What's new

Never Trump

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.
 
"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 ********.
 
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
 
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.
 
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 ********.

Yeah, but after reading the comments that accompanied the article, I realized my mistake, lol. Actually, the article alarmed me, because, as anti-Trump as I am, the thought of justifying violence to oppose his candidacy scares the hey out of me. I would much rather let the cards fall as they may, and trust the American people to prevent Trump from being too much of a fascist for our national health, if he is elected.

But, I'll take the opportunity to react to your suggestion that the "left seems to love big fancy words", to look more closely at what franklin mentioned and you keyed on, namely why people seem to fall so easily into opposing camps. And BTW, yes, thanks for the clarification on suggesting Trump instigated the protesters, now I understand you.

https://www.alternet.org/fascinating-differences-between-conservative-and-liberal-personality

I find point #4 in the article below fascinating, seeing as it suggests actual brain biology differences between liberals and conservatives...

https://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818
 
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.

Where I might disagree here is because witnesses reported gang members instigating violence in San Jose. One more reason I regret posting that link that suggested the left actually was organizing and justifying the use of violence. I hope I am not simply trying to pass the buck of blame, but in most instances of large crowds it's not unusual for some people to attend because they want to rumble. So I'm not sure left wing organizations are behind it at all. Can it be proven that that is the case? I have read reports suggesting gang members wearing their gang colors were starting fights with Trump supporters. I suspect the blame might be more of a mixed bag then simply "left wingers". It would seem pretty counterproductive if they were telling followers to wave Mexican flags and burn American flags.
 
Where I might disagree here is because witnesses reported gang members instigating violence in San Jose. One more reason I regret posting that link that suggested the left actually was organizing and justifying the use of violence. I hope I am not simply trying to pass the buck of blame, but in most instances of large crowds it's not unusual for some people to attend because they want to rumble. So I'm not sure left wing organizations are behind it at all. Can it be proven that that is the case? I have read reports suggesting gang members wearing their gang colors were starting fights with Trump supporters. I suspect the blame might be more of a mixed bag then simply "left wingers". It would seem pretty counterproductive if they were telling followers to wave Mexican flags and burn American flags.
There appears to be lots of evidence that organizations on the left are promoting these protests. I'm unaware of any evidence that organizations on the right are promoting protest either at Trump events or at any other candidates events.

Here is one source: https://theconservativetreehouse.co...tests-were-100-organized-political-astroturf/

It's obviously a conservative site so some people will say it doesn't count, but the evidence seems pretty solid. It's interesting that this sort of stuff is apparently not being reported in mainstream news sources. Some mainstream sources are suggesting, without evidence, that Trump might be behind the violence as we've already discussed. It almost makes you think they have a liberal bias.
 
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.

Well, some more food for thought here. And suggestions for finding common ground....


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/
 
1. Flattering liberal portrait:

"They [Liberals] do not equate downtrodden or impoverished status with inherent unworthiness or inability . . . In a nutshell, liberals are less selfish and more empathic and tolerant than conservatives. Their fear of aiding the undeserving is outweighed by their fear not helping the truly needy . . . Liberals do not need to bolster their self-esteem by living in a stratified society in which they can claim superiority over this or that group . . . Finally, liberals do not blame the victim or make defensive attributions . . . Liberals acknowledge that fate can be capricious and that bad things happen to good people."

2. Flattering conservative portrait:

"Conservatives realize the importance of incentives and that no, or little, aid is often the best help of all. The conservative response to social problems avoids the simplistic first response of treating the symptom by creating a new and expensive government program . . . conservatives are more integratively complex than liberals because they understand how often well-intentioned political reforms have unintended consequences or perverse effects . . . Finally, conservatives understand how free markets work, [they] recognize that the invisible hand of free market competition leads in the long term to incentives to produce good at levels of quality and quantity that satisfy effective demand for those goods."

3. Unflattering liberal portrait:

"They practice, in effect, a kind of social homeopathic medicine that treats symptoms rather than underlying causes . . . They fail to take into account the growing burden on the economy and the perverse incentives that dependency on public programs creates . . . Liberals not only exaggerate the efficacy of government; they underestimate the creativity of the free market. Many liberals mindlessly condemn capitalism as a culture of greed and ignore the power of the market to stimulate hard work, investment and entrepreneurship . . . [Liberalism] is a reflection of the widespread 'psychology of dependency' in which government, by transference, takes on the role of nurturant, powerful parent."

4. Unflattering conservative portrait:

"[C]onservatives do not understand how prevalent situational constraints on achievement are and thus commit the fundamental attribution error when they hold the poor responsible for poverty . . . [C]onservatives are too prone to engage in zero-sum thinking, either I keep my money or the government takes it. They fail to appreciate the possibility of positive-sum resolutions of societal conflicts . . . Conservatives cling to the comforting moral illusion that there is a sharp distinction between allowing people to suffer and making people suffer. Finally, conservatives fail to recognize that even if each transaction in a free market meets their standards of fairness, the cumulative result could be colossally unfair. Some people will acquire enormous power over others . . . [C]onservatism and compassion are antithetical." 29



https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/studies-conservatives-are-from-mars-liberals-are-from-venus/252416/
 
1. Flattering liberal portrait:

"They [Liberals] do not equate downtrodden or impoverished status with inherent unworthiness or inability . . . In a nutshell, liberals are less selfish and more empathic and tolerant than conservatives. Their fear of aiding the undeserving is outweighed by their fear not helping the truly needy . . . Liberals do not need to bolster their self-esteem by living in a stratified society in which they can claim superiority over this or that group . . . Finally, liberals do not blame the victim or make defensive attributions . . . Liberals acknowledge that fate can be capricious and that bad things happen to good people."

