Author Topic: hey moderator  (Read 7717 times)

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
hey moderator
« on: October 17, 2019, 04:01:38 PM »
Please unregister me.


You Trumpists who want to live in a post-truth society, gfy!

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2019, 04:03:22 PM »
I wish you wouldn't.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2019, 04:45:41 PM »
When one doesn't trust the kool-aid, it's best to observe those who imbibe heavily. 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2019, 05:18:52 PM »
Just quit if you have too, though it'd be nice if you didn't.  Talking to people with different views is supposed to expand our minds.

Moderator, please don't "unregister" him it seems to break the boards.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2019, 05:24:39 PM »
It is a silly reason to ask to be unregistered.  :)  Now if you're a self diagnosed internet addict...

Not that I would know anything about that.   ;D

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2019, 03:47:22 PM »
Trump has been the cause of too many families breaking apart and people estranging themselves from one another. Can't we all just get along? If Ellen DeGeneres can watch a baseball game with George Bush hopefully we can all at least stay on speaking terms.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2019, 04:24:50 PM »
Hate to beat a dead horse but this seems to be a phenomenon of emotionally sensitive folks on the left. When's the last time you heard of a celebrity having to make a public statement justifying why they were seen with a prominent liberal? It’s cuckoo.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2019, 05:32:10 PM »
Quote
Trump has been the cause of too many families breaking apart and people estranging themselves from one another

Rereading a book ‘Critical Conversations’ and Gladwell’s ‘Talking to Strangers’
The issue may be that we have forgotten how to effectively communicate with each other, which the introduction of social media seems to have exasperated.
To many of our ‘conversations’ are approached all our nothing, like or dislike, resulting in people either withholding information from the pool of meaning or ‘violently’ attempting to dominate it, skewing perceptions.

Personally I think Critical Conversations should be a required subject in high school.

Quote
Hate to beat a dead horse but this seems to be a phenomenon of emotionally sensitive folks on the left
Example of a statement that get's in the way of dialog. The left accused as being to easily offended while the right accuse of intentionally using language to offend and distract. We end up taking about the politics of 'offense' rather then the issue at hand.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2019, 11:06:33 PM »
Quote
Hate to beat a dead horse but this seems to be a phenomenon of emotionally sensitive folks on the left
Example of a statement that get's in the way of dialog. The left accused as being to easily offended while the right accuse of intentionally using language to offend and distract. We end up taking about the politics of 'offense' rather then the issue at hand.

The thing is people on the board here have been surprisingly civil in the past few years, especially if you compare it to the years prior to that. Granted, we're a smaller community now, but all the same most conversations at most reach a level of "mild taunting sarcasm" as their boiling point. Sure, that's still not ideal, but it's quite a ways away from people outright calling each other out, insulting each other based on personal secrets, and using words like "evil" and "despicable" in relation to each other. I'm really happy that sort of thing is gone. So despite the fact that many conversations do end in two sides squarely refusing to agree AT ALL with the other side, perhaps more so than in the past, it never gets nasty, so I don't really buy that things are so offensive that people can't take it anymore. I think it's more an issue that people increasingly can't stand it when others disagree with them *completely*. I don't just mean "well I sort of disagree with you on that" but rather more like "you are totally wrong and what you say is the opposite of reality." This type of statement seems unpalatable for many people now (and I'm not referring to scifi, who has always seemed reasonable).

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2019, 09:33:14 AM »
Civility is a form of expression that can mask adamancy and deep prejudices.  I always respected ScifiBum for both his civility and a lack of adamancy.  I agree that his leaving weakens the forum further, but a lack of confrontational interaction doesn't mean that some don't have truly objectionable views and attitudes.  It only means you're being nicer, like how people appear and behave in Church on Sunday.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2019, 10:36:02 AM »
Civility is a form of expression that can mask adamancy and deep prejudices.  I always respected ScifiBum for both his civility and a lack of adamancy.  I agree that his leaving weakens the forum further, but a lack of confrontational interaction doesn't mean that some don't have truly objectionable views and attitudes.  It only means you're being nicer, like how people appear and behave in Church on Sunday.

This sounds an awful lot like “it doesn’t really matter if you behave and treat others well outwardly, we know that deep in your inner thoughts you're probably a [insert_label].”

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2019, 12:00:15 PM »
The way I look at it is views I oppose are obviously out there, and in significant numbers.  The more I can understand the lines of reasoning behind them, the less confused/enraged I find myself.  I may never agree, but getting away from, "Are these people *censored*ing insane!?!" is a good start.  :P

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2019, 12:18:22 PM »
"This sounds an awful lot like “it doesn’t really matter if you behave and treat others well outwardly, we know that deep in your inner thoughts you're probably a [insert_label].”"

You don't go to a forum to engage just with people you might agree with.  I left the forum because it was extremely frustrating to attempt to have a discussion based on facts with some (a minority of) members.  Or, to put it the way some Trump supporters often do, who have their own set of alternative facts.  Every discussion involved posts from members with opposing views, which is what is supposed to happen, but too often facts were met with either shrugs or denials, even when the facts were well known and not in dispute.  Those members were civil, but often condescending and frequently dismissive, finding the least nit of information to argue against the vast bulk that conflicted with their view.  Climate change, anyone?  Some still here would still insist that Clinton should be in jail despite her never having been found guilty or liable for any criminal actions, but have no concern that Trump is still running loose causing havoc across the entire globe despite his dismal record and sociopathic personality.

