The U.S.-Centric, Hyperbolic Political Game and "Trump Is the Worst POTUS Ever"

[Revoltingest]

It is an election year. It is a game that the U.S. plays with each incumbent president.

Were you to look back through the decades you would see claims about each incumbent president being the worst ever. Some may qualify such statements and give more specifics, but others do not.

For the majority of people decisions are emotional. Hence emotional rhetoric abounds in an attempt to sway others.

Dems claimed Trump was the next Hitler.
But I recall them calling GW Bush "worse than Hitler".
Histrionics come & go, but are seldom remembered, eh.

 

[Curious George]

Dems claimed Trump was the next Hitler.
But I recall them calling GW Bush "worse than Hitler".
Histrionics come & go, but are seldom remembered, eh.

And Obama was the antichrist or worse...

Hillary was a murderous warmonger...they are all selling points for the other guy whoever he or she is.

That is not the point. It is a game. So and so is the worst. On some level they might be. Worst is very much a opinion. It is the starting point for a claim. Look at the OP. Making claims about past presidents is no better than making claims about the incumbent. It is just a different game.

 

[Revoltingest]

And Obama was the antichrist or worse...

That's ridiculous.
He was a Marxist Muslim agent.

Hillary was a murderous warmonger...they are all selling points for the other guy whoever he or she is.

Well, she is indeed considered a hawk.
Some of her supporters here even lamented this,
despite still finding her the lesser of 2 evils.

That is not the point. It is a game. So and so is the worst. On some level they might be. Worst is very much a opinion. It is the starting point for a claim. Look at the OP. Making claims about past presidents is no better than making claims about the incumbent. It is just a different game.

To be the worst, we need a couple things....
- Comparison with past Presidents.
- Standards by which to judge.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Hillary was a murderous warmonger...they are all selling points for the other guy whoever he or she is.

Except that specific point is factually provable. She was indeed a murderous warmonger.

Effort has to be made to distinguish between unpleasant, controversial facts and mere exaggerations, even if the line between the two is sometimes quite blurry.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In my opinion Barack Hussein Obama qualifies for that title. Why? The way that he politicized the civil service, and particularly the police and intelligence agencies against political enemies. (Compared to that, Watergate was nothing.) That's the biggest threat to American democracy in the history of the country. Frankly, I'm not sure that American democracy, and with it the fate of Western civilization, will survive the Obama legacy. We are headed towards becoming a sham-democracy something like Putin's Russia, where "elections" are still held but the security services and the government nomenklatura ensure that only candidates that they favor can win.

The target of your political trolling becomes apparent.

I'm not convinced that you and those like you are in any position to play moral judge.

Less histrionics and vitriol, more logic and reason.

Try again.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Except that specific point is factually provable. She was indeed a murderous warmonger.

Effort has to be made to distinguish between unpleasant, controversial facts and mere exaggerations, even if the line between the two is sometimes quite blurry.

Less histrionics and vitriol, more logic and reason.

Try again.

Or were you going to cite pizzagate or Benghazi, or maybe “the string of dead bodies stretched out through the Clintons’ climb to power”?

When you created this thread, shortly after I created the “Trump is the best” thread, I actually had to give you credit (and a like frubal) for the OP. Please don’t ruin a run of fact-based thinking.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Less histrionics and vitriol, more logic and reason.

Try again.

Or were you going to cite pizzagate or Benghazi, or maybe “the string of dead bodies stretched out through the Clintons’ climb to power”?

No, I was going to cite this:

On October 11, 2002, Clinton voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, commonly known as the Iraq War Resolution, to give President Bush authority for the Iraq War.[298] In an interview on December 18, 2006, she expressed regret for the vote: "Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote, and I certainly wouldn't have voted for it."[299] By February 2007, Clinton failed to state that her vote was a mistake, or to apologize for it, as anti-war Democrats demanded. "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said this vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Clinton told an audience in Dover, New Hampshire.[300]

Political positions of Hillary Clinton - Wikipedia

Sorry, but nobody can just brush aside a vote that helped lead to half a million deaths as well as systematic torture as "just a mistake"--especially not when the person who cast said vote refused to even apologize for it. She screwed up quite hard and should continue to be held accountable for it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

When you created this thread, shortly after I created the “Trump is the best” thread, I actually had to give you credit (and a like frubal) for the OP. Please don’t ruin a run of fact-based thinking.