2. Flattering conservative portrait:

"Conservatives realize the importance of incentives and that no, or little, aid is often the best help of all. The conservative response to social problems avoids the simplistic first response of treating the symptom by creating a new and expensive government program . . . conservatives are more integratively complex than liberals because they understand how often well-intentioned political reforms have unintended consequences or perverse effects . . . Finally, conservatives understand how free markets work, [they] recognize that the invisible hand of free market competition leads in the long term to incentives to produce good at levels of quality and quantity that satisfy effective demand for those goods."

3. Unflattering liberal portrait:

"They practice, in effect, a kind of social homeopathic medicine that treats symptoms rather than underlying causes . . . They fail to take into account the growing burden on the economy and the perverse incentives that dependency on public programs creates . . . Liberals not only exaggerate the efficacy of government; they underestimate the creativity of the free market. Many liberals mindlessly condemn capitalism as a culture of greed and ignore the power of the market to stimulate hard work, investment and entrepreneurship . . . [Liberalism] is a reflection of the widespread 'psychology of dependency' in which government, by transference, takes on the role of nurturant, powerful parent."

4. Unflattering conservative portrait:

"[C]onservatives do not understand how prevalent situational constraints on achievement are and thus commit the fundamental attribution error when they hold the poor responsible for poverty . . . [C]onservatives are too prone to engage in zero-sum thinking, either I keep my money or the government takes it. They fail to appreciate the possibility of positive-sum resolutions of societal conflicts . . . Conservatives cling to the comforting moral illusion that there is a sharp distinction between allowing people to suffer and making people suffer. Finally, conservatives fail to recognize that even if each transaction in a free market meets their standards of fairness, the cumulative result could be colossally unfair. Some people will acquire enormous power over others . . . [C]onservatism and compassion are antithetical." 29



https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/studies-conservatives-are-from-mars-liberals-are-from-venus/252416/
You're posting a lot of very thought provoking stuff on this topic. I really think you should repost it in its own thread. I would love to have a non-politically charged discussion about these thoughts.

In regard to this post in particular, I think the descriptions are well done with one important exception. In the non-flattering conservative portrait it says that conservatives are prone to zero-sum thinking and that's why they want to limit taxes. I have never heard a conservative say anything like that. They want to limit taxes because they don't believe the government is good at managing the money. They believe that the free enterprise system does a much better job. I think that conservatives typically have an abundance mentality. Most do not believe that they are worse off because the 1%ers control too much of the wealth. That is a liberal concept and it's firmly rooted in zero sum game thinking.
 
There appears to be lots of evidence that organizations on the left are promoting these protests. I'm unaware of any evidence that organizations on the right are promoting protest either at Trump events or at any other candidates events.

Here is one source: https://theconservativetreehouse.co...tests-were-100-organized-political-astroturf/

It's obviously a conservative site so some people will say it doesn't count, but the evidence seems pretty solid. It's interesting that this sort of stuff is apparently not being reported in mainstream news sources. Some mainstream sources are suggesting, without evidence, that Trump might be behind the violence as we've already discussed. It almost makes you think they have a liberal bias.

I'm not going to say the source somehow doesn't count. I'll just say, OK, there are leftist groups that are indeed promoting the protests. What I don't know is whether they are actually promoting attacks on Trump supporters. Obviously, as I learned in the last day or so, liberal bloggers are indeed justifying violence. Because they believe that is how you resist fascism. What I don't know is if there are actual leaders at these protests who are saying things like "Don't forget to attack people. That's why we 're here.". Or, if instead, the violence is more spontaneous and along the lines of "I don't like what that jerk Trump, the guy you like so much, hates me because I'm Mexican. But, in the meantime, here 's my fist in your mouth.". Or if the attacks on that woman, who smiled through it all, was done on cue from protest leaders, or just anger playing out in a very unfortunate, inappropriate, and counterproductive manner.


I can't just forget some of the things Trump said to his followers earlier in the primary season. Things like waxing nostalgic for the good ole days when physically harming protesters enough to put them on stretchers was a really good thing. At the time, that, and other things he said just seemed so irresponsible. And I thought that because I thought "does he not realize that there are nutjobs out there, in his audience and elsewhere, who will see that as his seal of approval for violence"? I can't just forget that Trump is the only one of the candidates to wax nostalgic for the days when violence at political rallies was somehow a beautiful thing. And I don't even know what era he was waxing nostalgic over, come to think of it. 19th century union riots? I'm not going to pass the buck. What happened in San Jose was not good. And I'm concerned that it is far from over. But I don't know how much of it was anger spilling over, and in part a response to Trump's own hateful rhetoric, and how much was actually directed by leaders saying "let's rumble. All Summer long."

I'm trying to make sense of it all. I thought this article reflected my point of view somewhat.

https://www.slate.com/articles/news...6/06/how_should_america_resist_a_fascist.html
 
Back
Top