The sort of frustration that I think ScifiBum is pointing to is not unlike trying to understand Republicans in Congress today who stand idly by while Trump trashes the Constitution and even denies the legitimacy of Congress when it suits his (too often corrupt) purposes.  I could go on, but I already have.

Everyone here today appears to be unfailingly civil, bless their hearts.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #13 on: October 20, 2019, 05:11:43 AM »
I think we could all do a better job acknowledging good points made by people whose conclusion is not the one we arrived at?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2019, 08:03:34 AM »
I think we could all do a better job acknowledging good points made by people whose conclusion is not the one we arrived at?
<sigh>, ok... ;)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2019, 10:24:20 AM »
Well, Kasandra has a point correct, even if the outrage behind it is not.  We no longer have common facts.

Look at the impeachment of Bill Clinton.  I don't think anyone then or now reasonably disputes that Bill perjured himself by lying under oath.  I don't think there's a legitimate argument today (and barely one then, notwithstanding that it was made) that having an affair (this was pre-me too so that's how it was interpreted) was an impeachable offense.  I don't think anyone seriously doubted that he'd cheated on Hillary, with multiple women (whether or not they believed those specific women about what happened), or that he had relations with Monica.

We were all on board with that. 

Where we varied is on what we thought about those facts.  Some thought the President lying under oath was impeachable (no doubt a standard the left would insist on for Trump, even it if's about Stormy Daniels), some thought that was an elevation of process over substance (if you can't impeach for the affair, you can't impeach for lying about it).

Nixon?  Facts were not really in dispute, nor honestly was whether he should be impeached.

This is not still true.  Hillary's server is a perfect example.  Take a look at Lisa Page's sworn testimony.  The DOJ told the FBI that - notwithstanding the law - they would not file charges for gross negligence.  Comey's statement, and the revisions thereto, make it crystal clear they found gross negligence (in my view, even a moderately aggressive prosecutor would have found intentional violations).  Yet, we still have people asserting that nothing illegal happened.  You can't even question that there were violations of the record keeping rules, or frustration of legitimate Freedom of Information Act concerns.  All of which is against the law, and all of which is unethical.

Yet the argument isn't about why - against that backdrop - it was fair or not fair to prosecute.  The argument is a disputation argument.  Didn't happen.  No proof (never enough).  We aren't arguing about whether the statute is too broad, or whether it's obvious that deliberately creating an outside server violates.  We're arguing a complex version it happened (see these sources that agree with me), it didn't happen (see these sources that agree with me).

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #16 on: October 21, 2019, 10:34:59 AM »
Are we arguing it did/did not happen?  Here I thought it was an argument as to what extent it matters? 
This topic, and the (fair or not) general impression I get of her doing whatever it is she thinks she can get away with while avoiding prosecution, is why I desperately wanted her to fail to gain the party nomination.  That and being married to a former president.  (Down with dynastic rule!)  :P

Did I compromise my standards in order to try and defeat Trump?  Yep. 

She deliberately flaunted the system to avoid FOIA.  It does matter to me.  Just, as it happens, not as much as preventing Trump from winning.  What makes me scratch my head and ponder is if it was Hillary vs. an actual sane Republican nominee, would I have tossed in a protest vote knowing a SC seat or two was in the balance?  Kinda glad I didn't have to find out that answer.  (Well, not really, given the outcome...)  :P

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #17 on: October 21, 2019, 10:37:26 AM »
It wouldn't have mattered who the Republican nominee is, you'd be just as convinced by election day that they were evil incarnate.  It's a game the media plays with you.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2019, 10:42:08 AM »
If you truly believe that, then what changed about "the media"?  What new skill did they develop this cycle?  I don't remember thinking any former presidents were evil incarnate.

The Media is bad.  Nothing to do with Trump himself.  I've been duped huh?  Half the country or more... duped by their "game"?  Hey I get it, a lot of people like the policies goin down right now.  Don't try to pretend it wasn't a deal with the devil to get them through. 

Now, I do think Pence is a fanatic.  Not evil, but as someone who wants religion as far from politics as possible he is disturbing, but evil incarnate?  Nahh.  Still dangerous though.  But I guess that's just me being played as well.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2019, 10:46:57 AM by D.W. »

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2019, 11:03:11 AM »
Look at the impeachment of Bill Clinton.  I don't think anyone then or now reasonably disputes that Bill perjured himself by lying under oath.

Actually it is the opinion of legal scholars on the matter that he didn't.  The judges instructions and the definition agreed to by both parties defined sexual relations (the words were 'textualized') such that the recipient wasn't having sexual relations.

Here is the definition that the opposing council created

Quote
For the purposes of this definition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes.. [1] contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh,or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person...."Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.

Quote
One of the interesting things about a declaratory or prescriptive definition like this one is that it supersedes the ordinary meaning of the term.

https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3457&context=cklawreview

So it isn't clear he in fact committed perjury because he was the recipient not the performer and thus by opposing councils definition he did not have 'sexual relations'.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2019, 11:21:31 AM »
If you truly believe that, then what changed about "the media"?

Nothing changed, they've pitched every single Republican pairing as either either or incompetent of both since Bush I's re-election campaign, versus pitching every single Democratic pairing as inspiring or ground breaking or both. 

