President Trump: Part II

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think your memory may be letting you down, he insulted plenty of Americans including veterans, a disabled person etc.

... a war hero, the family of a war hero who died saving others, women who had "blood coming out of wherever", fat people, .....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And you're okay with all that?

Contrary to your premise that Trump's supporters deserve respect you are characterizing them as fools who fell for a snake oil saleman.

You are all over the map here--first Clinton lost because she was nasty, then she lost because she wasn't nasty in the right way, Trump's supporters deserve respect, Trump's supporters voted for him because he exploited their fears and emotions...It's almost sounding as if you don't have a coherent argument at all, you're just scrabbling to justify attacking Clinton.

Cognitive dissonance is really in this year.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I do get where you're coming from, though disagree with your ultimate conclusion. Surely people should call out scummy or really seriously idiotic behaviour and support of same? As I say, this is not a minor difference in economic policy, this is a man who is advocating torture, wants to regress laws back to the 1970's, and thinks putting a tariff on Mexican imports means Mexico is paying for the wall. I would suggest, yes some may be taking it too far and maybe you've gone too far down the understanding route and the truth, as mostly, is somewhere inbetween but now I'm in danger of being reasonable and I didn't intend that

It's a scary place, reasonablenessland.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Have fun with that, I guess. I personally find that being happy insulting about half the people I interact with doesn't really move any of my objectives forward

Actually where I live we rip the piss out of and insult the people we like and are polite to those we can't stand* but this is the internet so I'm just being a bit of an internet warrior on a Friday night. It is my initial visceral reaction to the election result though...

*It has confused the hell out of people from out of the cares sometimes.

 

[Giz]

I highlighted what looks to me to be projection.

I'm gobsmacked. I'm trying to be helpful and proffer practical advice. (I think you may be projecting about me projecting.)

 

[NoahFence]

Well, I also spent the next week being appalled by the magnitude of hatred and contempt being indiscriminately leveled at conservatives. I'm still a bit shocked by the complete lack of empathy and consideration being shown by the party that I have traditionally associated with compassion and a willingness to fairly consider the perspective of others.

“I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married.”

“I did try and **** her. She was married.”
Donald Trump Makes a Point

“Just kiss. I don’t even wait," he added, noting that "when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

“Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

What the hell do you expect? Conservatives have spent every waking moment since forever telling us how they're the party of values.

"He's not a war hero," Trump said. "He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured."

What the hell do you expect? Conservatives have spent every waking moment since forever telling us how they're the party that bleeds red, white and blue.

I'll ask a third time.

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT????

 

[Emily's Cat]

Things like

when that is EXACTLY what Clinton was getting at.

What she intended was at odds with the perception of the message she delivered. I'm not (and have not been) disagreeing with what I infer her intent to have been. I am observing that she failed to execute on that intent. The reasonable expectation of her approach is at odds with her intent.

This thing you're doing, where Clinton's description of some of Trump's supporters as irredeemable is horribly offensive to you when it suits you, but then you're a moderately conservative independent who shouldn't be tarred with that brush because you're above all this party politics when it doesn't suit you? I don't like it.

I don't particularly care if you don't like it. I do care to a degree whether or not you understand it.

Her remarks did not come off as being aimed at a small number of people. They came off as being a very, very big brush.

That same brush is being used in this thread in order to tar everyone who didn't vote for Clinton.

Clinton's own supporters can't manage to keep her intended message clear. Many people likely perceived themselves as being the target of that message from Clinton, and were then treated directly as targets of that message from her supporters. How do you expect people to react?

 

[NoahFence]

Trump was nasty to Clinton. Trump was nasty to foreigners. Trump wasn't nasty to the people that he was trying to convince to vote for him.

Alternative fact?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm gobsmacked. I'm trying to be helpful and proffer practical advice. (I think you may be projecting about me projecting.)

How do you figure my goal is "reaching out across the aisle to build a broad coalition"?

Which post of mine misled you to think I was doing that?

By projection I mean, Emily's Cat decided we were all failing to do this, but I was never trying to build any broad coalition in the first place.

I happen to believe elections are all about marketing, not courting people with understanding. Right now I'm curious how Trump voters are progressing to regret or not progressing.

 

[Tero]

Trump must be very frustrated. He signed all those things and now he has to wait. Nothing much happened other than the UK lady pawing him a bit.

Freezing all federal hiring, he has stopped all temps. All federal forest fire fighters are temps.

