(where is) media coverage of Trump's confusing Tuesday night rally

[We Never Know]

Actually, Trump did the opposite and has softened his stance on issues, to pick up more Independents and Democrats. This newer approach will be presented at the RNC Convention.

Trump pushes new GOP platform softening party’s positions on abortion and same-sex marriage



I like Trump's idea of sending many important social issues back to the States, since that will weaken centralized power and make the Democracy stronger by having more local options. The DNC wants Big Government. It wants all power centralized, to make it easier for an extremist to use that central core of power, illegally. If the State were to decide more things, the Executive Branch has less ability to force one size first all, when it comes to delicate social issues. Trump is not a power monger. That is the Swamp. They will fight this change since the crooks have to be above the law to escape justice.

Another advantage is, if power on many things goes back to the States, if a Liberal State does do not like a Conservative position, at least the Liberals State would be free to try it their way, and not have the Party in power force feed you. Some States can have School choice ,while other can have only Public schools and Teachers Unions. I would prefer we run more side by side experiments so we can agree on the better ways, based on results and not just propaganda and delusions. One size fits all is the least Democratic way. Everyone doing their own thing may get too chaotic. So, as the story of Goldie Locks and the Three Bears goes; 50 possible ways is the right way back toward Democracy.

State Budgets has much less debt load, than the Federal Budget. If we phase out aspects of the Fed, not in the Constitution, but send it to the State, we can pay down the debt by not having to keep adding to the centralized inefficiency. This is often caused by the Party in power, making a new branch or Agency, and Government not able to fire anyone. When power change more is added and just keeps growing into debt. State can take their preferred half and save the Country money.

As far as these forums rather than take sides now whose one size fits all, we can share war stories about our states to see how each other is approaching the same problems, with no obligation.

I read that the other day. First thing that stood out to me was this "which has consistently been unpopular in public polling".

Its about getting votes. So I have to wonder if its like a campaign promise to get votes that will get lost if they win the election as many campaign promises do.

 

[F1fan]

Actually, Trump did the opposite and has softened his stance on issues, to pick up more Independents and Democrats. This newer approach will be presented at the RNC Convention.

Trump pushes new GOP platform softening party’s positions on abortion and same-sex marriage

Trump and republicans are flip flopping on the abortion issue becauise they are becoming aware it isn't popular. But since republicans are idealistic on this matter they can't be trusted. We all know their long term intent is to ban all abortion, and perhaps contraception.

I like Trump's idea of sending many important social issues back to the States, since that will weaken centralized power and make the Democracy stronger by having more local options.

He's a weak leader who won't take responsibility for important matters. That's why he left Covid mangates to states which ended up being ineffective since red states had weak standards that infected blue states as people travelled. That is one reason Trump was fired by the A,erican people. He never learns.

The DNC wants Big Government. It wants all power centralized, to make it easier for an extremist to use that central core of power, illegally. If the State were to decide more things, the Executive Branch has less ability to force one size first all, when it comes to delicate social issues. Trump is not a power monger. That is the Swamp. They will fight this change since the crooks have to be above the law to escape justice.

The USA is one nation. Some issues need to be national, like public health and education.

 

[Magic Man]

Signs of mental decline lacking.
Average intelligence....more or less.
Old enuf.
Citizen.
Able to play the game of politics & legislation.

Strange beliefs & nasty politics aren't a disqualifier.

I guess I don't see how those things make one competent. For instance, Randy Quaid is old enough and a citizen and has average intelligence, but he's not competent enough to trust with any responsibilities.

I'd say she's only able to play the game of politics because her constituents are less competent than she is. I think strange beliefs and inability to control herself in a normal way indicate incompetency.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess I don't see how those things make one competent. For instance, Randy Quaid is old enough and a citizen and has average intelligence, but he's not competent enough to trust with any responsibilities.

I'd say she's only able to play the game of politics because her constituents are less competent than she is. I think strange beliefs and inability to control herself in a normal way indicate incompetency.

Be sure to not judge someone's competence
based upon their being on the extreme other
end of the political spectrum.

Consider that anyone could be argued to be
incompetent for one reason or another, eg...
1) Belief in invisible sky fairies that created &
control the universe.
2) Lack of belief in the same thing.

The 2nd one has actually been codified into
law. Many Christians believe that atheists are
all unqualified for public office. Dumb, eh.

State bans on atheists in public office likely unenforceable

It’s pretty rare to find an openly atheist politician in the United States. According to the Pew Research Center, there

www.politifact.com

Strive for objective criteria that
would be acceptable generally.

 

[Magic Man]

Be sure to not judge someone's competence
based upon their being on the extreme other
end of the political spectrum.

Consider that anyone could be argued to be
incompetent for one reason or another, eg...
1) Belief in invisible sky fairies that created &
control the universe.
2) Lack of belief in the same thing.