Which candidate wasn't painted as an arch-conservative, threatening or outright evil?  Just John McCain, and even there he wasn't painted remotely flatteringly (notwithstanding how much love the media gave him before or after), and instead they absolutely destroyed Sarah Palin and painted her as the incompetent arch-conservative.  But McCain was a media win to get the nomination in the first place.

Quote
The Media is bad.  Nothing to do with Trump himself.

Those are unrelated things, and the proper way to phrase it would be:

The Media supports the DNC.  Nothing Trump could do would be presented as other than bad.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #21 on: October 21, 2019, 11:47:32 AM »
That is a radically different perspective than mine.

Would you at least concede that "the media" has an abnormally larger bug up their rumps regarding Trump in particular then?  Or do you just see this DNC puppetry as par for the course? 

How do YOU view Trump (in terms of troubling/evil) compared to other former presidents or candidates in his party?  Just more of the same unfairly maligned by The Media?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #22 on: October 21, 2019, 11:59:48 AM »
Romney was legitimately threatening to a large part of the country. He thought 50% of America is full of freeloaders, and wanted to chop taxes for the wealthy - by capping federal spending at 20% of GDP leading to drastic cuts to SNAP. Reporting on those facts didn't make the media biased, nor did it make everyone who was concerned about his potential presidency a mindless sheep being manipulated by the press.

He did also create universal healthcare in MA, which was widely reported and appealing to the people further to the left - which could have been effective if he hadn't bashed Obamacare in an effort to secure the nomination from a party that was whipped into a froth over that issue.

The Palin treatment wasn't so different from Johnson being roasted over Aleppo. Both of these candidates were ill-equipped and ill-prepared to answer questions in an interview. She was incapable of naming any supreme court case other than Roe v Wade, for example. Do you expect that any other candidate would be unable to cough one up?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #23 on: October 21, 2019, 12:19:39 PM »
Would you at least concede that "the media" has an abnormally larger bug up their rumps regarding Trump in particular then?  Or do you just see this DNC puppetry as par for the course?

I agree the media has it more in for Trump than normal.  Republicans are only evil, Trump is a threat to the system itself (i.e., the entrenched media/bureaucracy).

Quote
How do YOU view Trump (in terms of troubling/evil) compared to other former presidents or candidates in his party?

I don't think you could convince me that we've had an evil President.  At least politically, they all pretty much are pursuing goals that they could (and in most cases probably do) believe are good for the country.  Now, they're also part of a class of autocrats that believe they are better than the little people and have repeatedly accreted power to that class.

Oddly despite all the paranoia about Trump's "autocratic tendencies" he's been less so than average on that front.  I mean, I actually read text in and around the SC's decision on the travel ban that literally implied it would be within the Presidential powers to enact the ban, but maybe not for Trump.  Could not have been clearer that there was a view that someone other than the "worthy" was exercising the powers they were never supposed to touch. 

Quote
Just more of the same unfairly maligned by The Media?

They hate Trump so much more that they're openly opposed to him.  Gave up pretending.

Romney was legitimately threatening to a large part of the country. He thought 50% of America is full of freeloaders, and wanted to chop taxes for the wealthy - by capping federal spending at 20% of GDP leading to drastic cuts to SNAP. Reporting on those facts didn't make the media biased, nor did it make everyone who was concerned about his potential presidency a mindless sheep being manipulated by the press.

Reporting on "facts" really isn't the issue.  "Half" the country generally finds positions of each side to be "legitimately threatening" but when the media only validates the blue half you get the bias I'm talking about.

I mean my goodness, the media has so sold the DNC on believing that they're the "good guys" that they believe that when they do evil it's justified.  Free speech?  No longer true if you say something "wrong."?  Equal protection?  Not if you practice "hate" (but excluding any hate by leftists on the conservatives, which is justified).  Attacking children?  Totally okay if they are pro life or wearing a Maga hat.  Right to privacy?  Allows abortions, protects journalists from criticism, doesn't apply to anyone who may be a Republican because they people have a right to investigate them until they find the crimes they must be guilty of.

Quote
He did also create universal healthcare in MA, which was widely reported and appealing to the people further to the left - which could have been effective if he hadn't bashed Obamacare in an effort to secure the nomination from a party that was whipped into a froth over that issue.

It's been a while since I looked at this, but I'm pretty sure that "Romneycare" was passed by a Democratic legislature that put it in place with a veto proof majority.  Not exactly a ringing endorsement (and I'm pretty sure he didn't get "credit" for it until the Dems wanted to convince voters that Obamacare was really a Republican idea - gee I wonder how they were able to do that?  Couldn't be a compliant media that sold that lie?)

It's just stunning that a "state media" is obviously a bad thing, and that Trump even criticizing the media is a "bridge too far," but a media being openly in the tank for a political party is a "nothing to look at here" situation.

Quote
The Palin treatment wasn't so different from Johnson being roasted over Aleppo. Both of these candidates were ill-equipped and ill-prepared to answer questions in an interview. She was incapable of naming any supreme court case other than Roe v Wade, for example. Do you expect that any other candidate would be unable to cough one up?

If you only see the out of context moments the media wants you to see you get a picture of Palin as incompetent.  Go take an honest look now and see if you think the same thing.  I mean, she was running in an election versus a President who visited 57 states to win.  If that was Palin's line it'd be as famous as Dan Quayle not being able to spell tomato.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #24 on: October 21, 2019, 12:34:50 PM »
Quote
So despite the fact that many conversations do end in two sides squarely refusing to agree AT ALL with the other side, perhaps more so than in the past, it never gets nasty, so I don't really buy that things are so offensive that people can't take it anymore.