And we are building a wall..fence.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I highlighted what looks to me to be projection.

First, I'm not campaigning here. Where did that come from? Oh that's right, from Emily's Cat telling people they should be nicer to the other side. Never mind the boggling irony, who the hell is campaigning?

You are. You always are. As long as you hold a fundamentally democratic position with your beliefs and your views, you are campaigning. You may not intend to be doing so, but that is still the effect of your actions.

I don't have a sales pitch.

Yes, you do. Everything discussion you engage in that deals with partisanship or party preference is a sales pitch, whether you are aware of it or not. You are always selling your party's perspective to the middle-of-the-road majority as well as to your political opponents. Every time you discuss politics this is what is happening. It is always an ongoing ceaseless game of influence and persuasion. That is part of what I am trying to convey to you. You, as a supporter of the Democratic Party, are a de facto representative of that party's ideals and positions. Your behavior, your interactions on the topic of politics is always a reflection of your party's positions.

At the moment, however, it's a very ineffective sales pitch.

I'm asking the people responsible for POTUS Trump if they have yet recognized what they've done? Or are they still under the magic con artist spell that Trump will step up and be Presidential any day now?

How do you envision that this method of interaction will sway people to support your view?

 

[Emily's Cat]

How dare we blame the GOP for the GOP candidate winning?

Skeptical Ginger, do you understand that you're NOT blaiming the GOP? You're blaming everyone who didn't vote for Clinton. *Most* people are not registered Republicans or Democrats. *Most* people are independents.

No, I don't have empathy at the moment. Did you notice how the first week has gone? Why are conservatives off the hook? Because they didn't mean it? They aren't really like that? They're really all mellow pot smoking Libertarians?

It's the Democrats fault because Clinton called out the bigots supporting Trump?

It is your fault because you alienated and berated the "other side" throughout the entire campaign. You, the supporters, not Clinton. It's Clinton's fault that she made thoughtless comments. But it's your fault, you the supporters, for failing to clarify that and for failing to act with the intent of her comment. It's your fault because you cast anyone who disagreed with you as a bigot and as deplorable. Not the actual bigots, but anyone who didn't pick up your banner and run by your side. It's your fault because you used the biggest brush you could find to tar everyone who showed the slightest inclination to disagree with you. It's your fault that you continue to do so, even after the election is over.

And unless you alter your tactics, it will be your fault if you lose the next election and this buffoon of a president gets re-elected.

 

[wareyin]

What she intended was at odds with the perception of the message she delivered. I'm not (and have not been) disagreeing with what I infer her intent to have been. I am observing that she failed to execute on that intent. The reasonable expectation of her approach is at odds with her intent.


I don't particularly care if you don't like it. I do care to a degree whether or not you understand it.

Her remarks did not come off as being aimed at a small number of people. They came off as being a very, very big brush.

That same brush is being used in this thread in order to tar everyone who didn't vote for Clinton.

Clinton's own supporters can't manage to keep her intended message clear. Many people likely perceived themselves as being the target of that message from Clinton, and were then treated directly as targets of that message from her supporters. How do you expect people to react?

Do you know why Clinton's remarks came off as being a very, very big brush? Because dishonest people ignore the actual words she said in order to "translate" her meaning (or their claimed perception of her meaning) into something that they could then claim was objectionable. 'How dare she say what I translated her statement to!' said the person who was never going to vote Democratic anyway! And lo, because Clinton literally said that some of half of Trump's supporters were irredeemable deplorables, Right-wing spin machines lept to say Clinton insulted "half the country".

 

[Beelzebuddy]

What she intended was at odds with the perception of the message she delivered. I'm not (and have not been) disagreeing with what I infer her intent to have been. I am observing that she failed to execute on that intent. The reasonable expectation of her approach is at odds with her intent.

Well, there's the rub. You prefer to argue against your perception of the thing, despite knowing that your perception is incorrect. That's dishonest. And it was only by forcing you to admit that your perception is incorrect that the dishonesty is laid bare. And it took a couple of posts - you kept trying to proffer your straw man instead.

The next step, if you'll care to follow me down this rabbit hole of self-exploration, is to examine why you perceive it the way you do. Why is this out-of-context statement the one that gets focused on as being so important (despite it being knowingly incorrect), and not, to pick a statement of Trump's almost at random, his "blood coming out of her wherever, that's digusting" comment that directly insulted literally half of the country?

