Attention, Trump Supporters

[74x12]

Here is a bit of history of what Dems stand for. I’m not democrat though I’m independent. I vote Repub Indoendent or Dem depending.

I'm independent as well, but I found this humorous because I was thinking ... one single thing? Okay how about emancipation of slaves?

 

[Curious George]

It's also because they see these proposals as more doable than changing the economic system for the benefit of all. Heck, even Democrats are embracing the Republican positions when it comes to economic policy, as both parties view capitalism as sacrosanct. If they can't challenge the wealthiest 1%, then they'll go after easier targets. It's the same old story all throughout history.

You have missed my point. I am not talking about all proposals. I am talking about fear mongering and hyperbole. I agree that it is a problem. Here you are trying to excuse it or downplay it on one side after you mentioned it as a problem.

The only real solution from the Democratic point of view is to be more amenable to making fundamental changes in the economic system. But if they're too stubborn and obstinate to do that (which I can sense that they are), then this is what we get.

This is vague. Just say what you mean.

Well, he's a New Yorker, and New Yorkers are known to be abrasive, foul-mouthed blowhards.

I have known plenty of New Yorkers that do not fit this description. That sounds like an excuse that avoids the issue. The idea is that "being a foul mouth blowhard" has consequences. Therefore these attributes should be considered.

But there's also the other side of the coin, where some people want a strong leader and get tired of soft-spoken wimps. They want someone who's tough, who will stand up for America, not lay down and give in. As for being helpful diplomatically, much of the world has seen America as some kind of weakened, soft, helpless giant to be easily taken advantage of. That clearly hasn't been good for us these past decades. It's allowed other countries to take advantage of us on trade policies, and it's emboldened terrorists to take advantage of our internal weaknesses - among other things.

I am not arguingthat demeanor should not be considered. While I do not think it should be the only factor, how someone behaves does matter. Please note you have been the one to move to a hyperbolic ad hominem by implying that the opponents (And perhaps the past presidents) were "soft-spoken wimps."

As for the groups that Trump has alienated, that may very well be, but I see those same groups as the ones who have been at the forefront in weakening America. They have favored free trade which has all but devastated our economy and gives our trade partners license to walk all over us and loot America. They seem especially upset about alienating our "allies," but our relationship with our allies has only been one way. They want us to bend over backwards for the benefit of our allies, while not caring one scintilla about America or its people.

That sounds like an actual argument about actual policies. We may disagree here but we could very well have a discussion about American foreign policy.

I don't think some people realize just how fed up a lot of Americans are with the political elite insisting on policies and attitudes which have turned America into the doormat of the world.

I don't think you realize how hyperbolic this sounds.

Well, as I said, he's a blowhard, and he's "politically incorrect." Some of what gets lambasted as "racially charged statements" are really just low-grade, innocuous stuff, but I consider political correctness to be as irrational as anything.

Political correctness certainly plays a role. You want to say they are innocuous statements, but that is just trying to rationalize the statements away. Words do matter. I understand taking the position that the statements were innocuous, but I disagree. They did indeed have an effect. They could hardly be categorized as harmless.

People point out molehills and try to convince everyone that they're mountains. Well, no, they're molehills. People are trying to say that he's Hitler. That's where the trickery and manipulation come into play, by pulling out a few innocuous examples and trying to make people think it's something different than what it actually is.

I am not arguing that he is Hitler. You are indeed, yourself, making mountains out of mole hills and speaking in hyperbole if you are trying to characterize my post as making mountains of mole hills or arguing that Trump is Hitler. If you have so much disdain for that approach, why are you so quick to take it. If this is not what you are doing, and you agree that I have not done that, then why not address my actual points?

I'm not ignoring anything, but there are two sides to every issue.

I did not say there were not other sides.

If you and others are correct about Trump being some kind of horrible person, I think you'd have to come up with something more substantial than what has already been alleged.

Where did I say he was a horrible person? You mentioned that hyperbolic arguments?