I’ve noticed that moderate voices tend to leave the discussion, maybe not so much in this forum but most certainly in the general social media commentary.

In this forum there is tendency to use labels such as ‘left’ and ‘right’ as an all or nothing grouping which is unhelpful.
Though conservative by nature I assume most would view me as left, however I don’t identify with much of what is coming out of the right or the left today. 
By being labelled as ‘left’ there seems to be an implied assumption that I must defend all that anyone on the left has brought forward which is tiresome. 

To comment a concern, no one should have to acknowledge, explain, defend every foolish thing that someone on the extreme left or right have said or done. The labels ‘left’ or ‘right’ are too wide of brush to allow constructive dialog.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2019, 12:37:51 PM »
Quote
At least politically, they all pretty much are pursuing goals that they could (and in most cases probably do) believe are good for the country.
Right here you nail the heart of the matter.  I have believed this of every other president, regardless of party my whole life.  I may have thought they were foolishly or recklessly wrong, but I did believe that. 

I don't with Trump. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2019, 01:10:38 PM »
Quote
At least politically, they all pretty much are pursuing goals that they could (and in most cases probably do) believe are good for the country.
Right here you nail the heart of the matter.  I have believed this of every other president, regardless of party my whole life.  I may have thought they were foolishly or recklessly wrong, but I did believe that. 

I don't with Trump.

This is more illuminating to me than many other arguments about red vs blue. I find it astonishing that people actually believe that the person in office is *ever* thinking "gee, what would be best for the country?" Or at least, in any sense you might contemplate. They *might* be thinking "the country as it is stinks and in the new country I imagine things will be great, let's move towards that." Except their vision of it has nothing to do with you or what's best for you. Not that it's a fascistic fantasy: rather, their vision of "best" probably involves some modicrum of the bromides people are all brought up with, a large dose of their team finally having their way, add a pinch of the right people being the ones in control, and cap it off with keeping their system going in perpetuity. They neither want real discussion nor a plurality of opinions in the mix, nor will they intentionally accept the risk that their power or position could ever diminish.

The concept of "doing what's best for the country" is a sort of slogan that doesn't cover the context of both the office as it is or the way people think; especially those who hunger for political power. I find it astonishing that a claim could be made that Presidents in the past have had the country's best interests at heart and now Trump doesn't. Crazy! What was America's best interest in LBJ reversing Kenny's position on Vietnam, or Iran-Contra, or Iraq 2.0, or Libya, or the Syria nonsense? What is America's interest is being patsy's of Wall Street?

And I don't mean to say literally every single move is the devil itself in the flesh. There is some good and some bad, some corruption, some business as usual, some self-serving, and some doing what the public expects. But that Trump is suddenly the only one to be doing stuff against American interests? Hah, I guess it depends on what "American" means. If it means "what a smallish group of people would like America to become" then I think that's been the status quo for Presidents, yeah. If it means what the average American would like for the country, in living up to the values of normal morals? Give me a break.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2019, 01:51:25 PM »
Romney not a reluctant supporter.

Quote
In November 2004, political leaders began advocating major reforms of the Massachusetts health care insurance system to expand coverage. First, the Senate President Robert Travaglini called for a plan to reduce the number of uninsured by half. A few days later, Governor Romney announced that he would propose a plan to cover virtually all the uninsured.[17]

57 states should have been 47, and it deserved a chuckle - not much more. Compared to the Howard Dean scream treatment in the media, Trump has had it easy. I'll allow that Trump would set off a storm, but less about bias than the fact that you can make it part of a pattern. Trump also would have either doubled down on it being 57, somehow, or denied that he ever said it.

Obama owned it, and defused it with humor rather than vitriol. It's a sign of someone who knows how to work the press rather than antagonize it.

Quote
"I hope I said 100,000 people the first time instead of 100 million,” Obama said, according to the Times. “I understand I said there were 57 states today. It's a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh."

Meanwhile, a Republican legislator said this:

Quote
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) pushed the theory on the House floor in 2011, according a report at the time from Mediaite.

“And I know the President made the mistake one day of saying he had visited all 57 states, and I’m well aware that there are not 57 states in this country, although there are 57 members of OIC, the Islamic states in the world,” Gohmert said. “Perhaps there was some confusion whether he’d been to all 57 Islamic states as opposed to all 50 U.S. states. But nonetheless, we have an obligation to the 50 American states, not the 57 Muslim, Islamic states.”

Wow, you want to talk about spin and fake news.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2019, 02:15:28 PM »
Quote
The concept of "doing what's best for the country" is a sort of slogan that doesn't cover the context of both the office as it is or the way people think; especially those who hunger for political power.
Previously, the path to that political power, was by appearing, and campaigning, and promising, and (sometimes) fulfilling those promises, to make at least your base and enough of the center believe you were indeed "doing what's best for the country". 

What terrifies me now, is we see that someone can fulfill that hunger, and needn't do any convincing beyond selling a few red hats with a slogan on it. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2019, 02:49:07 PM »
What terrifies me now, is we see that someone can fulfill that hunger, and needn't do any convincing beyond selling a few red hats with a slogan on it.

