The Trump Presidency 15

[phiwum]

Funny, but if you follow the Twitter discussions that Travis is alluding to and the comment pages on any major new site, it seems those folks in red areas think that folks in big cities are a monolithic entity who all gleefully play their straw man role in the Great Liberal Plantation System, not being able to think for themselves, and relying on the hard work of the American Heartland to get by!

What is what Travis is doing any worse than what Trump does? It's called "turnabout is fair play". Y'all make fun of my big city attitudes and I'll make fun of yours.

Oh, and why do the statistics not bear out your idea that all the folks in Ruraltania are happy there and wouldn't move to a big city if their lives depended on it. Seems that whole legions of them have been migrating to bigger cities for about four generations, now.

No, you're not a Trumpista, but you're a conservative and some of those myths die hard. The irony is that those "OMG I'm being ignored because I'm rural or in "a flyover state"" people happily ignore that the majority of the country lives in cities and disagrees with most of their self-serving politics.

This whole pissing contest about whether living in the city or the country is better is an embarrassment to all participating. (I do not mean Fast Eddie B here.)

Yes, Trump gets into these stupid topics. The fact that we can see how childish his arguments are ought to be a warning not to enter the same arena, not a challenge to do better.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I think we can learn a lot from Mueller about how to deal with Trump: ignore him or say "so what?".

 

[newyorkguy]

..."Yeah, who wants to live in Seattle or San Francisco when they can enjoy Parkersburg, West Virginia!"

That's pretty good. I have to remember that.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I voted for President Trump and I intend to vote for him again. He isn't perfect and I realize that but when you consider the Bernie Sanders consequences which include socialism and a huge burden on taxpayers caused by his giveaway programs Trump was the only option. Hillary Clinton was no better. There's a good chance she's and her husband are murderers.

If Trump loses Americas downfall will be sooner. If he wins Americas fall with be later. I fully expect the Marxist crowd to win after 2024 but at least we will have four more years of America first governing.

Scared white boomers. Trump is amoral, dumb as a box of rocks, utterly ignorant of the values that America stood for and is destroying them. You handed the keys to your house to some selfish and disrespectful ******** and they are trashing the place, including your family’s prized possessions.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I think we can learn a lot from Mueller about how to deal with Trump: ignore him or say "so what?".

And lose anyway, but with dignity?

 

[Mumbles]

Yeah, that's why people should avoid social media discussions.

You do know that you're on a form of social media right now...right?

 

[JoeMorgue]

And lose anyway, but with dignity?

That seems to be what's important to a lot of people.

"The moral high ground I'm watching my opponent's victory party from is SOOOOOOOOOOOO tall right now guys..."

 

[Armitage72]

I don't think I've seen this much use of "socialism" as a right-wing terror word for about 60 years, when the socialist nightmare being discussed was -- wait for it -- Medicare.
Actual Communism having essentially died 30 years ago, it's all they've got.

That's what they want you to think. Massive numbers of Communist agents are lurking in the universities, unions, and Democratic Party, just waiting for the signal to rise up and conquer America. I heard it on AM talk radio.

 

[phiwum]

That seems to be what's important to a lot of people.

"The moral high ground I'm watching my opponent's victory party from is SOOOOOOOOOOOO tall right now guys..."

If the alternative is to adopt the same playbook as the current GOP, lying without shame and accepting the lies of trolls sponsored by hostile foreign governments, then yes, I'll take dignity.

Because once one decides that winning is the only thing that matters, they're unlikely to change their position once it works. A politician that puts political advantage as the top priority won't work for the national good. I don't see any reason I should prefer one self-serving and amoral party over another.

Of course, there can be a matter of degrees. One can bend some principles without breaking them. Perhaps that's a reasonable compromise, though it's damned difficult to find the sweet spot where one can compete against an amoral opponent by bending principles without becoming amoral oneself.

You seem to suggest that beating Trump is the overriding goal here. It's important, but so is retaining enough virtue to govern well.

 

[Tolls]

You do know that you're on a form of social media right now...right?

Yes, but this is a different class of social media entirely...

 

[Foolmewunz]

Is “What Trump does?” our new standard? And tu quoque is a thing.




Straw man much?

I understand there’s a lot of liberal bias here, and many liberal arguments have won me over. But to state that no one wants to live in any of the red areas of America seems the mirror image of Trump saying no one can live in Baltimore. Painting cartoonish stereotypes does nothing to help unite the country or promote dialog.

