them.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]
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=sdduuuude]
Just because I say the liberals are acting like morons, and they are,
[/quote]
How are liberals acting like morons, exactly?[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=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=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=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=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.
People misuse that fable all the time, and it bugs me. Particularly when it’s used to somehow cast aspersions on any negative opinions and opine that those negative opinions are somehow invalid. If our president is a disaster of a human being such that it’s causing problems for our country, it is not sour grapes to call him out. It’s patriotic.
ParticipantHere’s a study that shows that media that right-wingers rely on spread propaganda and disinformation:
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/33759251/2017-08_electionReport_0.pdf?sequence=5
Right-wingers are consistently being lied to by their media. And they’re consistently believing and spreading those lies. And they’re voting based on those lies. And they elected trump based on those lies. And trump is terrible for this country, as anybody who hasn’t been fed lies by their media can plainly see.
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=zk]
At this point, I’m tired of saying they’re brainwashed. I gave them the benefit of the doubt for a long time, but I don’t see how they can support him at this point.[/quote]I’m with you here ZK. I’ve got many Republican friends who on a day to day basis are reasonably intelligent people. But there are quite a few of them who defend and side with Trump – to this day! I can’t reconcile those two facts.
It boggles my mind. I’m leaning towards the theory that (a) they close their mind to any information that doesn’t match their preconceived view, and/or (b) their ability to reason is severely compromised. Both thoughts are truly scary.
I’m neither a Dem or Rep. I tend to side with the Dems more, but even they get me angry. As my son told me the other day, I’ve got to quit classifying Trump as a Rep because at the end of the day, he really isn’t one.[/quote]
I agree with all of that except the last phrase.
I know where you’re coming from, and maybe you’re right. But to me the problem with that is that when you say, “he isn’t [a republican]” you appear to be using an outdated definition of “republican.” I don’t think “republican” can mean what it used to anymore. Virtually the entire party has sold their souls and boarded the trump train. They’re on that pathetically mangled train now, and when they jump off, it’ll be too late because they’re already in trumpville. They can try to get on another train back to the old republicanland. But that’s a long journey, and they could get lost (or voted out of office) before they reach their destination.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Zk, Trump has 79% support among Republicans.[/quote]
You’re winning me over, Brian. At this point, I’m tired of saying they’re brainwashed. I gave them the benefit of the doubt for a long time, but I don’t see how they can support him at this point. Even fox propaganda can’t hide what he’s doing now. They’re either fucking stupid or they’re despicable human beings. Or both.
Participant[quote=harvey]
And yet his supporters come to this conclusion:
[quote=sdduuuude]Rather than pointing out specific policies that have resulted in specific problems, they just attack Trump personally.[/quote]
The amazing thing about the Trump presidency is not Trump himself – he’s really just an ordinary con man. The amazing thing is the alternate reality that his supporters have created to reconcile his words and actions.
Because yeah, it’s the “liberals” that ignore issues and just attack personally.[/quote]
I agree.
And I would add that it is valid to attack him personally. If a person has certain bad character traits, then he’s not fit to be president. And Donald Trump has almost every bad character trait I can think of. Here are a few:
Sloppy. Lazy. Incurious. Petty. Vindictive. Willfully ignorant. Deceitful. Childish. Arrogant. Callous. Cowardly. Cruel. Improvident. Greedy. Foolish. Impulsive. Impatient. Intolerant. Selfish. Self-centered. Narcissistic. Boorish. Tactless. Thoughtless. Untrustworthy. Weak-minded.
He’s all of those things and more. Are those personal attacks? Sure they are. Should we refrain from leveling those attacks on him because they don’t pertain to policies? Of course we shouldn’t. Because those traits affect his leadership of the people of this country, his relationships with congress, with foreign leaders, with other politicians, with business leaders. Etc. Those personality traits affect his ability to collaborate with any person or group of people. Those personality traits affect our standing in the world. Those personality traits are a huge part of what makes him the horrible president that he is.
ParticipantThis is the disgusting, pathetic fool that you morons voted for:
If this behavior comes as a surprise to any of you who voted for him, you’re just fucking stupid.
If this doesn’t come as a surprise to any of you who voted for him, you’re a despicable human being for knowing who he is and still voting for him.
Participant[quote=harvey][quote=zk]I disagree strongly that our culture is exceptional, but that’s another discussion.[/quote]
I hope that discussion is not as tedious as this one.[/quote]
Ahh. Just finished 18 holes at Maderas. 10 minutes on the computer, then a workout and off to the beach.
It’s a beautiful day outside, Harvey. If this is too tedious for you, I’m sure you can find something better to do.
Participant[quote=harvey]American exceptionalism is about culture, which is entirely about our people.
American people are not different from Russians or Chinese people but our culture is very different from any other.
In fact, it’s exceptional.[/quote]
Well, if it takes a culture to make people different, then the people aren’t different. I think what Brian is saying is that Americans are better before their culture affects them. That they’re born better. As evidenced by this:
If we assume that humans are the same and easily manipulated, then that makes our population no different from the Russians or Chinese who are manipulated by nationalism and patriotism.
He seems to think that Russians and Chinese are susceptible to the manipulative forces in their cultures, but that Americans are not.
I disagree strongly that our culture is exceptional, but that’s another discussion.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
If we assume that humans are the same and easily manipulated, then that makes our population no different from the Russians or Chinese who are manipulated by nationalism and patriotism.
[/quote]
Of course our population is no different from the Russians or the Chinese. What in the world would make you think otherwise?
[quote=FlyerInHi]
What about American Exceptionalism? When politicians say they “trust the American people”, they imply that the American character is superior and the decisions we take result in good outcomes.[/quote]
American exceptionalism isn’t about our people; it’s about our system of government and about what we’ve achieved and about our (certainly spotted, but generally progressive) history of benevolence towards the rest of the world. Certainly you’re not letting what some politician is selling affect your opinion on this, are you?
That you think American exceptionalism is about our people says something, I think, about you. That you think American people are somehow different from Russians or Chinese says something about you. Susceptibility to manipulation is a basic human trait. To think that Americans would somehow be less susceptible to it than Russians or Chinese is arrogant, hubristic, and xenophobic. And those are the nicer words to describe it.
Participant[quote=SK in CV]
Distraction. They’re all repeating the “fire and fury” part. That happens all over the world on pretty regular basis. Pretty nebulous words. The real problem were the next few words. “like the world has never seen”. That’s not an attack on a mosque or a church. It’s not driving down a busy street and using a big truck as a weapon. Or an attack with multiple weapons on a night club. It’s not even using deadly gas on your own people, as Assad is accused of doing. The world HAS seen Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His words mean something. They mean something very specific.[/quote]You lost me. The way I read it, he was threatening to use nuclear weapons against them the next time they threatened us. His advisers said, “don’t read anything into” his fire and fury talk/speech which, as far as I can tell, basically means that they’re saying that he didn’t mean what he obviously meant (nuclear attack).
And obviously he didn’t really mean it, because North Korea threatened us a few hours later, and they’re still there.
What do you mean by “distraction?”
Participant“The president’s advisers are warning against reading too much into his ‘fire and fury’ talk against North Korea.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/09/trump-north-korea-comments-reactions-241434
So the upshot is that you can’t take seriously what the president of the United States says?
As dangerous and terrible as that is, it’s probably less dangerous and terrible than taking what this particular president says seriously.
A couple of great options you trump voters have left us with. Didn’t see this coming, huh?
Morons.
-
AuthorPosts