Would it scare you to consider that that's all it ever was, and the rest was self-delusion? But it's not like Trump is literally saying he doesn't need to fulfill campaign promises. In fact most of what people are most upset with policy-wise is *that* he is trying to fulfill campaign promises (that they don't like). But I don't see your point that 'all Trump is doing' is satisfying their hunger without the platform to go with it. He has the platform. And I think it's evident (to me at least) that it really is Trump himself that is his own worst offence, and that it's not really about his specific policies. Well if his detractors (many of them, at least) don't think his policies are the main issue with him, then how do we get to comparing him to previous Presidents in terms of how much they really tried to get done following their campaign?

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #30 on: October 21, 2019, 03:28:51 PM »
I like coming here.  It's right in the name.  I can always count on getting a hit of that, "wow, and I thought *I* was cynical."  :)

Quote
Would it scare you to consider that that's all it ever was, and the rest was self-delusion?
People go on and on about how dishonest Trump is and how he is a constant pathological liar. 

I would suggest his inability to act (just another form of lying) is one of his biggest detriments.  We need to believe that these people we grant all this power over us have our best interests at heart.  Sure we may know they are selfish and power hungry, but we still need to believe that story we tell ourselves.  Any time it's blatantly demonstrated to be just self-delusion, that politician loses their job.  At least in a well functioning democracy anyhow.

Did Trump telegraph his punches on the campaign trail?  Yep.  Doesn't mean he's doing what's best for the country.  Just that he does what he needs to show he's fighting.  Who hardly matters.  As long as he's a fighter and not letting whoever it is, get the best of him.  And insuring the list of potential enemies to fight keeps growing.  Democrats?  Hillary?  Illegals?  PC culture?  The Media?  Jhina?  Iran?  AntiFa?  The Deepstate?  Enemies everywhere.  But he's fighting!  Unifying and leading are boring.  We want FIGHTERS!

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #31 on: October 21, 2019, 04:00:30 PM »
Quote
The concept of "doing what's best for the country" is a sort of slogan that doesn't cover the context of both the office as it is or the way people think; especially those who hunger for political power.
Previously, the path to that political power, was by appearing, and campaigning, and promising, and (sometimes) fulfilling those promises, to make at least your base and enough of the center believe you were indeed "doing what's best for the country".

This is why I said we're not even playing with the same facts.  Trump made lots of promises that appealed to a majority of the country, including some that have been repeatedly promised by virtually all the current politicians in office (like securing the border).  It's said Trump keeps a list of those promises outside his office and checks them off as it goes.
excessive imprisonment.

Quote
What terrifies me now, is we see that someone can fulfill that hunger, and needn't do any convincing beyond selling a few red hats with a slogan on it.

Do you not remember Obama's campaigns?  With the almost religious appeal, a slogan "Hope and Change," and a "blank slate" (artificially blank by intent through the media).  I mean I remember seeing his rallies, gleefully covered by the media, where people were fainting in the ailses and acting like they were watching a televangilist.

Or what about Hillary's campaign?  I can not count how many times I asked what her issues were and none of her supporters could tell you.  Sure they pointed to her campaign website, but they had no quotes or speeches from their candidate that were passionate on any of it, no comercials highlighting any of it.  Her real campaign points seemed to be "most qualified ever," "you can trust me" and "I'm not Donald Trump."  (and to be clear I literally saw ads paid for by her campaign with those thems.

What exactly, did they promise during the campaign?  Not actually much.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #32 on: October 21, 2019, 04:04:44 PM »
Romney not a reluctant supporter.

Not my recollection, but I'll defer to you on this.

Quote
Meanwhile, a Republican legislator said this:

Quote
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) pushed the theory on the House floor in 2011, according a report at the time from Mediaite.

“And I know the President made the mistake one day of saying he had visited all 57 states, and I’m well aware that there are not 57 states in this country, although there are 57 members of OIC, the Islamic states in the world,” Gohmert said. “Perhaps there was some confusion whether he’d been to all 57 Islamic states as opposed to all 50 U.S. states. But nonetheless, we have an obligation to the 50 American states, not the 57 Muslim, Islamic states.”

Wow, you want to talk about spin and fake news.

Lol, yep he said it, on the floor of the House, the only place in the country where you can lie however you want and there are no legal repercussions.  You may recall how Harry Reid knowingly lied on the House floor about Romney's taxes to influence the election.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #33 on: October 21, 2019, 04:11:51 PM »
Border security, an offshoot on solving our illegal immigration problem, is one policy I can get behind, I even brought that up just the other day as an example.  You cannot find a "majority" of Americans who agree with how he's perused that policy though. 

Quote
I can not count how many times I asked what her issues were and none of her supporters could tell you.
Because she was a terrible candidate.  /shrug  I'm sure not going to defend her. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #34 on: October 21, 2019, 04:14:36 PM »
Except that that idea didn't originate with Louie. It originated in the conservative media - email chains, blogs, talk radio. As part of the relentless campaign of "Obama is a Muslim". Or the anti-Christ, or a secret socialist, or take your pick of other unfair characterization. The only difference is that there's less written press on the conservative side because many of them can't read. :P

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #35 on: October 21, 2019, 04:19:24 PM »
I like coming here.  It's right in the name.  I can always count on getting a hit of that, "wow, and I thought *I* was cynical."  :)

 :D

Quote
We need to believe that these people we grant all this power over us have our best interests at heart.  Sure we may know they are selfish and power hungry, but we still need to believe that story we tell ourselves.  Any time it's blatantly demonstrated to be just self-delusion, that politician loses their job.  At least in a well functioning democracy anyhow.