I think basing our opinions of politicians on their track record is as factual as they come. It's not like I falsely attributed any quotes to Hillary Clinton; my opinion is based on her own stances and words.

 

[Curious George]

That's ridiculous.
He was a Marxist Muslim agent.

Yeah that too.

Well, she is indeed considered a hawk.
Some of her supporters here even lamented this,
despite still finding her the lesser of 2 evils.

Sure and Trump is indeed considered the worst ever, Hitler incarnate even. It is almost like we would need to define terms and use standards to evaluate those terms in order to ascertain whether someone was or was not anything following the "x is y" statement.

To be the worst, we need a couple things....
- Comparison with past Presidents.
- Standards by which to judge.

Isn't "[insert name here] the worst!" merely the starting point for a lengthy diatribe or monologue about some list of horribles from which we are supposed to infer some list of standards?

 

[Curious George]

Except that specific point is factually provable. She was indeed a murderous warmonger.

Effort has to be made to distinguish between unpleasant, controversial facts and mere exaggerations, even if the line between the two is sometimes quite blurry.

No, it is not. The statement "Hillary is a murderous warmonger" is ripe with both exaggeration and emotional appeal.

If it resonates with you, that is because of your emotions. Indeed, such emotions are powerful and our rational brain tries desperately to sustain justification for such notions.

Were we to break down the statement offer historical comparison and truly analyze what the statement entails, i imagine we would still not see eye to eye. I would suggest that is because of your emotional investment; perhaps you would offer the same retort to me.

Hopefully, despite our disagreement, you will give consideration to the idea that that which you bemoan in your OP bears a striking resemblance to that behavior in which you engage.

 

[Debater Slayer]

No, it is not. The statement "Hillary is a murderous warmonger" is ripe with both exaggeration and emotional appeal.

If it resonates with you, that is because of your emotions. Indeed, such emotions are powerful and our rational brain tries desperately to sustain justification for such notions.

Were we to break down the statement offer historical comparison and truly analyze what the statement entails, i imagine we would still not see eye to eye. I would suggest that is because of your emotional investment; perhaps you would offer the same retort to me.

Hopefully, despite our disagreement, you will give consideration to the idea that that which you bemoan in your OP bears a striking resemblance to that behavior in which you engage.

I have already offered an explanation of why I believe that description fits her. What is your rebuttal of that aside from merely labeling my stance as "emotional appeal"?

Perhaps it would also be useful to point out that my objections to Hillary Clinton are not to favor any other person or party; they stand on their own merit rather than anyone else's faults. The same could not be said for arguments against her that are primarily intended to empower her political opponents at the cost of logical consistency.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I have already offered an explanation of why I believe that description fits her. What is your rebuttal of that aside from merely labeling my stance as "emotional appeal"?

Perhaps it would also be useful to point out that my objections to Hillary Clinton are not to favor any other person or party; they stand on their own merit rather than anyone else's faults. The same could not be said for arguments against her that are primarily intended to empower her political opponents at the cost of logical consistency.

You have labelled her a "murderous warmonger", and your explanation consisted of a listing of her positions as a senator. None of which agree with your label. She opposed war in Iraq on multiple occasions and criticized the Bush Jr/Cheney White House for rushing to war, rather than using inspections and diplomacy. The speech that I linked above (if you watch it) showed that she reluctantly gave Bush Jr. war powers so that he could sword-rattle at Saddam Hussein more effectively. She (foolishly) trusted that those two warmongers were not going to be warmongers (she and many other senators/representatives were lied to and fooled by the false information that Cheney had slapped together in order to start a war).
So. Back to "murderous warmonger". Interesting choice of words. I will accept it if you label every single person in the legislature and supporters across the nation who voted to give/supported giving Bushy the power.

 

[Revoltingest]

You have labelled her a "murderous warmonger", and your explanation consisted of a listing of her positions as a senator. None of which agree with your label. She opposed war in Iraq on multiple occasions and criticized the Bush Jr/Cheney White House for rushing to war, rather than using inspections and diplomacy. The speech that I linked above (if you watch it) showed that she reluctantly gave Bush Jr. war powers so that he could sword-rattle at Saddam Hussein more effectively. She (foolishly) trusted that those two warmongers were not going to be warmongers (she and many other senators/representatives were lied to and fooled by the false information that Cheney had slapped together in order to start a war).
So. Back to "murderous warmonger". Interesting choice of words. I will accept it if you label every single person in the legislature and supporters across the nation who voted to give/supported giving Bushy the power.

