...that he's Trump. Trump being Trump made it easy for the low intellect lefties to rip on him without acknowledging the many great things he did for the country while still in office. Being Trump wasn't the negative they need to believe it was, but it was and remains just so hard to truly criticize is work that criticizing the man was the low hanging fruit they needed. Hell, it wasn't "low hanging". It was just laying there on the ground!
No doubt, if Mike Pence had been president and had done all the same things Trump did in that capacity, the loony left would have had a much tougher go of it. Sure, they'd find something that didn't matter and blow it up. That's how they roll. But it would've been much harder to pretend he was the worst, as they falsely pretended was true of Trump.
Thus far, the best Biden's been able to do are those things Trump implemented which Biden either didn't eliminate or returned to...like the remain in Mexico policy. Yet, lefties actually expect people to believe he's improving things!
The left. Do they ever stop toking?
14 comments:
Trump's biggest flaw is his lack of self control. Manifested by his sexual history and his inability to stop shooting himself in the foot. Trump has no one to blame except himself, he could easily have exerted a modicum of self control while maintaining much of what people found attractive in his political persona.
That's pretty much what I'm saying, Craig. Sadly...far more sadly...is the biggest flaw of the electorate is they couldn't or chose not to look beyond Trump's biggest flaw and concentrate on his work as president. That, since he managed to get elected in the first place, was all that mattered and should have been all that mattered to the electorate. Now the country suffers in ways it would have been impossible to predict prior to November 2020. That flaw of the electorate is the main reason Trump should not run again in 2024. I'm far too worried they will still maintain the positioning of their heads up their asses and things will get even far worse than they are now. It won't be pretty should that happen.
Yet, for some people, having a president who lacks self control is a bad thing. It's totally reasonable to expect a POTUS to have better impulse control than a child. It's reasonable to expect a POTUS to exert a modicum of self control. The stakes at that level are high, and the ability to exert control of oneself seems like a minimal requirement for the office. The notion that many on the electorate expect their president to be able to control himself is not a flaw of the electorate, it's a flaw of the candidate.
The reason Trump should not run in 2024 is because the last thing we need is 4 more years of someone in their late 70's as president.
What'll be interesting is if the Trump die hards will support anyone but Trump in the general election.
"Yet, for some people, having a president who lacks self control is a bad thing."
I don't disagree with the principle in the least. But to suggest the perception Trump lacking self-control has resulted in anything beyond mild embarrassment, and that said embarrassment is worse than what we have now...that said embarrassment could possibly have been worth allowing what we have now to exist, that just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And thus, I see that as absolutely a major and massive flaw of the electorate, that it couldn't weigh out the one against the other and see Trump's flaw of being Trump wasn't so bad as to be worth the risk of what was so apparent of his opponent...and that's ignoring just how badly the risk has manifested since Inauguration Day. There was no possibly way things would improve over Trump with a Biden win. No way whatsoever. And I would insist that it should have been clear to everyone who withheld their vote for Trump that things would clearly deteriorate. It was only a question of how badly it would, and it didn't need to get as bad as it did since January to be bad enough that withholding one's vote for Trump was akin to wanting things to deteriorate.
"The reason Trump should not run in 2024 is because the last thing we need is 4 more years of someone in their late 70's as president."
While I agree its reasonable to regard advanced age as too risky in a president, the reality is that it is quite possible Trump could do just as well as he did the first time around. Or, it's also possible by 2024, Trump would be just as much a babbling moron as Biden is now. That three year difference in age may be less relevant in that case.
"What'll be interesting is if the Trump die hards will support anyone but Trump in the general election."
Why wouldn't they? Keep in mind, in the general election, it will most assuredly be once more a case of only two possible outcomes: Trump vs whomever the Dems put up...be it Joe WhereamI or Kackling Kamela or any of the other proven failures of the Democratic Party. There will still likely be no third party candidate who will draw enough support to make a difference beyond screwing things up for either the Dem or GOP candidate.
Now, if you meant to say in the primaries, that's another story. I would hope that we could find someone even Trump would support, as I believe that would be best as well. It'll be interesting to see if anyone has learned lessons Trump's presidency should have taught them with regard how to deal with the nonsense, the obstruction and how to get things done. If they can do that without adopting Trump's less endearing qualities, we'll be golden.
I don't see any point in going further, but it's interesting to note that your default position is to minimize Trump's very real faults, while maximizing the perceived faults of the "electorate".