Yes! This is where it all comes home. In an era where people are sick of the lie, who know too well already that the thing we need to tell ourselves is BS, is there a point where they'll elect someone who says to hell with all that? I think we're there. Why else would a guy whose MO is to tell it like it is, often rudely, win a national election? Maybe because people are so disgusted with people not telling it like it is. My challenge to you is to consider: do we *actually* need to tell ourselves the thing you say we need to tell ourselves about our leaders? Is that really good? Or was it the case that people tried that and it bit them, and now they want the red pill? Or at least maybe they think they do; maybe what they want is another blue pill that feels like a red pill. These are difficult questions to answer. But I think Trump's popularity is not unrelated to Bernie's in terms of disaffected voters and upset citizens. I also think both can be traced back to Occupy, to the 2008 collapse, and to corruption that mass media isn't up to hiding any more. It's not like it was in the 70's where ACB and NBC could whosale make up reality and you believed it because why wouldn't you? Now we know why we wouldn't, and they aren't the only game in town.

I don't think Trump is *just* a populist President, nor that his popularity is a fluke, and nor that only his brazen rudeness is what people like. There is something bad we've been fed and many people won't eat it again. Or at least I hope that interpretation is correct, rather than the "trolling the world" interpretation of Trump being in power. I hope it's because Hillary was unacceptable - and not just her personally but the system she represents - that he won, and not because he is genuinely someone his voters admired. I would be more concerned, perhaps as much as some here are, if he and he alone really is the way of the future. But rather I think he represents a bunch of stuff people do not want, which may just include that stuff we used to think we had to tell ourselves.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #36 on: October 21, 2019, 04:56:04 PM »
Quote
Why else would a guy whose MO is to tell it like it is

I understand what your saying but have always struggled with the idea of 'Tell it like it is' verses 'Tell it as I see it'
Trumps transparency lies in telling it as he see it, my problem is that, that does not necessarily mean he's 'telling it as it is'. The two perspectives are not the same, yet many I think accept that they are.

Immigration is a problem, labeling Immigrants with a certain nationality as murders and rapists is not telling it as it is. To agree with the Trumps policy on immigration, someone like me must be willing to parse out the 'Truthful hyperbole' as meaningless. That I cannot do.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #37 on: October 21, 2019, 05:04:44 PM »
I understand what your saying but have always struggled with the idea of 'Tell it like it is' verses 'Tell it as I see it'
Trumps transparency lies in telling it as he see it, my problem is that, that does not necessarily mean he's 'telling it as it is'. The two perspectives are not the same, yet many I think accept that they are.

I think alot of the issue is that many people agree with Trump's general direction and don't really care about the specifics.  It's pretty much the same thing politicians do all the time, they steal a story, they tell you an exaggerated version of reality, and 95% of the time no one, press included, cares.  When they do care, it's only for partisan reasons.  Will Trump, they literally fact check every sentence, and they deliberately misconstrue them as far as possible (and then some).

Quote
Immigration is a problem, labeling Immigrants with a certain nationality as murders and rapists is not telling it as it is.

And this is what I'm talking about.  Go find the quote where this actually happened.  Oh yeah, it didn't happen, yet somehow a huge chuck of blue country thinks this is real.


Quote
To agree with the Trumps policy on immigration, someone like me must be willing to parse out the 'Truthful hyperbole' as meaningless. That I cannot do.

So don't "agree with Trump," just realize he's on the right side of what needs to be done.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #38 on: October 21, 2019, 05:46:16 PM »
Quote
I think alot of the issue is that many people agree with Trump's general direction and don't really care about the specifics
I would agree, for alot of people the ends justify the means. The specifics or how doesn't matter

Quote
labeling Immigrants with a certain nationality as murders and rapists is not telling it as it is.
Quote
And this is what I'm talking about.  Go find the quote where this actually happened.  Oh yeah, it didn't happen

This is the problem with "Truthful Hyperbole" In many of Trumps rallies and tweets Trump implies the labeling of immigrants with murders and rapists. I'm pretty sure I heard him out right say it. But sure he didn't 'Say it', Parse out the hyperbole if you can, he only used the words in the same paragraph.

Quote
So don't "agree with Trump," just realize he's on the right side of what needs to be done
.
But I don't have to "realize" hes on the right side of "what needs to be done" when I fear that the how he gets things done may be doing a greater harm.
There are many examples in history where such a approach didn't end well.

The main difference that I see between our stance is within the idea of "the ends justifying the means" Maybe its a sliding scale however on the whole for me it does not. The end is always in the beginning, debt comes due.

Could  Trump get things done without the Hyberboly 



TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #39 on: October 21, 2019, 06:09:22 PM »
Everyone knows the inflamed appendix needs to come out. Don't worry about how it comes out.  ???

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #40 on: October 21, 2019, 06:17:55 PM »
Quote
I think alot of the issue is that many people agree with Trump's general direction and don't really care about the specifics
I would agree, for alot of people the ends justify the means. The specifics or how doesn't matter

I don't think that's an accurate parse of what Seriati said. And if you go based on our conversations at the moment, my inspection seems to point towards the reverse of what you're saying: that it may be the case that the means justify the ends for both his supporters (we like that he goes against convention, whatever else happens) and for his detractors (it doesn't matter what he tries to accomplish because we don't like how he does anything).