What I see a lot of is what I alluded to in post #54



This is how "political correctness" works; it's a kind of peer pressure and manipulative gaslighting. When the issue is pressed and people ask for specifics, they seem to come up empty-handed. Oh, sure, they can parrot the same talking points they hear in the media, but I've already heard all those talking points too, so they're just telling me stuff I already know. Once those points are addressed and refuted, then they have no place else to go - other than the usual tactics of ridicule, manipulation, and self-righteous condescension.

The "Emperor's New Clothes" gambit (or any of its variations) can only work for a little while. If you keep doing it over and over and over again, then more people will get wise to it and start to call BS. That's what is happening now, and the anti-Trump crowd can't think of anything else to do except spew out more of the same.

what exactly have I said with which you are taking issue Here?

Why keep using a tactic that's proving to be ineffective?

Maybe you have wrongly assumed some people are using a tactic when they are not.

It's not so much about the stock market, although that seems to keep some people happy. It's the consequences of the ruling class ignoring and alienating large chunks of the American population, such as the people in "flyover country" that the Coastals like to scorn and ridicule so much. You speak of Trump offending and alienating certain groups, but the political elite along the Coasts have been doing that for decades in regards to the people of Middle America. They've been doing that for a long time, and many people have grown tired and fed up with Coastal arrogance, hypocrisy, and mendacity.

And that is a valid discussion about those who have done such. When you are just pointing fingers in other directions instead of focusing on the discussion, it seems disingenuous. If this is what you would rather discuss, fine. I am happy to discuss that, but that is not what we are discussing here. If you are arguing that despite his demeanor, Trump was better than alternatives, that is ok too. But your original argument was that focusing on demeanor was irrational. Those are very different perspectives.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The agenda continues whether you elect a Republican or Democrat. Who'd a thunk it?

Uh-huh.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm independent as well, but I found this humorous because I was thinking ... one single thing? Okay how about emancipation of slaves?

Anything this century?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Case in point.

I don't support him but I applaud his efforts to totally mess with the media. One Trump tweet and the monkeies scream and howl.

 

[74x12]

What a pointless, irrelevant comment.

It's not partisan enough for you. They make politics seem simple. Literally red vs. blue. It's not really like that though.

Anything this century?

Some of the things on that list are over 100 years old.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Some of the things on that list are over 100 years old.

Rather my point. Anything from less than a hundred years ago? How about anything from the last decade, even?

 

[ecco]

Forget about any reason you may have had for not wanting Hillary Clinton in office. That's in the past. Trump won the election and now serves as our President. My question to you is,

Why do you continue to support Trump?


.​

The same thing that got him elected. Simplisticism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But there's also the other side of the coin, where some people want a strong leader and get tired of soft-spoken wimps. They want someone who's tough, who will stand up for America, not lay down and give in. As for being helpful diplomatically, much of the world has seen America as some kind of weakened, soft, helpless giant to be easily taken advantage of. That clearly hasn't been good for us these past decades. It's allowed other countries to take advantage of us on trade policies, and it's emboldened terrorists to take advantage of our internal weaknesses - among other things.

So you think it's bad when a leader gets portrayed like this on the world stage?

Canada (Toronto Star):

Opinion | Theo Moudakis: Trump and Kim

Norway (VG) - note: not actually banned by Facebook:

VG+: Tidsånden flirer ikke lenger

The UK (Sunday Times):

Outside the US, the general feeling about Trump is that he's an aggressive and simple-minded man-child who America's allies find difficult to work with and who America's enemies find easy to manipulate. He's seen as dangerous, but in a reckless sense, not in a calculating sense. He's seen as capricious and untrustworthy; allies and trade partners are reluctant to make deals with him because they don't trust him to honour them beyond when Fox & Friends says the deal was bad.

Is this the sort of image of strength on the world stage that you wanted to see?