One cannot blame her votes in the Senate on Bush.
She voted to start the Iraq war.
She voted to continue funding for both wars.

More opinions & info on her attitudes towards military force....
How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk (NY Times)
Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Hawk

And regarding Iran, not just defending Israel against attack,
but obliterating Iran. Really? Kill them all?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

One cannot blame her votes in the Senate on Bush.
She voted to start the Iraq war.
She voted to continue funding for both wars.

More opinions & info on her attitudes towards military force....
How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk (NY Times)
Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Hawk

And regarding Iran, not just defending Israel against attack,
but obliterating Iran. Really? Kill them all?

Your post shows she is a statesman, dropping threats where most feel that they are needed. Your video (you should watch it), has the reporter leading about her threatening remarks regarding an attack by Iran on Isreal, and she clarifies that it was a threatening (and unfortunately necessary) response to what if Iran launched nuclear weapons on Isreal, and she made it clear that she wanted the Iranian leadership to know that it would be horribly dangerous for them to nuke Isreal.
So, which is better? Threatening to defend our allies, or bailing on our allies as tRump did, letting our fellow fighters against terrorist groups be slaughtered by the Turkish, whom we knew would do just that? eh?

I’ll grant you, Hillary Clinton played loose with facts as often as many of her colleagues (including both of our favorites - Bernie - see below), which is to say, more than you or I would ever do, but much less than tRump did prior to 2015.
Furthermore; as I wrote above. I can understand if you want to label Hillary as a “murderous warmonger” as long as you’re also ready to name every other Dem and Republican senator who joined her in that vote (and yes I do hold Cheney and Bushy directly responsible because they are).

And don’t go saying that even Sanders (who I wanted in 2016) is without blood on his hands.

“Sanders made it clear on the House floor on Oct. 9, 2002, that his concerns about Iraq centered on acting alone and the aftermath of a hasty invasion: "If a unilateral American invasion of Iraq is not the best approach, what should we do?" he asked.

"These inspectors should undertake an unfettered search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and destroy them when found pursuant to past U.N. resolutions. If Iraq resists inspection and elimination of stockpiled weapons, we should stand ready to assist the U.N. in enforcing compliance," he said. "There is more danger of an attack on the United States if we launch a precipitous invasion."

And Sanders had previously voiced his support for a U.S. policy to oust Hussein. In the years leading up to the war, Sanders voted for a U.S. policy of regime change, for example in 1996 in response to Hussein's having sent troops into Kurdish territory, and in October 1998 he backed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made regime change official U.S. policy.

"Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who should be overthrown, and his ability to make weapons of destruction must be eliminated," he said on the House floor in December 1998.”​

Sanders' opposition to the Iraq War was more complicated than he presents


International politics and preventing and/or winning wars with religious/political zealots is not as staight forward as most would like it to be. I’m glad that I don’t have to deal with all that ****. That’s why we elect people to do it for us.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your post shows she is a statesman, dropping threats where most feel that they are needed. Your video (you should watch it), has the reporter leading about her threatening remarks regarding an attack by Iran on Isreal, and she clarifies that it was a threatening (and unfortunately necessary) response to what if Iran launched nuclear weapons on Isreal, and she made it clear that she wanted the Iranian leadership to know that it would be horribly dangerous for them to nuke Isreal.
So, which is better? Threatening to defend our allies, or bailing on our allies as tRump did, letting our fellow fighters against terrorist groups be slaughtered by the Turkish, whom we knew would do just that? eh?

To threaten genocide is not statesmanlike in my view.
And this is especially so after we've already attacked
Iran, killing many hundreds of thousands of them.
And this using the WMDs that we decry when used
by others.

I’ll grant you, Hillary Clinton played loose with facts as often as many of her colleagues (including both of our favorites - Bernie - see below), which is to say, more than you or I would ever do, but much less than tRump did prior to 2015.
Furthermore; as I wrote above. I can understand if you want to label Hillary as a “murderous warmonger” as long as you’re also ready to name every other Dem and Republican senator who joined her in that vote (and yes I do hold Cheney and Bushy directly responsible because they are).

And don’t go saying that even Sanders (who I wanted in 2016) is without blood on his hands.

