Never Trump

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Trump is infinitely worse than one person sucker punching another. Your privilege prevents you from understanding this. It's okay dude, I get it. I'd probably be in the same shoes if I grew up as a WASPy American.

I'm pretty sure I've never insulted you, though we clearly disagree on many political issues. It has become common for you to insult me. I recognize that we have different backgrounds and I have told you on several occasions how much I admire you for what you have accomplished and the way you express yourself.

I doubt this matters to you (though I think it would have a year ago), but your voice is becoming less important to me because of the way you now express your ideas. You might not intend it, but they appear to come from a place of hate. You've made it clear how much you despise America. You've made it clear how biased you feel against people of my background or my political beliefs. In my opinion you would be far more likely to change my mind or the minds of other readers by communicating in the way that you used to rather than attacking with personal insults and venom.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I'm pretty sure I've never insulted you, though we clearly disagree on many political issues. It has become common for you to insult me. I recognize that we have different backgrounds and I have told you on several occasions how much I admire you for what you have accomplished and the way you express yourself.

I doubt this matters to you (though I think it would have a year ago), but your voice is becoming less important to me because of the way you now express your ideas. You might not intend it, but they appear to come from a place of hate. You've made it clear how much you despise America. You've made it clear how biased you feel against people of my background or my political beliefs. In my opinion you would be far more likely to change my mind or the minds of other readers by communicating in the way that you used to rather than attacking with personal insults and venom.

America has been the world's greatest & most important country for the past 200 years. Also, calling you a WASPy American isn't an insult, it's a (very likely) fact. White Anglo-Saxon protestant.

It's tough being nice and not pissed when i see some of the things posted here. Voicing support for Trump and calling protesting Mexicans fascist is so, so damaging.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

America has been the world's greatest & most important country for the past 200 years. Also, calling you a WASPy American isn't an insult, it's a (very likely) fact. White Anglo-Saxon protestant.

It's tough being nice and not pissed when i see some of the things posted here. Voicing support for Trump and calling protesting Mexicans fascist is so, so damaging.

WASPy is a disparaging term, but I guess it's okay to use disparaging terms for the group I happen to be a member of, right?

I have never called protesters fascist. The most positive thing I've said about Trump is that he's not as bad as Clinton and I could conceive of an outcome where he'd actually be a good president. So the reasons you use to justify your use a disparaging term to describe me aren't even true. How would you feel if I used a similar type of term to describe the group you belong to?

How would you feel if I used a similar term to describe any other group besides the one you feel so comfortable disparaging? Do you actually believe that using a term like that advances the arguments you are trying to make?

 

[babe]

WTF does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?

Trump.

The tactic for responding to Saul Alinsky acolytes by changing the subject to personal character attacks in the first place to force the Alinski-ites to respond with self defense. Hit'em first, and harder. They deserve it.

 

[babe]

Not sure. But it's definitely not about Babe's nature hikes, GMOs, and progressives reducing the population. Babe needs an editor.

In America, that kind of editing is called "censorship", or used to be.

In the coming America under progressive guidance, it will be called "calming the rhetoric", like we now "calm the traffic" on our streets. A benevolent wiser master class tenderly guiding thought and language.

Most of the hate "the left" throws at Trump is pretty arrogant and condescending. I believe the violence the media is linking to Trump whenever it can is paid agitators disrupting the events. If any Trump supporter responds in kind, the media will hype it and attribute it to Trump for all it's worth.

But when there is no such response to actual violence against people attending a Trump event, and no one responds in kind, the media is stupidly silent. In this context, it's clear that we have elements in management of our major media who are implicitly condoning violence against Trump and his supporters.

To have any credibility, the media needs to make as much against violent offenders no matter what their professed "cause" may be.

Dal doesn't see that need. I don't really know why. He's willing to defend criminal violence aimed at silencing free speech and the right of assembly. He might not have read the US Constitution, certainly does not understand it. A civil society needs equal justice under the law.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

The most positive thing I've said about Trump is that he's not as bad as Clinton and I could conceive of an outcome where he'd actually be a good president

Honest question: Do you believe the country is worse off now under Obama than it was with dubya? I believe you and a lot of others have convinced yourself that absolutely anyone is better than Hillary. That's something I can certainly understand.