 

[sealchan]

Because the wrong people continue to oppose him. It's a case of "the enemy of my enemy." Now, maybe if some of the leading Trump-bashers laid off a while, people might get a more balanced approach. But when you have so many people coming out of the woodwork, falling all over themselves and desperately trying to convince people, "Don't you seeee??!? Trump is EEE-VIL! Can't you see it???! Why don't you see it? What's WRONG with you, you misguided, ignorant hillbilly!??!"

When there's too much of that kind of thing going on, it might explain why. People might wonder and be skeptical of the motives of those who spread it on that thick.

When people shout fire sometimes it's because there is a fire. Trump has proven that he is one of the least morally representative presidents ever. He is so obviously narcissistic. So much of what he says is shameful and an outright lie.

 

[ecco]

Now, maybe if some of the leading Trump-bashers laid off a while, people might get a more balanced approach.

Back in 2016, Trump made a major gaff or lie about once a week; McCain is not a hero, Gold star Kahn family, etc.

After he got elected it was once every day.

Now it's just continuous. Kim is a great leader, Kim's people love him, I've made America safe from NK nukes, separating parents from children is because of a Democrat law...

Trump bashers exist because of the constant BS spewing forth from his mouth.

I guess you feel that people should just ignore what he does and says. That would be un-American.

 

[Stevicus]

You have missed my point. ... Here you are trying to excuse it or downplay it on one side after you mentioned it as a problem.

I didn't miss your point, but I think you missed my point in that people will gravitate towards issues they think they might be able to change. If it's something they can't change because the forces against it are too strong, then they'll go for something easier.

This is vague. Just say what you mean.

I shouldn't really have to spell it out for you, but as I mentioned in a recent thread, we need price and rent controls to get the economy back under control. We need increases in wages for the working classes. We need socialized medicine (not just a "single payer" system). We need to bring back manufacturing to the US and restore our industrial base. The only things we should be importing are those things that can't be mined or grown in the United States.

Also, we need a more coherent, neutralist approach to foreign policy. No more alliances or foreign entanglements. If another country does something that doesn't harm America, then we should stay out of their business. We should take a detached approach to foreign affairs and not get stuck in other countries' quagmires.

I have known plenty of New Yorkers that do not fit this description.

And I've known plenty who do.

That sounds like an excuse that avoids the issue. The idea is that "being a foul mouth blowhard" has consequences. Therefore these attributes should be considered.

This is only because people react irrationally and get upset by it. But that's their fault. Whatever consequences they want to deliver are meaningless, and if they refuse to explain themselves or why they're acting irrationally, then they're the ones making excuses and avoiding the issue.

I am not arguingthat demeanor should not be considered. While I do not think it should be the only factor, how someone behaves does matter. Please note you have been the one to move to a hyperbolic ad hominem by implying that the opponents (And perhaps the past presidents) were "soft-spoken wimps."

Technically, it's not an ad hominem because I'm not naming any names or directing it to anyone specific.

But again, there's two sides to every story. Those who say that Trump is "offensive" or "alienating our allies" are also being hyperbolic. The time to play nice was 20-30 years ago, but now, there's too much bad blood that it's too late. Trump's only been president for less than two years, but this particular aspect of our political culture (hyperbolic ad hominems) have been going on for decades. No one complained for all this time, yet now they do. But it's too late.

That sounds like an actual argument about actual policies. We may disagree here but we could very well have a discussion about American foreign policy.

This is something many Americans have been discussing for a long time. Maybe it doesn't make the mainstream media very much, but it's been discussed.

I don't think you realize how hyperbolic this sounds.

If you disagree, then just say so. All I would ask is that you give me a coherent explanation as to why.

Political correctness certainly plays a role. ... They did indeed have an effect. They could hardly be categorized as harmless.

The same can be said depending on who's making the statements, what the statements are, which group they're directing those statements towards, and what the context is. You say that "words do matter," and I agree, but if PC is about wanting everyone to "play nice," then it's too late for that. America is not a nice country. Our culture, as manifested in the blogs, in popular entertainment, on message boards like this one, and in the news media demonstrates a rather vicious and malicious attitude which has become part and parcel of our culture.