This notion that you and Dan seem to share, that the best way to persuade people is to tell them how stupid and wrong they are, seems counter productive.
"I don't see any point in going further..."
Well, my position is unassailable, so that's understandable.
"...it's interesting to note that your default position is to minimize Trump's very real faults..."
Not minimizing them at all. But I most certainly do regard the actual faults of that part of the electorate that couldn't get beyond Trump's faults to focus on the totally predictable dangers of his opponent winning the election. Those who gave him the primary win prior to the 2016 general election voted for him, in part, because he wasn't presidential...a typical politician. For the rest of us who had no choice but to vote for him to prevent a Hillary win, we were well aware his "less than presidential" demeanor came with the package. We found, almost from the beginning, just how insignificant that was compared to the positive benefits of his policies to all Americans ("ALL Americans" being a notable positive aspect of what "presidential" should mean in anyone's book!).
What's more, this post isn't about Trump's faults, well known to all, but distinctly about the faults of the electorate who aren't capable, or willing, to look beyond what no one can say has any true tangible effect on anything, to consider the very real harm...to what extent one couldn't say except that it was likely far more tangible...his opponent would surely bring to the table.
"This notion that you and Dan seem to share, that the best way to persuade people is to tell them how stupid and wrong they are, seems counter productive."
Two problems with this statement:
1. David seems to share this sentiment, as if sugar coating reality is a Christian thing to do when there is real danger to prevent, is an example of the very theme of this post. You're focusing now on MY style rather than on the point, thereby minimizing the danger I hope to warn against.
2. When one of my daughters was young, my wife asked her to shake out the rug which we had at the back door in the kitchen. My daughter didn't take it outside that back door, but just picked it up and began to shake it out in the kitchen. My wife...who had just finished cleaning the kitchen...was aghast and called her an idiot. A rather understandable response, even if hurtful, and the girl expressed alarm at being called an idiot by her mother. She ignored the grave mistake she made and focused on her mother's rather righteous anger reaction.
So, like I do, my wife explained why the girl's actions was idiotic, and how the girl is smart enough that she should have understood what her mother had asked her to do did not include shaking out the rug in the house. Thus, the use of name-calling stresses the degree of harm/damage the action produces. Dan can never justify his name-calling with anything resembling truth, facts or the like. My use of name calling is based on ignoring truth, facts and the like. And given the extreme degree of harm/damage done by this administration in so short a period of time (the exact opposite of Trump's record in that same period of time) justifies a parallel degree of outraged response. I don't apologize for making the case regarding harm/damage done by thoughtless action, which I regard withholding support for Trump's re-election.
2a. Frankly, Dan criticizes me constantly for this very thing. He won't defend against why I call the black community stupid (for example) for their continued support of the party which has done nothing to improve their lot. He'll simply focus on the fact that I spoke the truth about the (lack of) wisdom they display for doing so.
Finally, I don't want to be stupid. I don't want to be regarded as stupid. If I do something stupid, I have less concern for being labeled stupid as I do for understanding what was stupid about my action so that, if indeed my action was stupid, I can guard against being stupid in the future. Since Biden took the oath, there's been a great deal of suffering caused by his actions. I see no end to it, at least until the midterms when we might be able to take the House and Senate in order to obstruct any further harm from being implemented by his stupid policies.
Because people were "offended" by Trump's style, we are now suffering under some of the worst policies ever imposed upon Americans in the last 100 years. Nothing anyone can call me is worse than that.
Your position is only "unassailable" because you've decided it is, not because of any objective standard. Much like Dan does.
1. Actually, David and I differ slightly on this. My point is, if you want to persuade people, calling them stupid and insulting them is a horrible strategy. Most people will respond to these sorts of tactics by simply ignoring you. Strangely, people don't tend to respond well to being insulted.
2. No, I'm focusing on your style as it relates to undermining the point you are trying to make.
3. As with Dan, making excuses for your "style" as a way to excuse taking personal shots at people is basically a waste of everyone's time.
"Your position is only "unassailable" because you've decided it is, not because of any objective standard."