 

[wareyin]

Skeptical Ginger, do you understand that you're NOT blaiming the GOP? You're blaming everyone who didn't vote for Clinton. *Most* people are not registered Republicans or Democrats. *Most* people are independents.



It is your fault because you alienated and berated the "other side" throughout the entire campaign. You, the supporters, not Clinton. It's Clinton's fault that she made thoughtless comments. But it's your fault, you the supporters, for failing to clarify that and for failing to act with the intent of her comment. It's your fault because you cast anyone who disagreed with you as a bigot and as deplorable. Not the actual bigots, but anyone who didn't pick up your banner and run by your side. It's your fault because you used the biggest brush you could find to tar everyone who showed the slightest inclination to disagree with you. It's your fault that you continue to do so, even after the election is over.

And unless you alter your tactics, it will be your fault if you lose the next election and this buffoon of a president gets re-elected.

You know how you've conveniently white-washed Trump's campaign as not sexist (blood coming out of her wherever, look at that {Carly Fiona's} face), not racist (inner cities are hell-holes, stop and frisk), etc? Perhaps, just maybe, you might also be underestimating/ignoring/excusing the actual bigoted actions of those that people called bigots?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Actually where I live we rip the piss out of and insult the people we like and are polite to those we can't stand* but this is the internet so I'm just being a bit of an internet warrior on a Friday night. It is my initial visceral reaction to the election result though...

*It has confused the hell out of people from out of the cares sometimes.

We do too... but usually only after we get to know them fairly well. We don't generally start in on the acquaintances and coworkers that we think are cool out of the blue .

I almost never do so on the interwebs, because the inflection isn't there. It's impossible to infer facial expression and intonation accurately from written text alone. I suppose I could try the whole "live writing" thing, but frankly I found that annoying when I was exposed to it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How do you figure my goal is "reaching out across the aisle to build a broad coalition"?

Which post of mine misled you to think I was doing that?

By projection I mean, Emily's Cat decided we were all failing to do this, but I was never trying to build any broad coalition in the first place.

I happen to believe elections are all about marketing, not courting people with understanding. Right now I'm curious how Trump voters are progressing to regret or not progressing.

Now that you have clarified your intent, I shall no longer engage with you.

 

[dudalb]

Trump must be very frustrated. He signed all those things and now he has to wait. Nothing much happened other than the UK lady pawing him a bit.

Freezing all federal hiring, he has stopped all temps. All federal forest fire fighters are temps.

And we are building a wall..fence.

THe last think I want to do is say anthing favorable to Trump, but I work for a Federal Land Agency,and word has already been passed that firefighters will be exempt from the freeze. Even Trump is not that stupid.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you know why Clinton's remarks came off as being a very, very big brush? Because dishonest people ignore the actual words she said in order to "translate" her meaning (or their claimed perception of her meaning) into something that they could then claim was objectionable. 'How dare she say what I translated her statement to!' said the person who was never going to vote Democratic anyway! And lo, because Clinton literally said that some of half of Trump's supporters were irredeemable deplorables, Right-wing spin machines lept to say Clinton insulted "half the country".

"She gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions," Trump said in a CNN interview. "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever. In my opinion, she was off base."

(On Saturday morning, Trump tweeted that he was referring to Kelly's nose. His campaign also issued a statement, claiming Trump said "whatever" instead of "wherever," while again repeating that the reference was to her nose.)

I'm gong to go ahead and say that both sides are guilty of re-interpreting statements in the worst possible way.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are. You always are. As long as you hold a fundamentally democratic position with your beliefs and your views, you are campaigning. You may not intend to be doing so, but that is still the effect of your actions.

Didn't you just complain about someone telling you what you think when they couldn't possibly know? Now you say this nonsense to me?

Yes, you do. Everything discussion you engage in that deals with partisanship or party preference is a sales pitch, whether you are aware of it or not. You are always selling your party's perspective to the middle-of-the-road majority as well as to your political opponents. Every time you discuss politics this is what is happening. It is always an ongoing ceaseless game of influence and persuasion. That is part of what I am trying to convey to you. You, as a supporter of the Democratic Party, are a de facto representative of that party's ideals and positions. Your behavior, your interactions on the topic of politics is always a reflection of your party's positions.

At the moment, however, it's a very ineffective sales pitch.

How do you envision that this method of interaction will sway people to support your view?

For the record, I'm not trying to sway anyone. I'm curious about the workings of the human mind. But you go right on with your alt-reality. You seem at home there.