Political correctness is also a contributory factor, since it's not really about "rules" or anything. It's about people feeling that they have license to use abuse and ridicule (or even worse, such as firing them from their jobs) against those whom they feel have violated some imaginary "standard" that they've set. It is the very source and root of the malicious culture many in America are generating.

Didn't they think there would be consequences for that? Didn't they realize what they were doing and what the ramifications were?

I remember some feminist blogger from NYC was writing something about a security guard in Iowa, who was ostensibly guilty of doing something "sexist." He was outed and named in this blog, and as a result, he got fired. Well, he ended up tracking this blogger down, flew out to NY, found her walking her dog in the park and confronted her. She apparently tried to defend what she did by saying "it's just a blog" or something like that. He shot and killed her. You play with fire, you get burned. It's as simple as that.

So, yes, you're right. Words do matter, but that's also a double-edged sword that few people seem to be conscious of.

I am not arguing that he is Hitler.

I never said that you were, did I?

You are indeed, yourself, making mountains out of mole hills and speaking in hyperbole if you are trying to characterize my post as making mountains of mole hills or arguing that Trump is Hitler.

Nope. You're just misreading and misconstruing, which is also another major problem in these discussions. People don't actually bother to READ or LISTEN to what other people are saying before jumping to conclusions. That's also what political correctness does. Instead of taking a statement at face value, they read too much into it and twist into something totally off the wall.

If you have so much disdain for that approach, why are you so quick to take it. If this is not what you are doing, and you agree that I have not done that, then why not address my actual points?

I think you misunderstood my criticisms and exactly which approach I was referring to.

I did not say there were not other sides.

Perhaps not, but when you say that Trump is offensive or that there are consequences to what he says, you appeared to be assuming that everyone would view his statements or actions in the same light that you would see them. Not everyone sees things in the same way, so if you want to convince people to not support Trump and that he is offensive, then it might be better to drop the assumptions and speak in more specific, concrete terms using examples.

Just as one example, there are those who often trot out a list of supposed "Trump lies," when a careful reading of that list would indicate that they could just as easily have been honest mistakes. That's a recurring theme. Once you get to the actual nuts and bolts of what is actually being alleged, it's very thin and spotty.

Where did I say he was a horrible person? You mentioned that hyperbolic arguments?
what exactly have I said with which you are taking issue Here?

I never said that you said that he was a horrible person. Again, you're reading too much into what I say.

Maybe you have wrongly assumed some people are using a tactic when they are not.

Oh, I know the tactic quite well, believe me.

Here's a way of identifying it:

1. Someone posts or says something which is considered "non-standard," whether it's politically incorrect, some sort of conspiracy theory, or anything else that the political elite doesn't really want people to say or believe.
2. The usual counter-responses generally do not carry any particular arguments to refute what is being said (since they believe it would be "beneath them" to actually engage in a serious debate over what they've already dismissed as "wacko"), and generally will include words like "ignorant," "simple," "irrational," "wacko," and other such choice terms.
3. Other counter-responses might try to play the "intellectual authority" card, where they believe that they know more or know better. They'll say "you don't know anything about ____," whether it's about law, economics, history, engineering, science, or whatever. And then, even after insinuating that they're an "expert" on whatever topic they're addressing, they still won't address it in earnest or dazzle us with their expertise, since it takes too long and they can't be arsed to bother. Yet they respond anyway with endless loads of BS and invective.

These are tactics, and they're very easy to recognize once one develops an eye for them. In all honesty, I don't believe any of these people are smarter than anyone else, nor do I put much stock in their so-called "expertise." They're just good at manipulating and gaslighting. They're using a tactic in order to enforce conformity to their viewpoint - if not at the person they're arguing with, then as a demonstration to others to not question the status quo.

I don't really even mind that they're being hyperbolic, insulting, or whatever. I don't care about "nice." But what I would expect, once they get done with their BS, is to actually put something forth which explains their point of view and where they're coming from. If they're unwilling or unable to do so, then that pretty much proves that they never knew what they were talking about to begin with. They probably don't even know why they believe as they do, as they're just conforming to a viewpoint without really understanding it.