Quote
Quote
labeling Immigrants with a certain nationality as murders and rapists is not telling it as it is.
Quote
And this is what I'm talking about.  Go find the quote where this actually happened.  Oh yeah, it didn't happen

This is the problem with "Truthful Hyperbole" In many of Trumps rallies and tweets Trump implies the labeling of immigrants with murders and rapists. I'm pretty sure I heard him out right say it. But sure he didn't 'Say it', Parse out the hyperbole if you can, he only used the words in the same paragraph.

I heard him say many times that the Mexicans are sending America their criminals, which includes murders or rapists. It's up to you to parse whether that additionally means he's "equating immigrants with murderers and rapists." The issue that tends to be contentious here whether Trump's saying that is a dog whistle for "Mexicans are bad" or whether the technical accuracy or his statements are what should be considered. And yet many people, yourself included, seem to be sure he's been calling immigrants a bunch of criminals. It may be tough for people who've never lived in New York, but anyone living there is used to immigrants working everywhere, and if you're a business owner you've probably been benefiting from it. It strikes me as unlikely that Trump actually thinks such things of "immigrants" in general, being from where he's from. It would just be a weird thing for a New Yorker to think, although I guess anything's possible. I could see the "they're taking our jobs" argument (which in NYC at any rate is true) but not the "they can't be trusted" argument. Maybe he's even crazier than I think and he does think that. That still leaves it being a deliberate dog whistle to people who actually do believe it, even if he doesn't, although that makes him craftier than many would give him credit for.

Quote
Maybe its a sliding scale however on the whole for me it does not. The end is always in the beginning, debt comes due.

You're saying this to Seriati, who prefers adherence to the law over getting results?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #41 on: October 22, 2019, 10:24:59 AM »
Quote
it doesn't matter what he tries to accomplish because we don't like how he does anything

I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. For me and those the struggle parsing Trump words from intention what he tries to accomplish does matter as does How.  Its not an either or. For example, I agree with him pulling out of Syria but not the how.  I’m ok with him building the wall but can’t look away from the type rhetoric he uses to achieve his aim.  Words matter even for the guy who knows the best words

I’m not a great communicator I’m trying to figure things out, why the division is so… all or nothing. It something I’ve been observing that the division might not just be so much political but the philosophical question – Can the ends Justify the means.  Maybe Trump does need to break convention to get things done but that can be a dangerous game. What happens when the next guy that wants different things starts playing? What if breaking convention requires breaking the rule of law? I don’t know if Trump has done that, I think he likes to play on the edge, so its a fair concern.

Trump does cross ethical boundaries which is not a crime, may even be a good thing, and each of us can weight that as we will however between having to parse out his ‘truthful hyperbole’ and play of ethical boundaries/conventions… its hard. Trump makes it so dame hard to see what he’s trying to accomplish. Or maybe that's the intent.

Quote
So don't "agree with Trump," just realize he's on the right side of what needs to be done

There is so much noise. When you say what needs to be done, do you have a list of what that is. I really don’t know what he and his supporters want anymore.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #42 on: October 22, 2019, 10:48:10 AM »
Quote
I agree with him pulling out of Syria but not the how.

I also agree with that move. I would prefer that we not create a vacuum, that before making the announcement we got some kind of agreements with Turkey and made clear any diplomatic consequences, possibly getting UN peacekeeping involved, not imply the Kurds a greater threat than ISIS by way of PKK, making it clear we are not indifferent to what happens on the border because it isn't our border...

On the other hand, maybe if no one trusts us to ally with us we'll achieve my isolationist and non-interventionist dream.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #43 on: October 22, 2019, 11:48:26 AM »
Quote
I think alot of the issue is that many people agree with Trump's general direction and don't really care about the specifics
I would agree, for alot of people the ends justify the means. The specifics or how doesn't matter

Well, I think you went past what I meant on that.  They care about about how something gets implemented, and Trump's been pretty good at following the law (notwithstanding what the media says), they don't care so much about the specifics of how he says it.  I think a lot of that is a legitimate reaction to the media lying so often about what is said.

I mean honestly, something like 70% of the country wanted the border enforced pre-Trump.  Democrats and Republicans alike.  That's a problem for the political elite, cause they don't want that to happen, and particularly a problem for the Democrats are they are counting on demographic shift to deliver them a "permanent majority."  So what to do?

Exactly what they did, with help from the media, declare the situation about racism and issue an alter call.  You oppose Trump - even if he's right about the border and enforcing the actual law - because he's a "racist" and you would be one too if you don't oppose him.  It's our existing laws that are being enforced.  It's your Congress that hasn't fixed them or allowed them to be enforced for 4 decades.  It's your Congress that has not funded them sufficiently to be enforced humanely for 4 decades.

Yet everyone who acts to enforce Congress's laws is a racist or facist (and Congress is the good guy?).   

Quote
Quote
labeling Immigrants with a certain nationality as murders and rapists is not telling it as it is.
Quote
And this is what I'm talking about.  Go find the quote where this actually happened.  Oh yeah, it didn't happen

This is the problem with "Truthful Hyperbole" In many of Trumps rallies and tweets Trump implies the labeling of immigrants with murders and rapists. I'm pretty sure I heard him out right say it. But sure he didn't 'Say it', Parse out the hyperbole if you can, he only used the words in the same paragraph.

Then find it.