However, when it gets to the point where you've talked yourself into the possibility that Trump could be a good president, I am beyond baffled. The only explanation I can think of is that he is actually the anti-Christ. That's really the only possibility that worries me he could win. Until then, I will keep my faith in Americans that the majority could never elect some fool who talks about banning all Muslims from our country, and that's just the tip of the iceberg with this guy.

Believe it or not, it could be worse than Hillary Clinton. A lot worse.

 

[Red]

If you believe that the acts of violence against Trump supporters help Trump, wouldn't you also believe that the insinuation by his opponents that Trump is behind this would help him even more? That's why I think it's stupid to even put that out there without evidence.

Sorry, Joe, by my own admission, I can be very dense, and so I am not sure what you're saying. If I thought it could actually be proven that Trump actively instigated any of these San Jose attacks, I should think that would hurt him, not help him. I probably sound stupid, because you're a bright guy and your point is going right over my head. But it is early in the morning here.

 

[Red]

What is this sentence from the article you linked mean:

"It is the expression of a backlash on the left against liberalism — with all its maddening compromises and deference to the rights of the enemy — which fetishizes success as the by-product of cataclysmic struggle."

I have no idea.....

 

[Red]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...esters-attacked-all-of-us-in-san-jose/485444/

"....not only have Trump supporters engaged in violence on multiple occasions—two beat and urinated on a homeless man while saying “Trump was right”—the candidate himself has, on other occasions, explicitly encouraged violence, unlike Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders or Gary Johnson or Jill Stein or any other credible candidate for the presidency in my lifetime. “Maybe he should have been roughed up,” Trump said of one verbal dissenter who was beaten at one of his rallies. On another occasion, he declared that he missed the old days when people saying nasty things at political rallies would “be carried out on a stretcher.”


"....And that Trump supporter who sucker-punched a protester at a rally? Trump later told a journalist that his people were looking into the possibility of paying the man’s legal fees. If you looked upon the scene in San Jose with disgust at the outbreak of political violence in America, as we all should, it is vital to grasp that while there are violent people who support and oppose every candidate, the only candidate irresponsible enough to advocate for political violence has been Donald Trump."

True or false: Trump is the only candidate who himself has both condoned and encouraged violence? It seems to me that is exactly what he was doing at many of his rallies through the primary season.

 

[Red]

And what exactly is this all about? Trump is the son of immigrants. The judge is the son of immigrants. Yet, if I said after reading this, that Trump sounded racist, somebody would come back with the observation that liberals will somehow always bring up racism. But, what, besides every decision not going Trump's way in the legal cases involving Trump University, is Trump's problem here? Tapper mentions the obvious: the judge is a native of Indiana, not a native of Mexico. What in God's name is wrong with this man??

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/politics/donald-trump-tapper-lead/

And does he even have a case at all:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/donald-trump-gonzalo-curiel/485636/

 

[Miggs]

America has been the world's greatest & most important country for the past 200 years. Also, calling you a WASPy American isn't an insult, it's a (very likely) fact. White Anglo-Saxon protestant.

It's tough being nice and not pissed when i see some of the things posted here. Voicing support for Trump and calling protesting Mexicans fascist is so, so damaging.

I love you Dala, you know this, but this feels like total ******** and a backtrack.

 

[Red]

That's a very good distinction to make when we are speaking in currently defining terms. Every rational person knows "conservativism" has its merits as much as the liberal welfare side does. It's the clinging add-on agendas that, for one reason or another, those types tend to align with that brings a lot of cloudiness to the designations.

As an aside, I doubt I will ever understand why humanity tends to land in one camp or the other on a plethora of issues. Anyone have a clue? The closest I can come up with is "conservative" is associated with a hard ***, do it yourself mentality while "liberal" is associated with a fluffy feel good and failure mentality. I doubt that is the true underlying reason why humanity is split into binary groups that align on most issues as we do.

I fully agree with Joe Bagadonuts that here is the making of a thought provoking thread of it's own. As a student of American history, I'll add this observation. Throughout our history, rural areas tend to be more conservative; urban areas tend to be more liberal. I live in one of this country's liberal bastions, the far Northeast. Born and raised here. Have I been more liberal then not during the course of my life simply because of where I live, or is there something more fundamental to my nature then where I have lived that determines whether I lean left or right? And I'm thinking more in terms of social/cultural issues here, and less fiscal conservatism. Cities often are eclectic culturally. Is that conducive to liberal leanings?