And they may not even realize that they're using a tactic. They may honestly see it as "fighting the good fight," but they're wrong. Dead wrong.

 

[Stevicus]

And that is a valid discussion about those who have done such. When you are just pointing fingers in other directions instead of focusing on the discussion, it seems disingenuous. If this is what you would rather discuss, fine. I am happy to discuss that, but that is not what we are discussing here. If you are arguing that despite his demeanor, Trump was better than alternatives, that is ok too. But your original argument was that focusing on demeanor was irrational. Those are very different perspectives.

A lot of different topics and sub-topics have come up in this thread (and in the overall debate about Trump), so if it seems to take the focus off of this one particular side topic we're discussing, that's the reason.

My point all along is that Trump is a symptom. His personality and demeanor are largely irrelevant to the larger issues which are being avoided or not discussed with any clarity. By focusing solely on Trump and his demeanor, I see it as a method of deflecting from the actual issues under discussion and as a way of dismissing others' point of view without even bothering to address those issues, while using Trump's offensive personality as an excuse.

Mind you, there are a lot of things about Trump with which I strongly disagree. I'm against the border wall, and I'm against the cruel treatment of undocumented immigrants. But I also know that it's not been much different from past presidents of both parties. I live close to the border and I know how the Border Patrol has operated in the past 40 years I've been living here. I also know that those who smuggle the immigrants over the border ("coyotes") are unscrupulous and those who hire them to work are taking advantage of those who are vulnerable, easily exploitable, and who will work cheap.

I'm also against Trump favoring the wealthy, but again, that's been true for both parties for as long as I can remember. Money owns politics, and if the US body politic accepts this and is okay with it, they're in no position to complain about it now. If they don't want big business controlling the state, then they should have accepted socialism, and if they don't accept socialism, that's on them.

These and other issues have been facing Americans for a very long time now, and we've had more than enough time to deal with these issues. None of the things that Trump is saying or doing is really all that "new" to anyone, so for people to focus solely on Trump's demeanor is just another way of deflecting and avoiding any real discussion about the issues in question.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

These and other issues have been facing Americans for a very long time now, and we've had more than enough time to deal with these issues. None of the things that Trump is saying or doing is really all that "new" to anyone, so for people to focus solely on Trump's demeanor is just another way of deflecting and avoiding any real discussion about the issues in question.

That's what he wants people to think. " 'm not the issue - politix is so hard"

 

[Stevicus]

So you think it's bad when a leader gets portrayed like this on the world stage?

Canada (Toronto Star):

Opinion | Theo Moudakis: Trump and Kim

Norway (VG) - note: not actually banned by Facebook:

VG+: Tidsånden flirer ikke lenger

The UK (Sunday Times):

Outside the US, the general feeling about Trump is that he's an aggressive and simple-minded man-child who America's allies find difficult to work with and who America's enemies find easy to manipulate.

Political cartoons from newspapers in Canada, UK, and Norway aren't really that convincing. I already know what those people think about Trump, since I've been hearing for the past couple of years. I've heard every argument and read all the blogs and other BS which are calculated and spun in such a way as to convince the public that Trump is a "very bad man."

I would say those drawings above say more about who is publishing them (along with those who believe them) than anything accurate about Trump.

And who says America's enemies are manipulating him? I think it is a good idea for the president to meet with the North Korean leader and try to reach some sort of agreement. I've believed for decades that we needed to bury the hatchet with Russia and embark on a friendly, cooperative relationship. I think that our allies have been taking us for a ride for a very long time, and now they're upset because they sense that their ride on America's gravy train may soon be coming to a halt. It's pretty transparent, actually. These kinds of cartoons are designed to manipulate.

I believe that a restructuring of our economic system, our trade policies, and our foreign policy are long overdue, only because I believe it's better for America - not because of anything that Trump ever said.