“Sanders made it clear on the House floor on Oct. 9, 2002, that his concerns about Iraq centered on acting alone and the aftermath of a hasty invasion: "If a unilateral American invasion of Iraq is not the best approach, what should we do?" he asked.

"These inspectors should undertake an unfettered search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and destroy them when found pursuant to past U.N. resolutions. If Iraq resists inspection and elimination of stockpiled weapons, we should stand ready to assist the U.N. in enforcing compliance," he said. "There is more danger of an attack on the United States if we launch a precipitous invasion."

And Sanders had previously voiced his support for a U.S. policy to oust Hussein. In the years leading up to the war, Sanders voted for a U.S. policy of regime change, for example in 1996 in response to Hussein's having sent troops into Kurdish territory, and in October 1998 he backed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made regime change official U.S. policy.

"Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who should be overthrown, and his ability to make weapons of destruction must be eliminated," he said on the House floor in December 1998.”​

Sanders' opposition to the Iraq War was more complicated than he presents


International politics and preventing and/or winning wars with religious/political zealots is not as staight forward as most would like it to be. I’m glad that I don’t have to deal with all that ****. That’s why we elect people to do it for us.

To point out hawkish positions by other politicians
doesn't alter her being one.

 

[Curious George]

One cannot blame her votes in the Senate on Bush.
She voted to start the Iraq war.
She voted to continue funding for both wars.

More opinions & info on her attitudes towards military force....
How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk (NY Times)
Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Hawk

And regarding Iran, not just defending Israel against attack,
but obliterating Iran. Really? Kill them all?

And

I have already offered an explanation of why I believe that description fits her. What is your rebuttal of that aside from merely labeling my stance as "emotional appeal"?

Perhaps it would also be useful to point out that my objections to Hillary Clinton are not to favor any other person or party; they stand on their own merit rather than anyone else's faults. The same could not be said for arguments against her that are primarily intended to empower her political opponents at the cost of logical consistency.

You are welcome to your opinion and to agree with others opinions but those opinions are emotional. No different than saying Trump is the worst or Obama is the antichrist.
You feel she was a murderous hawk, that is fine. I am no fan of Hillary Clinton and do not wish to engage in trying to defend her actions. But, those actions to which both of you point fail to make her a murderous hawk.

We have here a classic discussion: Introduce hyperbole, sprinkle in facts and emotional rhetoric, and then conclude that your hyperbole is correct.

I am happy you two want to play such a game, but can you not see how similar such a game is to exactly what the OP criticizes?

 

[Revoltingest]

And



You are welcome to your opinion and to agree with others opinions but those opinions are emotional. No different than saying Trump is the worst or Obama is the antichrist.
You feel she was a murderous hawk, that is fine. I am no fan of Hillary Clinton and do not wish to engage in trying to defend her actions. But, those actions to which both of you point fail to make her a murderous hawk.

We have here a classic discussion: Introduce hyperbole, sprinkle in facts and emotional rhetoric, and then conclude that your hyperbole is correct.

I am happy you two want to play such a game, but can you not see how similar such a game is to exactly what the OP criticizes?

And you too are welcome to your opinion, no matter how emotional.
Btw, I didn't use the term "murderous".
Is that the 1 that triggered you?


Hey, this is fun!

 

[Curious George]

And you too are welcome to your opinion, no matter how emotional.
Btw, I didn't use the term "murderous".
Is that the 1 that triggered you?


Hey, this is fun!

Ahh, so you were bickering? Sort of like if your response to someone claiming Trump was Hitler is hyperbole was "but he is bad." It misses the mark.

The term murderous warmonger was employed by me to give an example of the hyperbole that people loft during political debates. You offered in response the exception that she was indeed a "hawk."

I know it is hard to focus on the actual point when emotions are involved, but one can always go back and reread the conversation. Are you now simply agreeing with my original statement?

 

[Revoltingest]

Ahh, so you were bickering? Sort of like if your response to someone claiming Trump was Hitler is hyperbole was "but he is bad." It misses the mark.

The term murderous warmonger was employed by me to give an example of the hyperbole that people loft during political debates. You offered in response the exception that she was indeed a "hawk."

I know it is hard to focus on the actual point when emotions are involved, but one can always go back and reread the conversation. Are you now simply agreeing with my original statement?

You're trying to snark it about someone else's emotions.
I put an end to that.

 

[Curious George]

You're trying to snark it about someone else's emotions.
I put an end to that.

Did you?