Are you actually arguing that your generalizations and hyperbole are superior to Travis'? You did state that the people in those states wouldn't want to move, didn't you. Did you mean ALL the people in those areas? Not likely. Do you really think Travis meant No One In The History of Civilization would want to visit Parkersburg? Equally, not likely, but out of kneejerk reaction, you created your own hyperbole to offset his.

You do realize that what Travis is describing is taunting. It is intentionally so. ITRW people aren't constantly debating the pseudo-intellectual No True Skeptic fallacy. This political season, it's a war. Do I want to see this sort of childishness in the Presidential Debates in 2020? No. But we're talking Twitter and comments on news articles. Have at each other, I say.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Yeah, that's why people should avoid social media discussions.

Sez you! Not your cup of tea? Avoid them. Others may not agree.

 

[Foolmewunz]

This whole pissing contest about whether living in the city or the country is better is an embarrassment to all participating. (I do not mean Fast Eddie B here.)

Yes, Trump gets into these stupid topics. The fact that we can see how childish his arguments are ought to be a warning not to enter the same arena, not a challenge to do better.

Same to you. (See comment to Belz.)


You want to stay clear of childish debates, do so. A whole lot of people find them entertaining.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That's what they want you to think. Massive numbers of Communist agents are lurking in the universities, unions, and Democratic Party, just waiting for the signal to rise up and conquer America. I heard it on AM talk radio.

Communism is just a red herring (thank you, Wadsworth). The real conspirators are Tories, seeking to undo the American Revolution and return British rule!

 

[phiwum]

Same to you. (See comment to Belz.)


You want to stay clear of childish debates, do so. A whole lot of people find them entertaining.

No doubt they do. But childish debates are an embarrassment, whether the participants are embarrassed or not.

(Here, I must add that in the privacy of my family and friends, I participate in some embarrassing debates. No one is perfect.)

 

[JoeMorgue]

If the alternative is to adopt the same playbook as the current GOP, lying without shame and accepting the lies of trolls sponsored by hostile foreign governments, then yes, I'll take dignity.

And I think "There's no way we could be any more effective without SELLING OUT OUR VERY SOULS!" is a fine mentality for a political party who has always struggled with... you know politics, to have to make themselves feel better about themselves.

Hillary didn't make one campaign stop or run one single ad in the "Blue Wall" states that she lost. Tell me how doing that would have been "Just acting like the Republicans."

This mythology that the Dems have done everything possible and doing anything more is some sort of betrayal of self is a very dangerous one.

 

[phiwum]

And I think "There's no way we could be any more effective without SELLING OUT OUR VERY SOULS!" is a fine mentality for a political party who has always struggled with... you know politics, to have.

Hillary didn't make one campaign stop or run one single ad in the "Blue Wall" states that she lost. Telling me how doing that would have been "Just acting like the Republicans."

This mythology that the Dems have done everything possible and doing anything more is some sort of betrayal of self is a very dangerous one.

Surely, campaigning in Blue Wall states would have been a smart thing to do. Who disputes that? Who says that it's better to lose with dignity rather than campaign in Blue Wall states?

Who has said that the Dems have done everything possible and morally acceptable to win? Not I. But your post seemed to suggest that they should adopt underhanded strategies to compete. If this is not what you meant, it's not clear what you're advocating nor who your arguing against.

No one that I know suggests that the Democrats should learn nothing from the last election. Of course they should change certain strategies. Doing so has *****all to do with dignity.

ETA: You snipped most of my post, but the part that you left in was clear enough. It started with an "if". I did not assert that the only way to beat Trump was to become Trump. I said that if this is the only apparent way, then it's better to lose. I didn't suggest that it is the only way nor that one ought to give up searching for a winning strategy.

Edited by jsfisher: 

Edited 'cause the swearbot isn't perfect.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I must say, all these Sleeper Agents are very sound sleepers: they have overslept the Revolution since the 60's.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If this is not what you meant, it's not clear what you're advocating nor who your arguing against.

Well then I'm rather confused because you are the one who responded to my comment to Belz, so if you aren't arguing against my point I'm confused as to what your point way.

It's coming increasingly common and annoying to keep having to stop discussion to have the "Who's arguing otherwise?" hijack with people who started the "otherwise."

In other words... if you think the Dems can still do more without going to far... I wasn't talking to you.

 

[alfaniner]

re:Ratcliffe
My takeaway from his Performance at the Mueller hearing last week was this:
If this guy showed up in a TV show, I'd automatically peg him as the ******* who's going to be a colossal dick to the protagonists.