Where is the Common Ground?

[MattusMaximus]

In reference to the OP:
There's a reason why Trump's approval ratings cannot crack above the lower 40s or upper 30s. He's just a self-absorbed, arrogant jerk.

 

[MattusMaximus]

You should mostly ignore what he says, yes. What he does is a different matter, but you don't need to read his tweets to follow that.

Good point.

I encourage everyone here who is interested in doing something constructive to push back against Trump to stop hanging on his every word. Instead, get involved in politics to bring about effective change. This article emphasizes this point quite well...

“... being anti-Trump is not enough. To build an electoral majority Democrats must come together and embrace an economic policy agenda that boldly and decisively reclaims the majoritarian center. And this will require sacrifices from progressives and centrists alike.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/14/democrats-must-reclaim-the-center-by-moving-hard-left-219354

 

[tyr_13]

Good point.

I encourage everyone here who is interested in doing something constructive to push back against Trump to stop hanging on his every word. Instead, get involved in politics to bring about effective change. This article emphasizes this point quite well...


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/14/democrats-must-reclaim-the-center-by-moving-hard-left-219354

Thanks for the link! That article articulates a point I've tried to make a few times, but failed to.

 

[theprestige]

I think it was Dan Rather who pointed out that there could come a crisis where it's very important that the American public believes Trump, but most of them won't. That's your new normal; I greatly prefer the old one.

The tragicomedy of appealing to the authority of Dan Rather aside, this isn't the "new" normal at all. Do you think half the country would have believed Hillary Clinton, in a similar situation? Or Barack Obama? Or George W. Bush? And I bet it goes back even further than that.

Hell, we once had a president who had so thoroughly lost the public's unified trust that half the country started a war over it.

Special pleading is not the way to argue that Trump is especially bad.

Also, you really shouldn't cite Dan Rather as an authority on anything.

 

[tyr_13]

So he's crossed the line for you. Do you expect him to cross back? Now that he's crossed, do you care about how many times he crosses it again?

What new information do you gain by continuing to pay attention to everything he says? Is he actually saying anything new? Do you hope to accomplish something by listening to him? What do you think that will be?

Trump uses Twitter to make official statements. At least three times, new policy or changes have been announced first by Trump on Twitter. What he says there matters a lot, even if you discount knowing how the bully pulpit is steering national discourse.

It's practically a civic duty to keep at least somewhat aware of what he is saying there. That what he is saying is generally horrible doesn't change that. The new information is what fresh kind hell he's vomited from his abyss.

Not all horrible things are the same after all.

 

[theprestige]

Trump uses Twitter to make official statements. At least three times, new policy or changes have been announced first by Trump on Twitter.

Another way to look at it is that Trump spews a lot of random crap on Twitter, and occasionally takes action on something he referred to on Twitter. So instead of saying, "this is important!" about every tweet, you could conceivably wait and see what he actually does. That's what I do, and it works pretty well. Of course, I'm tuning out all the overhyped buffoonery, so my view of his presidency is substantially less the-sky-is-falling than the view seen by people who who insist on taking all his tweets seriously.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Another way to look at it is that Trump spews a lot of random crap on Twitter, and occasionally takes action on something he referred to on Twitter. So instead of saying, "this is important!" about every tweet

To many people, it's important that the president "spews a lot of random crap on Twitter, and occasionally takes action on something he referred to on Twitter". It's not good that the president of anywhere behave like that, much less of the U. Freaking S. We're supposed to be better than that. He's turned us into the garbage television he once performed in.

 

[Fudbucker]

To many people, it's important that the president "spews a lot of random crap on Twitter, and occasionally takes action on something he referred to on Twitter". It's not good that the president of anywhere behave like that, much less of the U. Freaking S. We're supposed to be better than that. He's turned us into the garbage television he once performed in.

I guess the SCOTUS appointment was that important. And the Hillary hatred.

 

[theprestige]

I guess the SCOTUS appointment was that important.

Damn right it was. I'm talking about the makeup of the Supreme Court, and you're telling me my priority should be what's happening on Twitter. That's pretty messed up.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Damn right it was. I'm talking about the makeup of the Supreme Court, and you're telling me my priority should be what's happening on Twitter. That's pretty messed up.

Please quote a post where someone said the mad Twitter behavior of President Crazy is more important than his other behavior. Do you not understand how multiple things can be important, and to different degrees?