He's seen as dangerous, but in a reckless sense, not in a calculating sense. He's seen as capricious and untrustworthy; allies and trade partners are reluctant to make deals with him because they don't trust him to honour them beyond when Fox & Friends says the deal was bad.

Is this the sort of image of strength on the world stage that you wanted to see?

The world is a big place, far bigger than America, Canada, the UK or Norway. World opinion rests on more than just silly, sophomoric political cartoons.[/QUOTE]

 

[Stevicus]

That's what he wants people to think. " 'm not the issue - politix is so hard"

Do you have a crush me or something? You keep throwing these nonsensical, pointless one-liners at me as if you want my attention. Well, now you've got it. What is it that you wanted to say to me?

 

[Shushersbedamned]

These kinds of cartoons are designed to manipulate.

They're also used for self expression and amusement so the people won't start committing suicide because of all this idiocy.

 

[Stevicus]

When people shout fire sometimes it's because there is a fire. Trump has proven that he is one of the least morally representative presidents ever. He is so obviously narcissistic. So much of what he says is shameful and an outright lie.

How is he one of the "least morally representative presidents ever"? Seriously, I hear this all the time from the Trump-bashers, and I find no basis for it.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

How is he one of the "least morally representative presidents ever"? Seriously, I hear this all the time from the Trump-bashers, and I find no basis for it.

It means his sense of moral is non-existent.

 

[Stevicus]

Back in 2016, Trump made a major gaff or lie about once a week; McCain is not a hero, Gold star Kahn family, etc.

After he got elected it was once every day.

That's your opinion. The PC thought police have been out in full force, calling attention to Trump's supposed "gaffs" or "lies," but when they're pressed for specifics, they either go silent or come up with something very thin and vague.

I live in the state where McCain is a senator, and I know that he came in as a carpetbagger and ran for the senate on the coattails of being a Reagan robot. I also know a few Vietnam Vets who don't really think that McCain is a hero, but I don't really get into that right now.

Now it's just continuous. Kim is a great leader, Kim's people love him, I've made America safe from NK nukes, separating parents from children is because of a Democrat law...

Well, sure he's going to say nice things about the guy after they just met. I personally have never met Kim (and I doubt you have either), so I can't really say either way about what kind of person he is. Maybe he can help reform NK. Remember that it's partially our own fault that Korea was divided in the first place, so if Trump is trying to put out the glad hand in the hopes that something positive might come of it, it may not be the worst strategy what one can think of.

I don't like the idea of separating parents from their children, and most of the time, I find the Border Patrol's tactics and methods to be questionable. I don't know if it's true that it's a Democrat law, but it is true that such things have been going on for a long time under the watch of both parties. As a country, we've had more than enough time to come up with just and coherent immigration and border reform, but both parties just pay lip service for two reasons:

1. The insane "war on drugs"
2. Too many businesses making huge profits off of exploiting cheap, undocumented labor

This has been going on for far too long, long before Trump came on the scene. So, for people to go on and on as if "it's all about Trump" is extremely disingenuous and blatantly dishonest.

Trump bashers exist because of the constant BS spewing forth from his mouth.

I guess you feel that people should just ignore what he does and says. That would be un-American.

No, it's because of the BS constantly spewing from their mouths. I'm not saying people should ignore anything, but when there are those who wonder aloud why people are still supporting Trump or say that they're "alarmed" because so many people don't see the world in the same way that they do, then I have to call BS on that kind of talk.

What I keep finding over the course of these discussions, when pressed for specifics, there is nothing but deflection, double-talk, invective, and condescension. None of the Trump-bashers have ever bothered to explain in a serious, in-depth manner about why they think he's so much worse than anything else we've had in America's 242 year history.

The ironic thing is, I believe that I have a better idea of what drives the Trump-bashers even more than they do.

The one benefit of being a free-thinking non-conformist is that one is able to recognize those who are not far more easily than the reverse. The conformists who can only think inside a certain box are quick to dismiss non-conformists as "ignorant" of the one twue way, and that's how the Trump-bashers come across.

You think that I can't see it, but I do - far more than you could ever understand.