Calling out Trump for "truthful hyperbole" so that you can blame Trump for using the words, rather than the deliberate lie of misconstruing the words by the media annoys me.  Trump did not say Mexicans are criminals and rapists.  He did say that many criminals and rapists cross the borders, that was back when most of those crossing the border were in fact Mexican and many of the repeat crossers had extensive criminal histories (how could they not, when "enforcement" in the US has largely only deported criminals?).  Have you heard him say that about the current south American economic migrants?

Nope.  The media/DNC wants this to be a battle between "racists" and the "righteous" so that they can fundamentally shift the policy to a position that 70% of the country didn't want - and if you take out the loaded "racism" arguments still don't. 

Again, there has never been a single reason to prefer an illegal immigration system to a legal one.  If you really care why aren't you demanding your Congresspeople get to the table and fund and reform the system?  Why aren't they already doing that if this is really a battle against racism?

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #44 on: October 22, 2019, 11:57:55 AM »
Quote
I don’t know if Trump has done that, I think he likes to play on the edge, so its a fair concern.
To be fair to Trump, his opponent gives the same impression.  So I think it was more about ethics than preventing bending of the law.

Quote
That's a problem for the political elite, cause they don't want that to happen, and particularly a problem for the Democrats are they are counting on demographic shift to deliver them a "permanent majority."  So what to do?
I gotta say, if these' "political elite" crafted this mind trap they are savants.  This is as close to perfect as it gets.  Because that sure as *censored* sounds like, "We gotta stop those Democrats so they don't taint our nations white purity!"

Not to mention it also makes the bizzaro assumption that the Republican party has absolutely nothing to offer non-whites.  Yikes!  I mean.  If there IS a cabal of "political elite" out there crafting this narrative, and you know, not just the whole shining beacon inspiring people to long for a better life here in our country, because... you know, we're awesome like that, (not to mention population / birth rate demographics), then those "elites" have earned their label.  They are mighty indeed.   ::)

Quote
If you really care why aren't you demanding your Congresspeople get to the table and fund and reform the system?  Why aren't they already doing that if this is really a battle against racism?
My preferred method is penalties to the point of asset seizure for anyone employing illegals.  Then we can ramp up legal immigration when the need for those workers is painfully (economically) obvious.  The use of bigger and bigger sticks while the carrots are still left out and encouraged is reprehensible.  But both sides seem to be cool with it, because that's how our economy works!  Oh well.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2019, 12:03:57 PM by D.W. »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #45 on: October 22, 2019, 12:23:43 PM »
If you truly believe that, then what changed about "the media"?  What new skill did they develop this cycle?  I don't remember thinking any former presidents were evil incarnate.

Ellen Degeneres felt compelled to make a statment about how this event took place. I think it says a lot about the current political climate that she felt it even needed to be publicly addressed.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #46 on: October 22, 2019, 12:40:56 PM »
Immigration is a problem, labeling Immigrants with a certain nationality as murders and rapists is not telling it as it is. To agree with the Trumps policy on immigration, someone like me must be willing to parse out the 'Truthful hyperbole' as meaningless. That I cannot do.

This is the problem with "Truthful Hyperbole" In many of Trumps rallies and tweets Trump implies the labeling of immigrants with murders and rapists. I'm pretty sure I heard him out right say it. But sure he didn't 'Say it', Parse out the hyperbole if you can, he only used the words in the same paragraph.

This one again? This has been addressed by others multiple times already. That soundbite is out of context, and doesn't mean what you want to make it mean. But you clearly have your favored reality, enjoy the misery it creates.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #47 on: October 22, 2019, 12:45:50 PM »
Quote
Ellen Degeneres felt compelled to make a statment about how this event took place. I think it says a lot about the current political climate that she felt it even needed to be publicly addressed.
You say this as if it was a threat to her that she had to address or lose dollars / status.  What happened was a chance encounter was leveraged for attention.  That says a lot more about the current media climate than it does about politics.    ::)

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #48 on: October 22, 2019, 12:48:35 PM »
Immigration is a problem, labeling Immigrants with a certain nationality as murders and rapists is not telling it as it is. To agree with the Trumps policy on immigration, someone like me must be willing to parse out the 'Truthful hyperbole' as meaningless. That I cannot do.

This is the problem with "Truthful Hyperbole" In many of Trumps rallies and tweets Trump implies the labeling of immigrants with murders and rapists. I'm pretty sure I heard him out right say it. But sure he didn't 'Say it', Parse out the hyperbole if you can, he only used the words in the same paragraph.

This one again? This has been addressed by others multiple times already. That soundbite is out of context, and doesn't mean what you want to make it mean. But you clearly have your favored reality, enjoy the misery it creates.

Ok ok ok I get it - I should have used the word implying or insinuating vice labeling.  Trump never says what he says unless he says it. wink, wink, knowing smile.


Quote
Then find it.

Calling out Trump for "truthful hyperbole" so that you can blame Trump for using the words, rather than the deliberate lie of misconstruing the words by the media annoys me

Yes Trump has the best words, perfect, absolutely no possibility of failing to understand his meaning or intent.  "Truthful hyperbole is the best possible method of communicating and getting things done

You win, Your right about everything, how could I be so stupid

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: hey moderator
« Reply #49 on: October 22, 2019, 12:57:25 PM »
I’m done
I thought we were having a dialog about communication, but I used a bad example which triggered the usual response which I think proves my point.
 
The “left”, whatever that is, aren’t the only one that get stuck by being triggered – god I hate that I used that word. No communication is possible, conventions have been broken. Its all our nothing.