 

[Red]

Also, does anyone else feel that people are more polarized than ever in these elections? At least I've never witnessed anything like it before...

I think the nation is more polarized then it's been since the late 60's. The last time we saw violence at political gatherings that could even compare to 2016 was 1968. I also think we are in the midst of a cultural civil war. So many of the issues that polarize us are social/cultural issues at this time in our history. I think the cable news outlets that serve as echo chambers for their respective liberal and conservative views have not helped, as in both cases, efforts are made to demonize the opposite position. So these networks reinforce their respective viewers opinions, help justify those positions in their viewers minds, and make it ever less likely that people will speak to one another with compromise in mind. I don't think this development of cable outlets serving as echo chambers and demonizing the other side has done anything other then deepen this cultural/social civil war. Those cable outlets are aiding in the polarization we are witnessing.

 

[Miggs]

Would love to get Teddy K's thoughts on the current state of our country.

 

[Red]

So, is the choice one of the Rule of Trump vs. the Rule of Law?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a2b416-29a9-11e6-a3c4-0724e8e24f3f_story.html

"The racism infecting Trump’s assessment — in a Trump presidency, under this cynical assessment, no Hispanic judge could rule on any executive initiative — demands notice and rejection. But Trump’s comments also highlight his disturbing attitude toward the role of the courts."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...2-11e6-ae4a-3cdd5fe74204_story.html?tid=a_inl


“YES, IT is going to be like this,” Donald Trump said during a news conference Tuesday, after a reporter asked if he would be as hostile to legitimate scrutiny once elected as he is now. His honesty offered a bracing counterpoint to the pusillanimous Republican leaders who continue to insist that the reality-television star would be different once in office.

Mr. Trump savagely attacked the “dishonest” media for asking honest questions, at one point calling a reporter “sleazy.” He suggested that recent political reporting is “libelous” and therefore not protected by the First Amendment, and he continued his assault on the federal judge overseeing one of the lawsuits against Trump University. The threats and personal insults show little regard for democratic accountability, the legitimate role of a free press in a free society and the importance of an independent judiciary."

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Honest question: Do you believe the country is worse off now under Obama than it was with dubya? I believe you and a lot of others have convinced yourself that absolutely anyone is better than Hillary. That's something I can certainly understand.

However, when it gets to the point where you've talked yourself into the possibility that Trump could be a good president, I am beyond baffled. The only explanation I can think of is that he is actually the anti-Christ. That's really the only possibility that worries me he could win. Until then, I will keep my faith in Americans that the majority could never elect some fool who talks about banning all Muslims from our country, and that's just the tip of the iceberg with this guy.

Believe it or not, it could be worse than Hillary Clinton. A lot worse.

I agree that a Trump presidency could be very bad. It looks like we disagree that it could also be good. I can see why you would see things that way, though. I can especially see it if you are getting all or most of your info from sources like NBC and NYT. They are purposely slanting the story. That said, Trump makes it easy for his haters to vilify him at times. He says and does things that I wish he wouldn't.

And regarding Bush vs. Obama, we were clearly in a very bad place at the end of Bush's term. Back in the Clinton years I was in the mortgage business. I absolutely hated the rules that were passed that loosened up lending. I told people that this was going to end in crisis because we were being forced to lend money to people who weren't going to be able to pay. Everyone said that it didn't matter because the government was backing them, but I knew that it would matter for both the homeowners and the taxpayers. I left the mortgage business because I couldn't live with what we were doing, and I was eventually even interviewed on PBS about my opinions.

I was not even a little bit surprised when it all blew up. Bush, who was already unpopular for his bad decision to go to war in Iraq, did a very hard thing. He pushed through legislation that increased his unpopularity in order to avert disaster. He should have dealt with the situation a lot earlier because there were a lot of people who knew this bubble eventually had to burst, but at least he did something when it absolutely had to be done. His actions solved the problem.

Obama stayed the course on Bush recovery plans and that was good. Obama also implemented big government programs and that is bad. Health care in particular, I vehemently disagree with. The core problems in healthcare have been worsened by Obamacare. Clearly we need reform, but every step he has taken in the name of reform has been in the wrong direction. We need less insurance company involvement, not more. We need less government intrusion, not more. What we really need to do is somehow get control of the legal aspect of healthcare (and other sectors of our society). We are allowing our own legal system to eat us alive. This is what's really causing healthcare costs to spiral out of control.