The 2nd one has actually been codified into
law. Many Christians believe that atheists are
all unqualified for public office. Dumb, eh.

State bans on atheists in public office likely unenforceable

It’s pretty rare to find an openly atheist politician in the United States. According to the Pew Research Center, there

www.politifact.com

Strive for objective criteria that
would be acceptable generally.

That's true, and I agree. But in her case it's not that she's on the extreme other end of the political spectrum. It's the fact that she's done stuff like harass school shooting victims with wild conspiracy theories, talked about "Jewish space lasers" (I know that's not exactly what she said, but it's the gist) and others. I would consider a liberal democrat incompetent for doing similar things. Believing in God is standard in our society, so that's not out of the ordinary, whereas these things are.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's true, and I agree. But in her case it's not that she's on the extreme other end of the political spectrum. It's the fact that she's done stuff like harass school shooting victims with wild conspiracy theories, talked about "Jewish space lasers" (I know that's not exactly what she said, but it's the gist) and others. I would consider a liberal democrat incompetent for doing similar things. Believing in God is standard in our society, so that's not out of the ordinary, whereas these things are.

The majority of Congresscritters believe outlandish
things, most typically in an omnipotent sky fairy.
This doesn't make them unqualified.

 

[Magic Man]

The majority of Congresscritters believe outlandish
things, most typically in an omnipotent sky fairy.
This doesn't make them unqualified.

Right, but as I said, believing in that sky fairy has been standard for centuries. We can see it as outlandish, but society doesn't. The things MTG says are outlandish by the metric of anyone outside of the fringe who are part of her support.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right, but as I said, believing in that sky fairy has been standard for centuries. We can see it as outlandish, but society doesn't. The things MTG says are outlandish by the metric of anyone outside of the fringe who are part of her support.

Does standard loony mean that loony beliefs aren't loony?
I observe that in the Age Of Trump, airing one's outlandish
beliefs has become more acceptable. We're glimpsing
souls that were previously shielded somewhat.

 

[Magic Man]

Does standard loony mean that loony beliefs aren't loony?
I observe that in the Age Of Trump, airing one's outlandish
beliefs has become more acceptable. We're glimpsing
souls that were previously shielded somewhat.

There is a difference between standard religious beliefs and beliefs that are deemed crazy by all but a small fringe.

And yes, in the Age of Trump, airing outlandish beliefs has become pretty much necessary for republicans. It's the only way for them to win elections, because if they don't, someone else will come along and do it and garner the support of the MAGA base.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a difference between standard religious beliefs and beliefs that are deemed crazy by all but a small fringe.

Your subjective approach merely differs from my subjective approach.

 

[Magic Man]

Your subjective approach merely differs from my subjective approach.

Maybe, but I think you'd probably agree in principle with my main idea. For instance, there's a reason psychology recognizes schizophrenia but not believing in Christianity, as a psychiatric condition.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe, but I think you'd probably agree in principle with my main idea. For instance, there's a reason psychology recognizes schizophrenia but not believing in Christianity, as a psychiatric condition.

Are you claiming she's schizophrenic?

 

[Magic Man]

Are you claiming she's schizophrenic?

No, I'm pointing out that there is a difference between abnormal beliefs/actions and standard ones that you (and I) consider outlandish. Psychology doesn't consider belief in Christianity to be a psychiatric condition for a reason, but abnormal outlandish beliefs can be.

 

[Revoltingest]

No....

Changing the subject, eh.

 

[Magic Man]

Changing the subject, eh.

No, the subject was whether MTG is competent. On that topic, you said outlandish beliefs aren't necessarily an indication of incompetence and used belief in God to support that. I was responding to that by pointing out that there's a difference between belief in a standard god and extreme and unhinged beliefs like what MTG has displayed.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, the subject was whether MTG is competent.

Schizophrenia is irrelevant.

 

[Magic Man]

Schizophrenia is irrelevant.

The idea is not irrelevant. Psychiatry doesn't recognize belief in Christianity as a psychiatric condition in need of attention. It does recognize paranoia and outlandish beliefs as cause for concern, though.

 

[Revoltingest]

The idea is not irrelevant. Psychiatry doesn't recognize belief in Christianity as a psychiatric condition in need of attention. It does recognize paranoia and outlandish beliefs as cause for concern, though.

Psychiatry doesn't address your criterion based
on "Jewish space lasers" either. Get a grip, man.

 

[Magic Man]

Psychiatry doesn't address your criterion based
on "Jewish space lasers" either. Get a grip, man.

It addresses my main point, which is that there is a difference between standard beliefs that have been held by the majority for centuries - even if you consider them outlandish - and extreme fringe beliefs that are well outside the norm.

"I believe in God" would not prompt a psychologist to probe for further information to determine a problem.
"Sandy Hook was fake, and the California wildfires were started by a Rothschild space laser" would make a psychologist perk up and want to probe more.