It's unassailable because it can't be contradicted. My objective standard is the truth, which to me is clear. And it doesn't in any way mitigate the suggestion that Trump main flaw is that he's Trump. It stands apart from that. Trump being Trump irks even many of this supporters, but unlike those who make a big deal of it, they look beyond it to focus on what matters most about his time in office: his policies which benefited all Americans. That part of the electorate which couldn't or wouldn't do that have exposed their own flaw and in doing so helped to subject the nation to Biden and all his horrible acts. While some of us had no doubt Biden would degrade life in America, it was only a question of how badly. Too many...be they Dems, Trump-haters or those who actually believe their conscience couldn't let them...ignored what was so obvious: Trump had a great track record in politics, while Biden had 12.5 times as long a political life and did nothing and proved himself incapable of intelligent thought. The consequences are likely just a taste of what a full term of Biden will serve us and so far, that taste is shit. How much more objective a standard would you require?
" My point is, if you want to persuade people, calling them stupid and insulting them is a horrible strategy."
The danger of bad decisions often require strong language to alert the offender of what they've done or are about to do. But it saddens me that so many now regard strong talk as more important than the danger which provokes it. I don't throw around epithets without reason and I certainly don't throw them around with providing that reason for the edification of the person I believe is deserving. If someone is looking down the barrel of a loaded pistol to check to see if it's loaded, I'm not going to be too worried about that person's feelings when their life is in danger. The nation is suffering, that suffering was easy to predict, if not the degree to which the suffering would manifest. It was stupid to ignore the obvious and invite that suffering, and the term is far less problematic than the suffering itself. One could say it's stupid to see it any other way. One could say it's stupid to ignore the warning or lesson on which the use of an insult used to focus attention back in the day.
"Most people will respond to these sorts of tactics by simply ignoring you."
It would seem, then, the term is appropriately applied.
"I'm focusing on your style as it relates to undermining the point you are trying to make."
Then you're supporting my position by doing exactly what I'm claiming happened in the election. Trump's "style" was the point of focus rather than his record of accomplishments or the danger of a Biden win. My "style" is compelled by the seriousness of the issue on the table. It's compounded by lame rebukes of my just concerns and how ignoring the point will negatively impact whomever I hope to protect.
"As with Dan, making excuses for your "style" as a way to excuse taking personal shots at people is basically a waste of everyone's time."
I'm not at all like Dan. My use of "insult" is more often directed at the position taken rather than the person promoting it. That is to say, I'm more concerned with the policy, suggestion, belief or action supported by the other person. If such is intentionally meant to harm, then I go after the person as well. If such is explained as harmful, especially when evidence supports that fact, it should go without saying the policy is "stupid" or whatever term is chosen to describe it. If someone wishes to take offense, that's not hardly as important as clinging to the harmful position.
It should also be taken as obvious that in many cases, "being nice" does little to affect change. That is, they're no more likely to be persuaded if they're ideologically cemented in their position. Yet, insult is rarely, if ever, my first tactic. Go ahead and seek out my first encounters with Dan's troll and you'll see that to be an excellent example.
I would also point out that you'll not hear me cite Scripture to justify the use of insult. I do so because the person's position on a given issue is that bad. Dan thinks he can pretend he's doing on worse than Christ with the Pharisees. I don't do that. It would be stupid.
Craig... "As with Dan, making excuses for your "style" as a way to excuse taking personal shots at people is basically a waste of everyone's time."
I still don't know what you all consider to be "personal shots" or "attacks."
In my world, asking reasonable questions is neither an attack or a personal shot or name-calling.
Noting that something is false is likewise, not an attack.
Noting that something is an unsupported opinion is not an attack.
And noting that a behavior is disturbing or wrong is not an attack.
It SEEMS like conservatives have had their way for so long and been so unopposed in their own personal conservative circles, that anyone daring to disagree with them in a strong manner is seen to be an attack.
What "personal shots" are you seeing?
"What "personal shots" are you seeing?"
I'm quite certain they've been pointed out as they've been leveled. And it's an absurd suggestion that conservatives regard disagreement as an attack. That doesn't happen.
Mm hmm.
Indeed, Skippy. In fact, it IS, not "seems", the case that lefties regard ANY hint of opposition as an attack. Note your crap about "history of oppression" for accurate and legitimate uses of words, like "whore" or "slut". You go out of your way to stifle disagreement with such tactics, suggesting legitimate analyses, criticisms or observations about problems in the black community, "LGBT" community, the leftist journalist community, etc., are unjust assaults on these, apparently pure and holy groups. Give me a break!
Post a Comment