 

[WilliamSeger]

The tragicomedy of appealing to the authority of Dan Rather aside, this isn't the "new" normal at all. Do you think half the country would have believed Hillary Clinton, in a similar situation? Or Barack Obama? Or George W. Bush? And I bet it goes back even further than that.

Hell, we once had a president who had so thoroughly lost the public's unified trust that half the country started a war over it.

Special pleading is not the way to argue that Trump is especially bad.

Also, you really shouldn't cite Dan Rather as an authority on anything.

When you attack a man of integrity to defend a man who has none, that says more about you than it does Rather.

 

[theprestige]

Please quote a post where someone said the mad Twitter behavior of President Crazy is more important than his other behavior.

Done and done.

Do you not understand how multiple things can be important, and to different degrees?

Oh, absolutely. That's why I care about SCOTUS appointments much more than tweets. And I already quoted Fudbucker chiding me for that priority.

 

[theprestige]

When you attack a man of integrity to defend a man who has none, that says more about you than it does Rather.

First, Dan Rather isn't a man of integrity.

Second, your argument depends on an appeal to authority, which merits attack on that basis alone.

Third, your argument depends on special pleading, which merits attack on that basis alone.

Fourth, your rebuttal depends on an ad hominem, and thus doesn't actually defend against the attack your argument has earned on its own merits.

Fifth, I have reported your personalization of the debate, attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

 

[Ziggurat]

You can't even be honest about that. He acknowledged that the documents were a fraud.

Long after he should have, and after his attempts to defend their authenticity failed.

He still believes the story that they supposedly documented, and he isn't the only one.

Seriously? You're using "fake but accurate" as a defense of Rather's credibility?

Bwahahahahaha!

But no, Rather got duped

Rather was a willing participant in his own beclowning.

therefore not only was the whole story a fraud, but Rather has no credibility

Yes.

therefore his comment about having a President who cannot be believed can be dismissed with a funny gif.

If you want to make an argument about Trump's credibility independent from Dan Rather, go ahead. There's fertile ground for criticism. But Dan Rather isn't saying anything new. The only reason to bring him into this is as an appeal to authority. But it's one of the worst authorities you could pick on the issue of credibility. So yeah, I'm going to dismiss anything Rather has to say about credibility as being a joke. Because Rather is a joke. And the memo forger didn't make him a joke, he did that to himself.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Trump uses Twitter to make official statements. At least three times, new policy or changes have been announced first by Trump on Twitter. What he says there matters a lot, even if you discount knowing how the bully pulpit is steering national discourse.

You should know better than to pay attention to official policies of the executive. That would be like taking anything the press secretary says literally.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Fifth, I have reported your personalization of the debate, attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

If you read it, I'm good.

 

[theprestige]

If you want to make an argument about Trump's credibility independent from Dan Rather, go ahead. There's fertile ground for criticism. But Dan Rather isn't saying anything new. The only reason to bring him into this is as an appeal to authority. But it's one of the worst authorities you could pick on the issue of credibility. So yeah, I'm going to dismiss anything Rather has to say about credibility as being a joke. Because Rather is a joke. And the memo forger didn't make him a joke, he did that to himself.

And look at how the beclowning continues. WilliamSeger wants to talk about Trump's credibility. But having hung his argument on Dan Rather's credibility, he's now stuck having to talk about Dan Rather instead of Trump.

The funniest part is, the basic premise is actually worth serious consideration, even if it came from no higher authority than WilliamSeger himself. There was no need to gild the lily by dragging Dan Rather into it.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

In reference to the OP:
There's a reason why Trump's approval ratings cannot crack above the lower 40s or upper 30s. He's just a self-absorbed, arrogant jerk.

Rasmussen had him at 50% approval yesterday.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Rasmussen had him at 50% approval yesterday.

Deplorable.

 

[WilliamSeger]

And look at how the beclowning continues. WilliamSeger wants to talk about Trump's credibility. But having hung his argument on Dan Rather's credibility, he's now stuck having to talk about Dan Rather instead of Trump.

The funniest part is, the basic premise is actually worth serious consideration, even if it came from no higher authority than WilliamSeger himself. There was no need to gild the lily by dragging Dan Rather into it.

Nope, what we're seeing is Trump and the trumpers at the last bulwark, trying to defend the indefensible with no weapons left except slandering all critics, hoping to put the critics on the defensive. I'm not playing that game anymore, but since you're in to logic stuff, here's a tip: a prediction is not an "argument."