I have other issues with Obama as well. I do not think he's been a good president. I voted for him in '08 but have been extremely disappointed. Liberals aren't likely to acknowledge it, but the Obama presidency is the real reason that both parties are in such chaos in this election cycle. A large percentage of Americans are completely fed up with the way things are going.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Sorry, Joe, by my own admission, I can be very dense, and so I am not sure what you're saying. If I thought it could actually be proven that Trump actively instigated any of these San Jose attacks, I should think that would hurt him, not help him. I probably sound stupid, because you're a bright guy and your point is going right over my head. But it is early in the morning here.

You are misunderstanding me. If it could be proven that Trump actively instigated any of this I believe it will be very bad for him. But that is not what is happening currently. Instead people are throwing around unfounded suggestions that Trump is behind this. To people who support Trump even a little bit that sounds like a desperate attempt to smear him, and I think it will eventually help him.

If people really believe that Trump is behind this they ought to do a few things. First, Clinton and Sanders ought to vehemently tell their supporters not to instigate violence. They should tell them how important peaceful protest is and they should come down hard on the thugs. Then they should investigate who the people instigating the violence really are. They should do everything they can in the background to find out who told them to do the things they are doing. I don't think they will ever do this because I think they already know that left wing organizations are the ones who are really behind these demonstrations.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

"It is the expression of a backlash on the left against liberalism — with all its maddening compromises and deference to the rights of the enemy — which fetishizes success as the by-product of cataclysmic struggle."

I have no idea.....

Lol. You probably think this is trivial, but you were the one who pointed this out as an article worth reading so I'm going to go on yet another diatribe. The left seems to love big fancy words, even when they can't actually figure out what they mean. Most readers simply skip over them, probably figuring that they don't have enough knowledge or background to understand what it's saying. Some people think these sorts of words are an indication that the author is smart. I think they are an indication of an Emperor with no clothes. I'm a lot more impressed by someone who has the guts to express their ideas plainly, in simple language that everybody can understand.

TLDR: The left seems to believe that if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, you should just baffle them with ********.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I agree that a Trump presidency could be very bad. It looks like we disagree that it could also be good. I can see why you would see things that way, though. I can especially see it if you are getting all or most of your info from sources like NBC and NYT. They are purposely slanting the story. That said, Trump makes it easy for his haters to vilify him at times. He says and does things that I wish he wouldn't.

And regarding Bush vs. Obama, we were clearly in a very bad place at the end of Bush's term. Back in the Clinton years I was in the mortgage business. I absolutely hated the rules that were passed that loosened up lending. I told people that this was going to end in crisis because we were being forced to lend money to people who weren't going to be able to pay. Everyone said that it didn't matter because the government was backing them, but I knew that it would matter for both the homeowners and the taxpayers. I left the mortgage business because I couldn't live with what we were doing, and I was eventually even interviewed on PBS about my opinions.

I was not even a little bit surprised when it all blew up. Bush, who was already unpopular for his bad decision to go to war in Iraq, did a very hard thing. He pushed through legislation that increased his unpopularity in order to avert disaster. He should have dealt with the situation a lot earlier because there were a lot of people who knew this bubble eventually had to burst, but at least he did something when it absolutely had to be done. His actions solved the problem.

Obama stayed the course on Bush recovery plans and that was good. Obama also implemented big government programs and that is bad. Health care in particular, I vehemently disagree with. The core problems in healthcare have been worsened by Obamacare. Clearly we need reform, but every step he has taken in the name of reform has been in the wrong direction. We need less insurance company involvement, not more. We need less government intrusion, not more. What we really need to do is somehow get control of the legal aspect of healthcare (and other sectors of our society). We are allowing our own legal system to eat us alive. This is what's really causing healthcare costs to spiral out of control.

I have other issues with Obama as well. I do not think he's been a good president. I voted for him in '08 but have been extremely disappointed. Liberals aren't likely to acknowledge it, but the Obama presidency is the real reason that both parties are in such chaos in this election cycle. A large percentage of Americans are completely fed up with the way things are going.

Bruh they should have made that movie with Christian Bale about you. You so smart saw it all coming.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Bruh they should have made that movie with Christian Bale about you. You so smart saw it all coming.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

Lots of people saw it coming. Nobody wanted to listen to them because the entire program was a feel-good opportunity to get low income families into homes. You were labeled a bad/mean person if you said that we should not be lending to impoverished people.